Recently in House Rep. Betsey Patten Category
SEPTEMBER 3, 2009
We like this editorial by the Meredith News and here’s why. Finally, local representatives that actually keep the very people that they represent informed, without making them spend countless hours researching the happenings in Concord. It’s too bad that this is not happening in our town of Moultonboro. We would like the same here, as well as in Tuftenboro and Wolfeboro that are represented by our own Betsey Patten. We would like to encourage her to do the same for the good folks that elected her.
Fall may not officially be here for a couple more weeks, but with schools starting this week and Labor Day weekend right in front of us, it’s about time to say goodbye to summer. As cooler weather approaches, so will the return of news from the State House, courtesy of our local state representatives. What we’ve seen in the past year from reps like Kate Miller in Meredith, Bill Johnson in Gilford and Belmont, and Liz Merry in Sanbornton is not only willingness, but an eagerness to provide constituents with the lowdown on House debates and votes through their local newspapers. Before the summer break, Johnson had been regularly submitting capsules of pertinent information regarding what he saw happening in the House of Representatives. This has accomplished a couple of things: first, it has made state news more accessible, particularly because Johnson writes in layman’s terms and with a bit of color, so readers aren’t wading through the typical political jargon. Second, Johnson gives us insight into the whys and hows of the House voting process, candidly noting the reasons behind his decisions while acknowledging the other point of view as well. For Meredith, Miller has regularly submitted letters to the editor to keep her constituents informed. Although her district doesn’t cover Moultonboro, Sandwich or Center Harbor, what Miller has to say is pertinent to all of our Meredith News readers. Like Johnson, she provides updates of the goings on in the House and continuously invite conversation from her constituents. Merry has done the same for Tilton and Sanbornton with her letters and updates. At Salmon Press, we’re grateful that our towns’ representatives are readily providing vital statewide information to our readers, because while we pride ourselves on bringing readers news at the most local level, we also recognize the importance of knowing what’s happening at the state level, that the impact of House and Senate votes are often widely felt by the residents of our towns. The downside to being a truly local, weekly paper is that we don’t have the resources to report on state affairs ourselves – we’re busy attending local board meetings – and have to rely on outside sources to gather that information. Until this past year, our papers didn’t have a single state representative from any of the districts we cover actively sending us news we can use. Now, true to their campaign word, reps like Miller, Johnson and Merry are channeling such vital information through us. We hope their updates continue in the coming year, and that you appreciate reading them as much as we do.
The town voted on the establishment of a Heritage Commission at Town Meeting this year and we have been waiting for months for the Board of Selectmen to finalize volunteers to that commission. Once volunteer letters to the Board have been submitted and reviewed, we would think that the commission would be properly appointed and the newly formed Heritage Commission could meet and begin the tasks ahead of them. Not so: and still we wait. The Board of Selectmen still have not yet finished determining who is on the committee. Why is that?
There are several things that concern us about the appointments made thus far. For instance, at the Board of Selectmen meeting on May 14, 2009, Chairwoman Karel Crawford said that they would work on it at their scheduled work session on May 28th. Yet somehow at the Selectmen’s meeting on May 21, the very next week, announcements were made as to who would be appointed to the Heritage Commission. When did they discuss that they would make appointments at their May 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting rather than at their scheduled work session? Is it possible that all five of the selectmen were on the same wave length at the same time? If they had a discussion, it was not before the public. If so, where are the minutes? Or is this privileged information not available to the public?
We wonder if there was some kind of discussion behind the scenes that no one bothered to recognize as a need to bring to the public under the Right to know law.
Another issue is the selection of one volunteer who serves on several other committees. No questions were raised at the appointment of Jean Beadle who serves as the Chair of the Advisory Budget Committee, as well as a member of the Town Planner Screening Committee. Yet when Selectmen Betsey Patten suggested that Jane Fairchild should be assigned as an alternate, she implied that Jane would be far too busy to be on the Heritage Commission as she is already a member of the planning board. Not Jean Beadle however who is the Chair of the ABC. She should be quite busy finding a replacement for a member that resigned, not to mention all the time to bring a new member of the ABC up to speed.
Don’t forget folks, the school will be in the midst of contract negotiations with the teachers union, the school budget, and the town budget and that should be more that enough to keep the ABC Chair quite busy. Why is an alternate assignment good for one but not the other?
Is there some favoritism amongst the appointments?
The third issue at hand is the select board member that is required by statute to serve on the Heritage Commission. Another statute states that there cannot be 2 members of the Planning Board on the same committee or board. Selectmen Ed Charest is on the planning board as is volunteer Jane Fairchild. How will this be resolved?
How long must we wait? There is a worksession June 25, 2009 @ 4pm........
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
TUESDAY, JUNE 9
MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Room 301, LOB
11:00 a.m. Full committee work session on Senate amendments to House Bills.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10
RIGHT-TO-KNOW OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (RSA 91-A:11), Room 304, LOB
8:00 a.m. Email subcommittee meeting.
MONDAY, JUNE 15
ASSESSING STANDARDS BOARD (RSA 21-J:14-a), Department of Revenue Administration, 109 Pleasant Street,
9:30 a.m. Regular meeting.
1:30 p.m. Low income housing subcommittee meeting.
COMMISSION TO
1:00 p.m. Regular meeting.
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
January 29, 2009
To the Editor:
On Jan. 14, we attended some hearings on proposed House bills that were sponsored by our State Representative Betsy Patten. Observing and participating in the hearings was certainly a learning experience and well worth the trip to
20 is very difficult to comprehend. A 1000 percent increase did not strike her as a bit over the top? But wait, there’s more. Oops, she did it again with HB71. This one will increase from $100,000 to $1,000,000 municipal bonds that would require a public hearing, another tenfold increase. For example, a bond of $950,000 would not require a public hearing. Outrageous, but at least she’s consistent. To me $950,000 is one fantastic pile of money. Rep. Patten introduced the house bill and said the $1,000,000 is a number she selected and it would be okay for the committee to drop it to $200,000 or what ever they wanted. See what I mean about consistency? Seems she puts out a very high numbermand hopes she gets at least something lower. Something is wrong with that method of proposing House Bills. We are hopeful both bills will be killed in committee.
On the last bill sponsored by Betsey Patten, HB114, she smartly threw in the towel and withdrew it.HB114 was an effort to weaken SB2 by eliminating the deliberative session. SB2 by the way is the way more than half the townspeople in
Jim Leiterman
Moultonboro
Editor, The Citizen: January 20, 2009
The Moultonborough Selectboard met 1-8-2009 and their published minutes under the section Legislative Update states Rep. Betsey Patten (Selectmen and also State Rep.) "added that she is proposing a bill to increase the number of voters required to request a secret ballot during the Town Meeting. Presently, only five registered voters must request a secret ballot and are not required to be present at Town Meeting. Her bill would set the number required based on the municipalities population. The (Moultonborough) Selectmen expressed their support of Betsey's proposed bill and asked Carter (Terenzini, Town Administrator) to draft a letter of support. Hollis Austin asked the purpose of the bill. She replied that presently only five people can request a secret ballot and not have to be present during the secret ballot, in an effort to make the Town Meeting unnecessarily lengthy."
The above portion in quotation marks is per the Moultonborough Selectboard minutes of 1-8-2009. However our video of that meeting stated 50 voters and that was neglected in the above minutes but the number 50 appears on HB72. Chapter 40 Government of Town Meeting, Section 40:4-a states "5 voters who are present may make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote or division vote that the vote be taken by secret written ballot." In essence, it says the five voters must be present and that contradicts a portion of what is stated in paragraph one.
I vigorously state that the voters that submitted petitions did not intentionally delay the voting as implied in paragraph one. Also Moultonboro Citizens Alliance did not submit all the petitions that were presented to the moderator prior to the start of that Town Meeting. Other citizens, who are not members of MCA or proponents of it, collected signatures and signed them as well as they wanted the secret ballots for expenditures over $100,000 which makes sense to me.
The information we received at the 1-8-2009 Selectboard meeting prompted us to attend those house hearings in
On the evening of 1-15-2009, some MCA members attended the Selectboard meeting and were verbally criticized because we did not discuss our differences with Rep. Patten before voicing our opinion in
Rep. Patten, you have it backwards! You submitted HB0072 in June 2008 you waited until 1-8-2009, at the legislative update portion of the selectmen meeting, to let Moultonborough know you had submitted that bill. In true transparency you should have notified local voters you intended to submit a bill on this subject and ask for public input. Or at least notify your constituents after you submitted HB72 in June 2008. Instead you waited less than one week before the hearing in
Rep. Patten, why should we contact you when you are not fulfilling your responsibility to inform and represent those that have put their trust in you?
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: January 24, 2009
The arrogance of some members of the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen never ceases to amaze me. I often feel guilty not having to pay for such incredible entertainment.
On Wednesday January 14th there were hearings in Concord regarding the very bad legislation that Rep. Betsey Patten put forth months ago but was not brought to light until a very few days before the hearings. I have written about that legislation in previous missives so I won't bore you here with redundancy… just understand that these bills were poorly thought out, poorly written and vengeful in the motivation behind them. Little or no thought was given to what anyone in the "law making business" ought to know; research and re-research before putting forth a bill… consider "unintended consequences". Rep. Patten was only thinking about the town in which she sits on the Select board.
But beyond that (and this is where it gets entertaining) Thursday January 15th (the very next day) was the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen's meeting. As there were folks there that had testified at the above mentioned hearings against the legislation, as well as Representative Patten, "Selectman" Patten decided it was a good time to call out and lecture those citizens that had exercised their right to be heard at the Concord hearings.
Wait a minute … let's see … she wrote these bills in June; she waited until less than a week from the hearings before she revealed any information about one of the bills, and forgot to mention anything about the other two. And she expects the citizenry that has a problem with this, speak to her in private, as a courtesy, rather than at a public hearing as is their right. I am sorry.
I have voted for Ms. Patten from the get go and, in the past found her tolerable and sufficient in
Last March 56% and 58% respectively voted for SB2 for the town and the school district in Moultonborough. While SB2 needs 60% to pass, it was enough to threaten the comfort zone of those in opposition of SB2. If over half of the voters want an issue to pass, wouldn't you think their Representative would find better ways to spend her time than trying her level best to derail it? This is not open and transparent government. Watching these shenanigans is entertaining, yes but not at the voters and taxpayers' expense.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
