May 2009 Archives
For those of you that thought the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance has slunk away with its tail between its legs, guess again. The MCA is alive and kicking! We’ve just done a little reorganizing and refocusing, but we will still be seen and heard at many of the board meetings around town.
We’d like to take this opportunity to thank all of our supporters past, present and future! We appreciate all that you have done to help us. For those that don’t support us, we’d like to invite you to recognize that we exist to inform the public of what is going on in our community and to make sure that all of the citizens of Moultonboro have their rights protected. We want to see more involvement by those citizens that may not have participated in any organizations before. We encourage more people to come out and be more involved in the goings on in our town, including our local government.
The folks of Moultonboro were a bit surprised today to learn that there was no Board of Selectmen workshop as has been scheduled. Many people came and left Town Hall only to learn that the BoS were in non public session. One can only assume that it had to do with the interviewing of the new Town Planner. But, that's besides the point. Where was the 24 hour notice that the meeting was changed? Not on the bulletin board in the Town Hall, not on the town webpage. So, just where was it?? Even the secretary in the Administration office did not know if there was going to be a public session or not. Talk about a lack of communication.
One of the nicest things about having a new town webpage is the ability to let the public know if there is a change or cancellation of any meetings. Of course, that would mean that someone would acutally have to write the notice and publish it. Come on now. This is not difficult and it's not too much to ask for. It's doing a real public service! That is, of course, if the Town cares about providing real public service to the very public that they were elected to represent!
Oh, and by the way, the law requires that they provide 24 hours notice for public meetings. Comments anyone???
Has anyone noticed the Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes from May 21, 2009? There is an entry where the Chair announces that the BoS would like to appoint members to the Heritage Commission. This is listed under 'Old Business'. Hmmm. When did this discussion occur? Was this in a non public session? If so, where are the minutes? Who discussed what? Was there a discussion about who would be on the committee and who would be appointed alternates? This is yet another example of how our town boards abuse the Right to Know laws.
The public has the right to know how decisions were reached and those discussions are required to be made public. If one looks over the BoS meeting minutes from May 14, they decided to 'establish the Heritage and the Capital Improvement Committees, which they will work on during their scheduled work session May 28, 2009.' If we are to believe what we read, no such decision should have been made or announced until after this week's workshop took place. It should be announced after a motion is made and a vote taken during a public meeting. Period.
When will our boards fully comply with the Right to Know laws? What does it take? How many times are citizens of this town going to let them get away with this kind of non transparency?
According to RSA 91-A there are only a very limited number of reasons that a nonpublic session would be allowed. To go into nonpublic session, a motion must be made and seconded in public session, citing the reason from the statute, (there are only 9) and a majority roll-call vote is required. Once in nonpublic session, only the reason(s) cited in the original motion may be discussed. To come out of non public session, a motion must be made and seconded and a roll call vote taken. This must be noted in the minutes of the public meeting. Meeting minutes of a nonpublic session must be made available to the public sooner than regular meeting minutes: 72 hours for non public minutes versus 144 hours for all other meeting minutes. However, if two-thirds of the members present, in a recorded vote, decide to seal the minutes because the reasons justifying the need for nonpublic session remain, the minutes will remain sealed. Minutes that the board has voted to seal should be placed in a secure place within the office, and a notation attached that they are sealed, so that they are not inadvertently released to the public. The board may want to institute a policy of reviewing sealed meeting minutes on a periodic basis to determine if any should be released because the reasons for the nonpublic session no longer exist. Once the reason to seal the minutes no longer exists, the minutes should be released.
High Flight
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of—wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark nor even eagle flew—
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
This poem was written by John Gillespie Magee, Junior (June 9, 1922 – December 11, 1941) He was an Anglo-American aviator and poet who died as a result of a mid-air collision over
President Reagan, in a moving broadcast to the nation after the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986 paraphrased the poem: "We will never forget them nor the last time we saw them this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.' "
Portions of this poem appear on many headstones in
We thought it appropriate to share it with you this Memorial Day....
MCA
Building Committee
There will be a public hearing with the Carroll County Commissioners on
June 15th, 2009
at 7:00 pm
The meeting will be held at the Moultonborough Town Hall
Leaders of Several New Hampshire Groups call on Senator Shaheen to oppose energy tax increases on New Hampshire Families to the tune of $1,600.00
Click here for more.....
Bill Johnson is a State Representative from Gilford representing Belknap County District #5 which includes
It's a shame we can't get the same tpye of updates from our own House Rep.
MCA
N.H. has an official dog, and a law made in haste
Long-time readers of the “Alert” should be familiar with the fact that one of the most contentious issues to confront the N.H. Legislature is the subject of “pets.” However, the House was able to deal with “dog” bill last week in a most pleasant and, based on the applause from the gallery, with great satisfaction from the session’s attendees. SB-13 declared the Chinook the state dog. The bill originated with the 7th grade of
against the bill, but the majority of the House voted in favor. SB-153 proved to be a lesson in making law in haste. This bill provides relief to the auto dealers of the state in the midst of a major restructuring of the American automobile industry. It was rushed through the Senate, received a House hearing and a committee vote into the wee hours of the prior night, and required a suspension of House rules (2/3 vote) to allow consideration and debate. The committee vote was a unanimous favorable recommendation and was passed by the House by a significant majority. And I voted against it. I argued on the floor that the bill would represent a confl ict with the Administration’s attempt to rationalize the auto industry into a competitive force. One of the key reasons that American car companies are not competitive with their foreign counterparts is the size and nature of their dealership arrangements. Despite being touted as a “jobs bill,” I felt that the N.H. Legislature was negating business contracts after the fact, smacking of an “ex post facto” law. Where do we draw the line on government bailouts of American business? The dealerships, of course, lobbied hard for the bill. When good economic times return, I suspect that they will also lobby hard against government
intrusion into their business world. As indicated, the bill passed easily. It wasn’t the fi rst time I vote against a large majority; it won’t be the last. ,The House voted to pass legislation (SB-180) that puts the final touches on the issue of “adequacy” in public education in the state, by establishing a method of holding the schools accountable both in terms of meeting instructional standards (inputs) and/ or students’ performance (outputs). The bill passed easily by a large majority. I voted on the prevailing side. While we have now satisfied the state Supreme Court’s constitutional requirements relative to education adequacy, you have to wonder about
the funding requirement. Some would say that we’ve already accomplished this feat with the state-wide property tax; I think that we can do a better and fairer job. Finishing the bills on our calendar took approximately 2-hours. However, dealing with “messages” from the Senate would dominate another 3-hours. HB-436 would consume most of that time. As well publicized, the Senate had passed the so-called “gay marriage” bill, but had tacked on amendments that required our concurrence. The major change from the Senate was to clearly differentiate between religious and civil marriage. It was a change that was debated in the House, but defeated. I had supported this division, as it seemed clear that couples, whether gay or straight, married regardless of any religious affiliation. Further, such differentiation follows in the American tradition of separation of church and state. This made the bill a matter of civil rights. The Senate had also more clearly stated that clergy were not obligated to solemnize any marriage that conflicted with their religious beliefs.The House concurred with the Senate’s amendments by a 178-167 roll call vote. I voted with the majority. The governor will now decide the fate of gay marriage in
before returning to the two legislative chambers. While that concluded a long afternoon in
Note from the MCA: This bill was supported by our State House Rep. Betsey Patten. It is as the editorial headline states a bad law.
Editorial
The Citizen May 8, 2009
The death of House Bill 349 was a win for transparent government and the people of
The bill was defeated in the state Senate Tuesday, but House advocates of the measure promise they will be back with something like it, if not in this session of the Legislature, then when the same lawmakers convene in 2010.
HB 349 would have shielded from the public electronic communications between themselves and their constituents. The argument in its favor reflected a concern by some lawmakers that “fear on the part of constituents and others that their communications will be made public without their knowledge or consent has had and will continue to have a chilling effect on such communications to the detriment of the legislative process.”
The bill would have darkened the work of the Legislature further by prohibiting the issuance of subpoenas when wrongdoing might be suspected.
What HB 349 would have done was to allow the creation of a wall between some legislators and the people of their state.
The 400 members of the House of Representatives and 24 senators are elected by people in particular districts, but they have a broader responsibility once they take office — one to all the people of
The attempt to shield legislative e-mail from subpoena was a particularly onerous provision of HB 349 and by itself was cause for defeat in the Senate Tuesday. The provision exempted lawmakers from the legal process that holds them responsible to the people. It was a provision that put them above the people and the laws they are sworn to uphold.
The bill crafted in, and passed by, the House of Representatives included the following: “All such electronic records shall be confidential and privileged and shall be protected from direct or indirect means of discovery, subpoena, or admission into evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding.”
It is language that strikes at the very foundation of law enforcement. It protects from discovery in an e-mail evidence of wrongdoing, even criminal conspiracy. It shields lawmakers from the legal process that protects and reasonably restrains each of us.
Language that puts lawmakers above the law is reason enough for the defeat of such legislation and something against which the attorney general should testify in hearings on similar measures in the future.
House Bill 349 asked for too much trust. It did not bring lawmakers and constituents closer together; on the contrary, it would have allowed, and in some cases even promoted, less responsibility and less responsiveness. The people of New Hampshire trust their lawmakers and others they elect to office, but even so, they should guard against any actions that might undermine that trust — actions such as the now defunct HB349The people of New Hampshire trust their lawmakers and others they elect to office, but even so, they should guard against any actions that might undermine that trust — actions such as the now defunct HB349
By Casey Farrar
Sentinel Staff
Published: Thursday, May 07, 2009
A week before town elections,
The selectmen sent a letter last month to the editor of the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript newspaper endorsing Carol A. Lenox for town clerk in next week’s election.
A letter from Chairman Barbara A. Miller and Joseph J. Byk endorsing fellow selectman Elizabeth M. Thomas for re-election also appeared in last week’s Ledger-Transcript.
Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte’s office ruled Tuesday that endorsing candidates, or electioneering as selectmen, is illegal, and sent the board a cease-and-desist order.
While the selectmen don’t plan to contest the ruling, said Miller, they stand behind the letters.
And in a letter to the board, the town’s attorney, John J. Ratigan, questioned the state’s interpretation of the statute, titled “Electioneering at the
Ratigan wrote: “The issuance of these candidate support letters had nothing to do with conduct at the polling place.”
It would be different, Ratigan said in an interview, if an election officer wore a candidate’s pin or carried a sign at the polls, which he said is clearly against the law.
“The selectmen wear their selectmen hat 365 days of the year and three days of the year they perform official duties as election officials,” Ratigan said. “You would not expect selectmen at the polls to be glad-handing or electioneering.”
But Associate Attorney General Anne M. Edwards said electioneering, which is defined in state statues as acting “in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office,” is not limited to Election Day.
“The ruling was that selectmen are included under the definition of election officers, and under another law election officers are not allowed to electioneer,” Edwards said.
Francis X. Chapman, a
Town officials plan to have the two deputy clerks run the polls May 12 because Lenox is up for election, according to Town Administrator Pamela A. Brenner.
After the ruling, Chapman said, he checked with the Attorney General’s Office about whether state officials planned to run the elections to avoid a conflict of interest, but was told that the state was satisfied with the town’s plans.
The race for town clerk pits Lenox, who was appointed by the selectmen last year after Robert Lambert resigned from the position, against Linda Guyette, who was assistant town clerk for more than three years under Lambert.
Guyette applied last year for the position, but was not chosen.
On April 16, a letter to the editor of the Ledger-Transcript from Lambert endorsed Guyette and said he had recommended her to the selectmen for the job.
“My recommendations fell on deaf ears,” Lambert wrote. “Linda continues to have my full support.”
This letter prompted the selectmen to write to the paper, explaining their decision to appoint Lenox, Miller said.
“My goal was to make sure the public understands that we did due diligence,” Miller said of the endorsement letter. “We picked the most qualified candidate using a systematic approach and we wanted people to know we still stand behind Carol (Lenox).”
The selectman’s race includes incumbent Thomas, Gilborn “Gil” Duval and Anthony “Tony” Nichols.
The polls will be open Tuesday, May 12, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the Town House.
Casey Farrar can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1435, or cfarrar@keenesentinel.com.
Regulatory bodies play an important role in protecting the public good. At the same time, they need to be reminded that they do not possess the authority to usurp the legitimate rights of the people who come before them.
Editorial, The Citizen of Laconia
May 5th, 2009
Planning boards are critical to the future of any community.
The land use boards bring due diligence to a whole host of building and development proposals. Its members are people with different skills and backgrounds who work together with the hope that projects meet zoning, building code and various other regulations, and that projects are basically consistent with a community's Master Plan. The boards also oversee the hearing process, which gives the public an opportunity to offer their comments — pro or con — on any given proposal.
In order to make an informed and appropriate decision, planning boards need to know how to apply a host of rules and laws. But they are also vested with some discretion so they can apply those rules and regulations in a sensible and just way.
The challenge for any planning board is knowing how to use that discretion judiciously.
It takes something more than opinion or "gut feeling" for a planning board to decide on an application.
Planning boards should take some time to ponder a superior court decision last month that dealt with just this issue.
In this particular case, a judge in
Judge Kenneth Brown wrote that, while the board has some discretionary powers during the review process, those powers have limits — that the board's decision must be based on more than the mere opinion of its members. He wrote that the board "abused its discretion and should have approved the petitioner's application."
The judge noted it is not enough to reject an application on the basis of "vague concerns" because the proposal "doesn't seem like an appealing situation," that it "posed a quality of life situation," or because "in the past few years, developers have taken advantage of the zoning regulations to the maximum."
The "vague concerns" to which the judge alluded are, at best, policy issues. Historically, the job of a nonelected regulatory body is to implement policies, not enact them.
While Judge Brown's decision does not, strictly speaking, carry any weight beyond this one case, it is a ruling which planning officials everywhere should pay attention to. After all, what Judge Brown was doing was applying basic legal principles to the case at hand.
Planning boards anywhere can easily, if unwittingly, venture into the area of "vague concerns" — whether a particular project is "the right fit" for an area or if the aesthetics of a project are appealing.
A local example occurred some months back when the Laconia Planning Board considered an apartment house project on
While Judge Brown's ruling is not a sweeping one, by its nature it should make boards aware of their authority and responsibility in such matters; that, while opinion might play some part, more definitive ingredients must be present as well.
Regulatory bodies play an important role in protecting the public good. At the same time, they need to be reminded that they do not possess the authority to usurp the legitimate rights of the people who come before them
May 3 , 2009
When Tom Keane ran for a seat on the board of selectmen two years ago, he championed himself as a candidate who'd fight for lower taxes in Bow.
Although Keane has another year until his term expires, he's set his sights on the school board. This year, he's running against incumbent Stephen Elgert for a 3-year term.
If he's elected, Keane said he doesn't plan to give up his spot on the board of selectmen, which is allowed by law, according to Town Manager Jim Pitts. The board of selectmen meets twice a month and the school board once, so Keane figures he'll have enough time to do both if elected.
Keane, who's retired and has lived in Bow since 2002, said being on the school board might work to open up communication between the school district and town government - something he doesn't think is happening now.
"Because they are two politically autonomous entities, there's no requirement that they talk to each other," Keane said. "In our system, there's no coordination whatsoever."
Keane said he'd like to apply his business background, which includes a master's degree in labor relations and communications, on the school board to address what he says are some of Bow's biggest challenges, like maintaining programs that promote critical thinking while addressing the lurking issue of declining school enrollment.
And while Keane said the current board and administration have started to address those problems, there's more work ahead.
"It's a law of diminishing returns. . . . People can't afford to move in; we need to coordinate and look at this as a bigger issue.," Keane said. "We've entered a phase that, if we don't carefully manage this, housing costs are going to prohibit us from bringing people in the community that we need in our school system."
Two-term incumbent Elgert, a family physician and geriatrician who's lived in Bow for nearly 10 years, said the current board members have shown they work well together. Despite the stress of the economic downturn, voters approved both the board's flat school district budget and separate teacher contract this year.
"When you look at our school budget, a majority of what you budget for goes toward personnel in whatever form. If you really, substantially want to cut dollars, you're looking at cutting major parts of programs, or personnel," Elgert said, adding that the board cut the equivalent of four full-time teacher positions from next year's high school budget to keep costs down.
The board, Elgert said, has followed enrollment trends closely for several years. Outside of a bubble of students in this year's sophomore class, "it's pretty steady," Elgert said. "At the elementary and middle school, we have a pretty good balance of what we should have and what we need."
The board recently commissioned a study committee made up of board members, teachers and others from within the community to study high school curriculum and find ways to make it more efficient.
"We've been looking proactively at high school class sizes and trying to figure out ways we can consolidate without reducing the scope and breadth of our programs. That's tricky," said Elgert.
Elgert said the district must find a balance, and that across-the-board cuts, which he criticized Keane for supporting at this year's school district meeting, would have been "disastrous."
The polls open May 12, at the community building from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and town meeting is the following night at 7 p.m. in the high school's auditorium.
Special School Board Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 23, 2009
SAU Office
Present: Bill Blackadar, Mark Borrin, Andrew Coppinger, Kathy Garry, Michael Lancor and Laurie Whitley
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Laurie Whitley at 7:35 a.m. in the SAU Office conference room. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda:
A. Gov. Wentworth Regional Joint School Boards Meeting: Laurie Whitley and Mark Borrin indicated they would attend this annual meeting to begin at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, May 18 in the Skylight Dining Room at the Region 9 Vocational-Technical Education Center.
B. RFP for School Food Service Program: At the request of Kay Peranelli, Mr. Lancor distributed a revised copy of the Request for the Operation and Management of School Food Service Program for the District. The required format for such RFPs were recently revised by the NH Department of Education. Proposals are due by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, May 8, 2009. Approval of the recommended proposal will be on the agenda for the May 12, 2009 School Board meeting.
C. Joint Meeting: Kathy Garry confirmed that the joint meeting among the School Board, Select Board, Library Trustees and Advisory Budget Committee will begin at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 7, 2009. Kathy Garry, Bill Blackadar and Mark Borrin will be able to attend. Laurie Whitley is unable to attend and Mr. Lancor will contact Fox Smith to see if she can attend.
Non-Public Agenda Session – 7:42 a.m.:
At 7:42 a.m., Mark Borrin moved, and Kathy Garry seconded a motion, to go into Non-Public Session under RSA 91-A:3, Paragraph II (a), (b), (c). A roll call vote was taken with all members answering in the affirmative.
At 7:50 a.m., Kathy Garry moved, and Bill Blackadar seconded a motion, to adjourn the meeting. A roll call vote was taken with all members answering in the affirmative
Editorial
Friday, May 1, 2009
The law applies to everyone — except the lawmakers.
The people who enact laws can, if they choose, exempt themselves. They travel our highways at speeds that would earn we more common folk a summons to appear in court. While the rest of us are using E-ZPass or paying cash at the state’s toll booths, lawmakers pass through at no cost.
Now they want e-mail exchanges with constituents to be privileged information, an exception to the Right to Know law, a law so many people worked so hard to design and implement.
The history of Chapter 91-A of New Hampshire’s Revised Statutes Annotated has been a half-century struggle, two steps forward and one step back. Its beginnings were landed in the altogether logical beliefs and contentions that the people were the final governing authority, and for them to govern effectively, they must be exposed to and have access to the same information to which their elected representatives might be entitled.
There are exceptions to the Right to Know law crafted to protect the interests of the people. Among them is information pertaining to law enforcement investigations, the negotiation of contracts and the pursuit of decisions at law having an affect on the people and their interests.
The broad technological change that resonated through the late 20th century and into the 21st saw giant leaps in communication, not the least of which has been electronic mail transmission — e-mail.
The value of e-mail cannot be overstated. Where once the written word took days to get from sender to recipient, today it travels in seconds.
E-mail has become a useful tool in the execution of government. It is a supplement to traditional methods of exchange or the sometimes misunderstood implications or inferences in telephone conversation.
Transparency is the word that has been coined to describe the need to let the people look through government’s many windows and into its sometimes shadowy corners. Right to know is the term that still best applies. It clearly describes in three words the entire principle and its parts.
State lawmakers — the step they want to take is to exempt from disclosure e-mail communication between themselves and constituents.
The Senate’s committee on Election Law and Veterans Affairs met this week, but took no action on HB 349, which would write the exception into law. Earlier, the measure sailed through the House.
The substance of the bill is to allow lawmakers to decide which electronic communications from constituents would be subject to the Right to Know law. Those feathers you might soon see will be the ones caused by the fox entering the chicken coop.
Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, had this to say about e-mail communication between lawmakers and constituents: “It’s not a public conversation, and it should not be a public record.”
One more barricade between lawmakers and the people as a whole.
The attitude in
There are people in the Legislature who are uncomfortable with codification of the public’s right to know. We are uncomfortable with it at times ourselves — when lawmakers try and sometimes succeed in building a wall between themselves and the people of
It is as if a right to know applies only when they meet as a body while, even then, allowing them to decide what moment qualifies.
Public trust deserves something better.
