Nancy: March 2008 Archives
Editor, The Citizen: In response to Faith Hanney. I have walked several miles "in their shoes."
I would agree that a majority of teachers "give their heart and soul to our students." Furthermore, I don't doubt that the school district has an "exceptional group of teachers." I also realize that the teachers control the vote in the Annual School District meeting therefore, I made my comments to the audience because there are parents of children in the school district that are not willing to stand up at a public meeting and voice their opinion on teacher salaries and benefits. There are many that object to an automatic teacher step increase, combined with a percentage increase in salaries. Not many frustrated tax payers (including parents of students) are willing to stand up in a public meeting and say that they prefer to vote for salary increases based on merit and performance rather than automatic pay increases based on time. Many corporations base salary increase on performance. Note the demise of the corporate pension-we provide a teacher pension and life long employment. Not many folks can work 180 days for the salaries teachers make.
Parents of children in school are not comfortable standing up in opposition and calling for a reduction to the number of teaching aids or vote disapproval to increases in runaway health insurances or call for elimination of dental plans, the closure of a neighborhood school, the reduction in the number of administrators or a ceiling on administrative salaries. They fear possible inadvertent teacher retribution to their children. Some electorate are unwilling to vigorously oppose the union openly. Yet there is a hot angry group of tax payers that want to know more about how their tax dollar is spent.
Democracies need a vibrant and credible opposition. However, political correctness and fear of retribution silences the disgruntled voice. Many ask, what can they do against the organized teacher's labor union with a massive treasury and activist political and social agenda. Teachers do not vote against their own economic self interest. Teacher demands for greater salary and benefits continues unabated as does the cost of health insurance which is roughly $18,000 for a family plan. I understand why citizens exercise maturity and restraint in coming forward to object to skyrocketing education costs.
If my comments have been characterized as rancorous bitterness I offer my apologies, but maintain that children of those parents that question the vested interests of teacher unions could be in for a hard time in school. The school budget has reached $20 million. In comparison, the town budget is approaching $13 million. The schools cost us nearly twice as much as it costs to run the town. I would like to make education affordable. Please ask the school Superintendent to justify massive cost increases by reporting test scores, both SAT and local state test scores in the newspapers. Give us data on average classroom size, ie student teacher ratios. Is enrollment increasing or decreasing? Graph out budget increases, enrollments and test scores over ten years. How many teacher aids work in the school system? How many students are categorized as special education? What is our budget for special education? What is the percentage of the total student body that are categorized as special education? What is our student dropout rate? Tell us about the 'gifted and talented program'. How many students complete two years of a foreign language and four years of math? Provide us with accountability.
I believe the teachers union is oriented toward preservation and that we throw money at education because it is fashionable. The economy has slipped into recession and the school board and superintendent increase the number of those on the payroll, and do nothing to ease the pain of the tax payers. We have a housing bust, a credit crunch and weakening labor market and still the school board spends. We are experiencing foreclosures and mortgage delinquency rates are at record levels. Homeowners debt now exceeds their equity. Nine million homeowners have negative equity. Their mortgage debt is greater than the market value of their homes. Many people own vacation homes in Meredith, some might decide to walk away from these homes thus reducing the revenue flow to the town treasurer. Last year we borrowed millions for a new high school track and athletic field. How many national or Olympic sprinters, or middle distance runners have we produced?
I stand up for those with the shrinking pocketbooks. Many from the area are looking for work or have fear of losing their job. Some frugal folks are struggling and don't have $18,000 for a family health plan. Yes, I have walked many miles in their shoes as well.
We appreciate your raw energy in writing. You certainly do not lack audacity.
Vote YES FOR SB2
Richard Gunnar Juve
Meredith
Editor, TheCitizen: I am writing in response to Kim Dubuque's letter to the editor on March 20. She stated that in all the years that she has been attending the town meetings in Moultonboro, the use of petitions for paper ballots were 'used on very rare occasions'. This year's meeting had 8 petitions for secret ballots that 'were signed by 5 to 10 people. This turned what is usually a timely process into a marathon.' She went further to state that this turned her civic duty into 'a lengthy and arduous affair for no apparent reason.'
Well Kim, I'm sorry that you found the right of the people to vote in secrecy such a burden. The law allows for secret ballots when 5 registered voters present at the town meeting sign a petition and request it for any article item. That is precisely what happened on Saturday. It was not the intent of those that signed the petitions (I signed two of them) to 'disrupt what is usually a timely and smoothly flowing process' or as some would say a vocal rubber stamp. What the requests for secret ballot clearly indicate, is that not all people prefer their vote to be known by any or everyone else. Some people are easily intimidated by others and may feel swayed or pressured into voting in a particular way.
This year's agenda had some very contentious issues at hand, as was evidenced by the heated discussion that occurred. Point in fact: there was a very vocal group that petitioned article 9 (funding for an architectural and engineering study for the Community Center) with 300 signatures. The reality is that less than 200 signatures were valid and only 198 voted for this article during town meeting. Hmmm... I would remind the writer that SB2 while not achieving a super majority, was a clear majority winner (56%) so obviously many people want a secret ballot. There was a recent editorial in the Citizen that stated this very fact. It's not the tax that is too much, it's the spending!!! This is one of the reasons that article 9 was voted down.
We need to focus on our needs not our wants. And if that means that we take extra time to vote in a secret ballot, then so be it! Some people have been ridiculed by some of our selectmen for not having the 'courage' to speak out at the town meetings. I don't think that is fair or proper to say such things. If I am going to be publicly ridiculed then I wouldn't want to speak out. In fact, I wouldn't want to go to the meeting. Then guess what? My vote wouldn't count. But by utilizing the right to petition for a secret ballot, those who have felt intimidated or ridiculed would have their vote counted. This year, every vote counted.
I can assure you that many people, including myself, did in fact do their research and made a 'sound decision'. I can also assure you that you have not heard the end of SB2!
Linda Punturieri
Moultonboro
|
By GEOFF CUNNINGHAM Jr. |
A recount of the school district's March 11 vote on moving to a Senate Bill 2 style of balloting has confirmed that the proposal failed by a narrow margin.
A hand recount of the votes on Thursday determined that an SB2 warrant article that would have favored putting all town warrant questions on a paper ballot rather than having them voted on at School District Meeting failed to garner the 60 percent majority needed to pass.
Moultonborough Superintendent Michael Lancor said the recount showed that the SB2 question got 733 'yes' votes and 525 'no' votes, giving it a 58.24 percent majority.
The number differed only slightly from the reported 58.13 majority reported after the initial March 11 results were released.
The recount turned up about 16 less total votes on the question and recorded 75 unmarked ballots and two "spoiled" ones, meaning that they were unable to be read with any certainty as to the intent of the voter.
The ultimate result of the recount is that Moultonborough School District voters will keep a school district meeting style of voting.
Meanwhile, a recount will also be held on the SB2 results from the "municipal" side of the ballot.
On March 11 an SB2 question for the town got 748 'yes' votes and 588 'no' votes, giving it a 58 percent majority — a mark that again fell short of the needed 60 percent.
Moultonborough Town Clerk Barbara Wakefield said a recount of those votes will take place on Tuesday at 1 p.m.
Editor, The Citizen: Now that we have passed the Moultonborough '08 elections and town meeting, I would like to congratulate the incumbents for their apparent victory and the three write-in candidates for running a stunning effort in three short weeks. To have captured nearly a third of the votes for a write-in campaign makes a statement. The selectmen write-in candidates each garnered 60% of the incumbent Ed Charest and 50% of Chairman Karel Crawford.
But the important number coming from this year's voting was the 56% (town) and 58% (school) of the voters that are asking for the fair voting process of SB2 in Moultonborough. This contest has proven that more than half of the residents of our otherwise quiet little hamlet want to have a fair process of voting. If there was a failure in the campaign, it was that we proponents of SB2 did not fully educate the electorate to (1) understand the simplicity of this voting initiative and (2) dispel the fear-mongering misinformation spewed forth by those that may be giving a fraction of their control back to the electorate by allowing them to vote.
I want to thank all those voters that supported the write-in efforts as well as all those that came out and voted for SB2. Without your efforts and votes we would not be where we are today. You have spoken and clearly, you would like to be able to vote on town issues. By your willingness to learn about SB2 and make the effort to come out to vote, you have shown people like this humble scribe that it is all worthwhile. I salute you and ask that you do the same next year and bring along a couple of friends that offer like-minded thinking.
Selectman Ed Charest made the comment at a selectmen's meeting a few weeks back that the proponents of SB2 "had tried last year ('07) and failed" (40% of the needed 60%) and so we "were wasting the time and expense of the town by trying it all over again". Well, Ed, now that more than half of the town has spoken, we owe it to the majority to try it in '09. It will be on the ballot again.
The large turnout at the town meeting this year, being on a Saturday for the first time, shows this observer that people want to vote if it is available to them. Unfortunately, even though Saturday offers more access, it still leaves those that are out of town or home bound as disenfranchised voters. When the moderator asked for a show of hands of those first timers to town meeting, there were several that went up. This is further indication of the need for SB2.
With a careful study of the numbers from the voting booth (and those allowed absentee ballots) on March 11, all the officials in the elective positions in town should take note that they have had a well-placed "shot across their bow", or at the very least a strong message. And I will dare say that SB2 will be part of the landscape soon. Get used to it and start looking at the reality of it. We should all look at the advantages that it offers and work with the local papers to preprint a synopsis of the ballot with yes/no check boxes as an aid to educate the voters from the deliberative session results.
My guess is that the selectmen, moderator, and the other SB2 opponents in Moultonborough will very quickly be trying to muddy the waters with an effort to establish "another form of government" with a "Charter Commission", as Meredith has already begun researching. This is reinventing the wheel. The voters didn't say we want a charter commission… we want SB2. It is simple; it allows all to vote; it is complete and it is proven. More than half of the population of New Hampshire lives with SB2, while Charter Commissions are few and far between.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: I keep reading a lot about disenfranchised voters and how SB2 would allow more participation in voting. I also recently read an editorial by Mr. Leiterman in the March 19 Citizen referring to voters feeling "comfortable to express their true feeling" in reference to secret balloting and how, under SB2, "voters are guided by their opinion and their conscience" As opposed to what? Hiding one's true feelings because of the fear that someone else will be aware of them? Voting against their personal opinions and against their own conscience because of how someone else feels or thinks?
Editor, The Citizen: In Meredith approximately 4% of the voters control $33 million of the town's finances.
In attendance at Meredith's Annual Town Meeting to vote for the 9,000-foot addition to the fire station were 385 voters who voted 285 for and 73 against. 7.5% of the voters showed up to vote for the $2.5m fire station addition. That was at the start of the meeting at 7 p.m. and at 8 p.m. a vote was called for after an hour-long color screen presentation on the need for the expenditure and the future need for a full-time fire department. Get ready for some financial contingency planning on this one. Another hour was consumed by a screen presentation on purchasing Page Pond. No color screen presentation with slides explaining the abbreviated, one-page $13m budget was made by the Selectmen at 11 p.m. If we had 200 voters left at 11:30 p.m. to vote on the $13m budget, we were lucky. Two ladies sitting next to me got up and walked out prior to the long diatribe by the police and public employees. One lady said to me, "I don't want to get into this conflict." And it turned into a dispute-ridden atmosphere.
Barely 4.2% of the voters approved the $13m Town Budget, which was about the percentage of voters that approved the $20m school budget. Only 250 voters determined the Town's Budget. There are 4,754 registered voters.
So we have approximately 4% of the voters controlling the town's finances of $33m.
Recreation and municipal needs representatives have concluded that information on the proposed community center project given in a recent mailing by a citizens group were the result of figures mentioned during a past committee meeting and not an alleged information leak.
Recreational Strategic Planning Team member Laurie Whitley raised concerns during the March 13 selectman's meeting about a possible issue with information flow that may have resulted in information being released to the public on the proposed community center project before being reviewed by the selectmen.
Whitley cited an information flyer mailed to residents by the Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance the week before that stated the operational costs of the proposed community center would be $350,000 a year according to the Municipal Needs Committee, while the RSPT had quoted a figure of around $208,000.
Whitley expressed concern that the figure cited by the Citizen's Alliance came from a document attached to the minutes of the March 4 Municipal Needs Committee meeting that would not have been made publicly available at the time the flyer was mailed out. Whitley expressed concern that there was a break in the flow of information, including the possibility a member of the municipal needs committee may have leaked the information.
Carrasco said the information in the flyer matched information from the minutes of the Dec. 4, 2007 meeting of the municipal needs committee where the members of the RSPT attended to review a list of points from the RSPT's report.
"He called me and he knew right where this information had come from," Whitley said. "It had come from a public meeting. My request has been satisfied and I was comfortable with that."
RSPT chair Tom Howard, who also attended the March 13 selectman's meeting with Whitley, said the $350,000 figure for potential operating costs had been discussed at the December meeting as a preliminary figure, while a figure of around $251,000, which Howard said would likely be closer to $208,000 after projected revenues from the proposed center, was more up to date.
"Some of the costs were in there only because they were not clear as to what we were presenting," Howard said, saying the "numbers reduced" when the prospect was discussed of eliminating other projects mentioned in the RSPT report on the town's overall recreational needs.
Howard said the $350,000 mentioned in the Citizen's Alliance flyer was an older number, saying Carrasco had also called him to confirm the source of the information.
In a letter to The Citizen, Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance member Nancy Wright confirmed the information in the flyer did come from the Dec. 4 meeting.
Carrasco spoke with Whitley and Howard on March 14, later saying the confusion was "cleared up" after that discussion.
"I think Ralph did a very good job," Whitley said. "He was responsive and professional."
Carrasco and Wright have both said they felt that their respective groups were falsely accused of wrongdoing and residents have asked for an apology from Whitley and Howard.
Whitley said it was never her intention to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, saying she was expressing a concern about the flow of information.
"I think any citizen in this town is allowed to express a concern to the selectboard at the public session of the meeting," she said.
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
 | |||
| March 20, 2008 MOULTONBORO — The Moultonboro community/ senior center will have to wait a few years, as Moultonboro residents voted down Article 9, $375,000 in architectural and engineering fees in a vote of 198-256. In the very next vote, however, $100,000 in capital reserve funds for the center was approved by a narrow vote of 148 to 137. | |||
| |||
Editor, The Citizen: Previously the Recreational Strategic Planning Team presented a list, claimed to be 300 signatures, attached to the petition to the Moultonborough Selectmen, requesting a $375,000 warrant article (article 9) for architectural, engineering fees, etc. for the possible construction of a "Community/Senior Center" on the Lions Property.
As reported by Hollis Austin, in his 3/13/2008 letter to the editor, the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance checked and found there were only 264 signatures and when you delete five that signed twice, numerous unregistered, illegible or missing signatures, etc., the total was under 200.
Now let's see what happened at the Town Meeting on March 15th. An amendment to lower the dollar amount, of article 9, was defeated by a hand vote of 137 for and 148 against. Then the original article 9 was put up for secret ballot and it was defeated by a vote of 198 for but 256 against. The illusionary 300 signers were nowhere to be found as only 198 voted for article 9.
When the secret ballot was employed, apparently many voters felt comfortable to express their true feeling and voted article 9 down. With SB2 all articles including expenditure articles are voted in the ballot booth and voters are guided by their personal opinion and their conscience.
These same so called 300 signers influenced some of the selectmen to change their vote to 4 to 1 to recommend article 9. It was an illusion and that is something for us all to guard against.
Now I call on the citizenry to refer to and follow the suggestions of the Municipal Needs Committee report entitled Municipal Needs Committee 12 Point Recommendations on RSPT Proposal which is available on the MCA website www.moultonborocitizensalliance.org and it's in category titled Municipal Needs Committee. It's a logical 12 point plan to get answers to questions and proceed to work with other departments to achieve citizen's needs.
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: What an excellent editorial in the Sunday Citizen (It's not the Tax It's the Spending). The last two paragraphs should be required reading for all Selectmen and Town officials throughout New Hampshire: "New Hampshire has to return to its roots. State, county and local governments have to step away from enacting budgets the people cannot afford to fund — budgets that represent 17 percent, 15 percent and even 4 percent increases. Government at all levels must step back from treating every request for taxpayers' dollars as entitlements."
Bravo Citizen editors. That concept was evident to our citizens on Saturday March 15th, 2008. Moultonborough voters rejected spending our tax dollars to fund a very expensive project. The message to the Selectmen was loud and clear: it's the taxes, not the concept. Our elected officials going forward should weigh all spending requests under the greatest of scrutiny. We have the opportunity to further reduce our low tax burden and find alternative creative funding means for projects that, while they would be nice to have, are simply not a necessity. Times are tough for middle and low income families. The cost of gas is rising out of control. Milk is approaching $5.00 a gallon. Just because we have a very low tax burden per capita, doesn't mean we should spend more. After all, property taxes do not consider a person's ability to pay, especially in these uncertain times.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
| |||
| |||
|
March 20, 2008 A vote can speak a thousand words, or at least it did in Moultonboro, where voters rejected architectural and engineering fees for a new community/senior center in a vote of 198-256, but approved $100,000 for a capital reserve fund for the center in a vote of 148-137. | |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
| March 20, 2008 MOULTONBORO — A hard road to travel was given a boost as voters approved $392,000 to be combined with a $600,000 donation from bottling company CG Roxane to reconstruct Ossipee Park Road. That doesn't mean the way to the vote was easily reached. Many residents objected to spending that amount when they blamed the company's trucks for damaging the road in the first place. | |||
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
| March 20, 2008 MOULTONBORO — A well-attended School District Meeting approved the operating budget for the district at $13,566,659. Most warrant articles passed in quick succession as 570 voters reported in on Town Meeting morning, and voters approved the compensation of elected members of the district and approved a contract with an independent auditing firm. A ballot vote on the $13.6 million district budget was approved in a ballot vote of 324-77. Before beginning the ballot vote, though, resident Brooke Amiss questioned the board on the performance of Moultonboro in the "Three 'Rs," especially on the subject of math. Quoting the Moultonboro School District Assessment Report, Amiss asked why a certain percentage of students seemed to do poorly in mathematics, specifically those in Grade Three, 28 percent of whom scored as "partially proficient' in the New England Common Assessment Program test on math. | |||
| |||
| |||
| March 20, 2008 To the Editor: Last Saturday's Moultonboro Town Meeting was a display of democracy at its finest. The participation of more than 500 voting residents was positive and informative. Amendments to articles were put forward, discussed and in the majority of cases ended up as the original article was written. I just can't imagine how that could ever happen in SB-2 deliberative session. I have been going to Town Meetings for over a half a century and can't for the life of me understand why some would like to do away with this form of government that has worked so well for so many years especially in our town and town's of our size and larger. I have been opposed to SB-2 from the start and am even more opposed to it now after witnessing Saturday's session of democracy in its purest form. My congratulations to Mel Borrin for moderating this meeting with dignity and professionalism. Jordan S. Prouty Moultonboro |
6 HOLLAND STREET
PO BOX 139
MOULTONBOROUGH, NH 03254
Selectmen’s Meeting March 13 , 2008
DRAFT
MINUTES
Present: Selectmen: Karel A. Crawford, Edward J. Charest, James F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett, Betsey L. Patten; Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator, Hope K. Kokas, Office Secretary.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Karel called the meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. REVIEW/APPROVE MINUTES: Joel Made the Motion to approve the Minutes of March 6, 2008 as written. Jim Seconded. The Motion carried Unanimously.
IV. NEW RESIDENTS: Victoria J. Frewin, Allen W. & Joan C. Harding, Stephen R. Betz, Jr., Sarah B. Blackadar, Albert J. Camden, Kaitlin A. Hull, Maria E. McKenna, Elizabeth M. Page, Cristen M. Spinale, Elizabeth M. Spinale, Joseph M. Vosgershian, Miles C. Trevor, Karen P. & Eric D. Gundersen, Robert F. & Mary L. Allen, Paul F. & Martha L. Duffy, Sunipa Kanyanutcharat, Paul C. Devito, Jr.
V. PUBLIC MEETING:
8:00 Non-Public Session (Possible Request Re: Litigation & Personnel)
1. Laurie Whitley congratulated Ed and Karel for being re-elected for another term and thanked them for their continued service to the Town. Referring to the Municipal Needs Committee Minutes of March 4, 2008 and the supporting material about Warrant Articles 9 & 10, Ms. Whitley asked how this information could have been included in the mailing that arrived in individual’s homes on Friday, March 7th. She stated that her point is that someone in the MNC is not following the chain of command and released this information to the Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance prior to the Selectmen viewing it. Tom Howard, Chairman of the RSPT, clarified that the actual memo was not mailed, but what was mailed contained the same information. Ms. Whitley stated that she does not expect the Selectmen to provide answers, but felt that appropriate procedures need to be followed and it was a misuse of information. Ralph Carrasco, Chairman of the MNC, commented that this is the first he’s heard of this and didn’t know the information had been distributed. He added that the memo was emailed to the Selectmen on Wednesday at 4:00 pm. Hope reported that the email was not opened until the next day, Thursday and was included in the Selectmen’s packet even though it was a late submission. She added that Barbara Rando sent an email on Tuesday, asking for the MNC to be on the Agenda, under Old Business for open issues. There was no attachment to this email. Karel responded that the MNC is given its charge by the Selectmen. Mr. Howard provided a copy of what was sent out by the Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance to the Selectmen. Ms. Whitley stressed that her point is that all committees report to the Selectmen and need to follow the same procedures to make information public. Hollis Austin asked if the Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance is being accused of something. Karel replied that the point of this is that information was disclosed before it came to the Selectmen. Ms. Whitley stated that her concern is that someone in the MNC distributed information prematurely. Mr. Howard replied to Mr. Austin that the information that was presented to the Selectmen on March 6th was received in people’s homes on March 7th and the heading on the document was Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance. Mr. Carrasco, as Chairman, apologized and stated that he would look into this issue.
2. Freddie Gale presented to the Selectmen her letter of resignation as Chair of the Senior Needs
**Please Note: Items to be placed on the weekly Selectmen’s Meeting Agenda must be submitted no later than Tuesday, noon.
Office of Selectmen
P. O. Box 139 / 6 Holland Street
Moultonborough, NH 03254
603-476-2347
AGENDASelectmen’s Meeting March 20, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. REVIEW / APPROVAL MINUTES: March 13, 2008
IV. NEW RESIDENTS:V. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
1. Chair/Vice Chair
2. Board Committee Appointments
Editor, The Citizen: I am delighted to see the defeat of Article #9 ($375,000 to fund and an architectural and engineering study for a Community /Recreation Center) in Moultonboro's Town Meeting on Saturday March 15th. This sends a clear message that it is not a 'small vocal few' that objected to community/recreation/senior center on such a grand scale.
Few oppose a center of some sort. Unfortunately, there are those that would have us believe that there is a demanding and pressing need to build a massive center, one with more ball fields for our little town with a population of 4000, on the scale of one for a major university! It was a huge turnout at the ballot election on Tuesday March 11th with nearly 1300 people coming out to vote. SB2 was defeated by a very small percentage. So small that a recount will be done for both the school and town.
There were 570 people at the town meeting on Saturday, another huge turnout. That is nearly 800 less than were able to make it to vote in the election. What a shame to disenfranchise so many taxpayers. We were able to stay until after Article 9 was voted on, but had to leave. Later, we met a town employee at one of our town facilities who was very interested in how the town meeting was going. Like many other people, this individual had to work that day and could not vote. My mother is 80 years old, but she would not miss her opportunity to vote in the election at the public safety building. She was not able to attend such a lengthy town meeting as she has difficulty walking long distances and didn't want to sit that long. She also has a hearing disability that prevents her from being able to understand all that is being said. It's a shame too, as she was very interested in knowing what went on the very minute we came home. She too was pleased to learn that Article 9 was defeated. She would like a senior center but has no desire whatsoever to be in the same building as teenagers or small children.
If we had SB2 in place those 800 disenfranchised taxpayers would have had a chance to have their vote count on all the issues, including the school budget. Taxation without representation is tyranny!
Linda N. Punturieri
Moultonboro
Editor, The Citizen: Peter Miller needs a realty check. (Letter to the Ed. 3/13) In most circumstances where "majority rules," there is never the claim of divisiveness. However, he as much as blames the extreme personality conflicts in neighboring Gilford on SB2. Please, Mr. Miller, don't try to reinvent the wheel in the next ten months on something that is unproven. SB2 offers an answer to every issue that you express. I would suggest that you finally recognize some of the problems with the present form of government; the obsolescent town meeting.
Possible alternatives and changes to town meeting are being discussed by the selectmen following a strong support for Senate Bill 2 during town voting.
MOULTONBOROUGH — Town officials say those who are unable to attend this year's town meeting still have options for having their opinions heard.
Resident Gary Torressen voiced concern to the Board of Selectmen, saying he has to work during the Saturday morning meeting and he inquired about an additional way to express opinions.
The board, with Town Administrator Carter Terenzini, said residents who are unable to attend the meeting can send correspondance to town officials expressing their opinions on town issues through letter, email or any other form of communication.
Board members said having the town and school district meeting on Saturday is a way to make the process more accessible to people, especially those unable to attend a weeknight meeting due to work or family conflicts or reluctance to drive at night.
"We're trying to address what everybody's concerns were," said Selectman Joel Mudgett.
The distribution of a study document on the proposed community center before it was officially made public has troubled town officials.
Laurie Whitley and Tom Howard of the Recreation Strategic Planning Team approached the Board of Selectmen to express concerns that a document compiled by the Municipal Needs Committee for the selectmen was distributed to the public before the selectmen had reviewed it.
|
MOULTONBOROUGH — Voters rejected a petitioned warrant article that would have appropriated funds for the engineering and architectural costs associated with a proposed community center during town meeting, though the establishment of a community center fund passed by a narrow margin.
The Recreational Strategic Planning Team had proposed a $5.1 million community center as part of its 2007 report on the recreational needs of Moultonborough. The project has received both enthusiastic support and heavy criticism from residents, some feeling the center would be an asset to the community, others being outraged at the projected costs.
The Board of Selectmen had voted against putting an article for the project on the warrant with many members of the board saying it was too much of a cost for the moment, especially with the current economic climate.
In February, the RSPT submitted two petitioned warrant articles: one to appropriate $375,000 for an architectural and engineering study for the project and one creating a fund to save money for the proposed construction and starting it with a $100,000 appropriation.
x
Community center seems on fast track in Moultonborough
March 13, 2008
Editor, The Citizen:
Saturday, March 15, 2008 at the Moultonborough Town Meeting voters will be considering Article 9 ($375,000) and Article 10 ($100,000) for a “community/senior center” recreation complex. Jointly promoted by the Recreation Department and public school personnel, it was originally represented as being years in the future but has since been on the fast track and heavily advertised. A petition presented to the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen on January 31 has become a critical selling point for their demand of immediate funding. There is information you need to know about this petition.
The minutes of that meeting state that the petition totaled 300 voters and the petition’s spokesman stated the purpose was to finalize the plan. The result was the 300 signatures apparently influenced a majority of the Selectmen to reverse their position and instead support the proposal. There are problems.
There never were 300 names, only 264. If all legitimate, this is less than 7% of the registered voters in Moultonborough. According to the latest Voter List for Moultonborough, they were not all legitimate.
|
 | ||||||||||||
Among the key issues residents of many communities decided on Tuesday was whether or not to switch to the Official Ballot Act, otherwise known as Senate Bill 2 (SB2), instead of traditional town and school district meetings.
The format failed to garner the three-fifths majority in Meredith and Moultonborough but passed in Belmont.
SB2 replaces a town or school district meeting — usually occurring on the same day or after voting day — with a deliberative session taking place 30 days before.
The referendum requires a three-fifths (60 percent) majority affirmative vote of all ballots cast in order to pass.
Editor, The Citizen: This is in response to Mr. Howard's letter, of March 5th, entitled "Reasons to support new Community Center."
Mr. Howard, said in his opening statement that "accurate information is critical to making good decisions in any circumstances including the exercise to one's right to vote." Mr. Howard is correct. We do need accurate information and we're still waiting for the "accurate information" from the Recreational Strategic Planning Team in order to make that decision on March 15th.
One issue that keeps resurfacing is the wetlands, on the "Lion's Club" property, a problem which is evident and acknowledged by the surrounding abutters. Drainage, runoff and mold can be complicated and expensive issues to
Letters to the Editor - 2/18/07
Editor, The Citizen:
The Town of Moultonborough will benefit in many ways from the establishment of a modern, well-equipped Community/Senior Center. Those benefits will spread into every aspect of our town's population from young children to active and less active seniors. There has been opposition to the community center by a few vocal people, but I am willing to bet all our residents will enjoy some aspects of the center. I will not repeat the multitude of benefits derived from a community center as they have been extensively articulated in the committee's report and presentations to the Selectmen.
I retired with my family here in the summer of 2006. I have two children in the public school system and a pre-schooler. Previous to our move we vacationed in Moultonborough. My support is not based on a fiscal whim or that of an emotional stance, but rather from a position of need in all our lives here in Moultonborough. I have been very fortunate with my business successes to allow my family the opportunity to retire and live in probably one of the most beautiful regions in the country. We have great natural resources for tourism, our schools perform very well and our services are held in high regard given the small size of our full-time population. We need to continually look forward as a town to keep Moultonborough as a great place to raise families and to retire.
Our town is facing a critical juncture as to what we will leave our residents for the next 20 years. We all have concerns with the present state of the economy, the cost of housing, and a tax system that relies on property valuations. We have little or no commercial tax base to supplement our residential tax base and the uncertainty of statewide education funding puts further pressure into the equation. The solution at this time is NOT to starve the community of a key component that takes a major step toward enhancing our town's quality of life.
The community center will bring greater value to our town, our full-time and part-time residents, and visitors. This multi-generational facility will be a key factor in further establishing Moultonborough as a town where people want to live. People desire to be in towns/cities with good schools, amenities, and services. If we fail to continually add value to our town and enhance people's quality of life we will degrade our property values and lose our residents. It is evident throughout history in towns/cities that let their municipal facilities and services degrade, businesses move out, property values decline, and recovery often never happens. I applaud our town and your efforts to date with key investments in the Town Hall, Library, Life Safety Building and the High School. These have been very high value yielding investments by us that have moved Moultonborough into a "great town to live in" category.
The Community/Senior Center provides, in my mind, the glue to bring the entire community together with a variety of activities and social offerings geared for virtually all age brackets. This should be our next investment in our town. We do not have shopping malls, activity centers, senior programs, pre-school activities, teen centers, etc. where we can participate in social or physical activities as readily as other towns and cities. The result will be a better place to live, a higher quality of life and a town whose valuation will continue to be sustained/grow even in challenging economic times. Please realize we need to gather around and support this community center in the best interest of all the residents here in Moultonborough.
John St. Amand
Moultonborough
www.citizen.com March 7, 2008
Editor, The Citizen:
A letter from Suzane Fullerton appeared in the Laconia Citizen on Tuesday March 3rd promoting a yes vote on Article 9 of Moultonborough's 2008 Warrant. This particular article will authorize at least $375,000 to determine (per the Selectmen Minutes) just how much a new Recreation Center, oops I mean Community Recreation Center, oops again, I mean Community/Recreation/Senior Center will actually cost. I do not know the letter writer and I acknowledge her personal point of view and opinion, but I must respond and comment on some issues raised. 1. This proposed project was never primarily a Senior Center. Senior Center was tacked on to make the tax cost more palatable to the aging public. 2. Our current Selectmen voted the proposal down for 2008 due the uncertain economic times we live in and many pressing priorities in our town. 3. Our current Selectmen reversed their position by placing Article 9 on the ballot authorizing $375,000 as they were "so impressed" by the 300 petitioners who requested spending our tax dollars for a project supposedly put on hold. This despite the fact that only 25 of the signatures were actually verified as valid (as required by law). 4. I feel for the writer's situation with her mother-in-law being a winter shut in. She also makes it sound like living here in Moultonborough is akin to living at the North Pole. Nothing here for her? Nonsense. I fail to understand though how a new community center would affect the winter weather as "she was afraid to drive in winter". Did she live next door to the current Lions Club? My mother just moved in with us this past summer (she is 80 years old) and it has been challenging for her to get around. I sure wish I could afford to buy her a place in Florida. She would love it. In fact, I would love to afford to live in Florida for the winter. 5. The writer stated that the RSPT "has not been intimidated" and "continues to move forward in their quest to give the town the simple opportunity to vote". Intimidated by whom? The public that has many questions and worries about rising cost of living here in our little town? Also, there is no warrant article voting on a community center, Article 9 is authorizing a trust fund to determine cost if ( and a big if) the current proposal is to be built. Let me conclude by saying that in writing this response, I do not oppose a community center. The problem which the RSPT and a vocal minority can't seem to grasp is that we want further study to find a solution that we can all truly afford, not just the well off. My final word on this is how about putting that $375,000 into some local transport system so seniors could safely get out and about. Now that would make sense.
Linda N. Punturieri
Moultonborough, NH 03254
Moultonborough Selectman
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: community center—
I am unable to attend the meeting on the 13th,but I would like for you to read this email at the meeting,so that all can hear my questions and concerns about the community center.
It seems like after attending past meetings, that the recreation dept is pushing for the community center more then any other group.
If what they are looking for is so urgent and in their minds needed-have they heard about ways other recreation departments in towns get money?, such as running fund raisers, instead of asking for tax money? My feelings are that they are being one sided and not thinking about the impact on the total community.
Being part of a sports minded family all my life and having a daughter involved in sports over the last 30 years, who has been coaching high school volleyball for 20 years and my son-in -law for 15 years, who is currently a college coach, I have had several discussions with them concerning their requests for recreation improvements both in the community and school systems.
The point I would like to make on this subject is that what I have found about both of them, is that they always wanted the best for their kids, which I can not fault them, have always had a hit list longer then my arm, of what they would like for improvements to their programs. This is the nature of their positions, which again I cannot, fault.
They have always put the community first and their requests second and I don't think that this is being done by our recreation dept in Moultonborough.
The town that I came from in Ma. had 4000 kids in the school system with 6 gyms-that's an average of about 670 kids per facility.
The town of Moultonborough has around 650 kids in the system -2 gyms-that's an average of 325 kids per facility.
My question is do we need another gym?- my answer would be no. Not at this time.
The additional ball fields I won't agree or disagree with- but would like to say lets first get a true cost and time frame to improving what we have first. I also truly believe that if we put our mind to it, our current fields at the playground can be redone and ready for use in less then 2 years and for the two years make some adjustments to our programs.
Lastly, what is being said about a small increase to our taxes may be small to people in the 6 figure category, its a lot different to a senior on a fixed income getting a social security check for 700.00 dollars per month.Lets look after the people that make up a large majority of the year around residents-our seniors.
It is my hope that we put this project on the back burner at this time and move on, and use our energies to improve and work with what this great town,( with little debt}, of Moultonborough has today.
Respectively
Joe Quaresima
March 1, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: The Friends of Recreation in Moultonborough have published a misinformative brochure hawking the benefits of their project "The Community/Senior Center". Readers and fellow citizens of Moultonborough, there is very little accurate or real information in this document.
The truth? The projected tax impacts are purposely misleading and grossly underestimated, designed to sway public opinion. They state the annual operating cost for this center will be $208,000 per year. This despite the fact that the current 2007 budget for the Recreation Department is more than $350,000! In fine print, you will see net operating costs "adjusted for anticipated revenues." That means this project which they would have us pay dearly with our hard earned tax dollars will not be free for the citizens of Moultonborough to use once built. They don't mention how much this will be despite the fact that they seem to have it all laid out in the brochure.
Please voters, think of the seniors and others on fixed and low incomes that would like to see their tax bills go down and not up. Let's find a way to build a Community Center that is affordable.
Lastly, I would like to know who paid for this brochure? I certainly hope it was not paid for with Recreation Department funds.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
Moultonborough's state senator said he would oppose any proposal to make Moultonborough and other towns into donor towns in education funding while giving taxpayers a primer on how the proposed funding bills would impact the town.
District 3 Sen. Joe Kenney appeared before the Board of Selectmen during Thursday's meeting to give residents a view of the current educational funding proposal in the state house amid resident concerns of the impact returning to the status of a donor town would have.
|
By Rep. Anne-Marie Irwin |
My committee, a joint effort between the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee and the House Finance Committee, has been working on a bill that would make some changes to the state retirement system. The bill is non-partisan; it has sponsors from both parties. So at the State House, where even deciding whether to break for lunch can arouse bitter partisan squabbling, the retirement system bill should be a slam dunk. Everyone agrees the system needs fixing. All we have to do is reconcile some conflicting points of view. For instance:
— A 91-year-old retired teacher in a wheelchair told us that she's having trouble living on her $700-a-month pension. The problem is that the pension is largely calculated on the salary she was making when she retired 35 years ago.
— Some unsmiling, gray-suited auditors told us that the pension fund has $5.96 billion but it needs $9.25 billion to be on track to provide all the future benefits. They said the UAAL — that's the unfunded actuarial accrued liability — is $2.6 billion. They used the same tone of voice a doctor might use in telling you a loved one needs to be rushed to the intensive care unit.
www.citizens.com printed 3-6-2008
Chance to lower taxes
Editor, The Citizen: The Moultonborough Selectmen have stated that our town budget for this coming year is only 1% higher than last year. Nice work but the town of Sandwich is 6% lower than last year. There is no reason why Moultonborough's taxes couldn't be lowered by sensible spending. If this town stops spending on certain capital expenditures this year, our town tax portion would be lowered by about 18%.
There are four big ticket items. Article 9 is for $375,000 for the Recreation Complex. Article 10 is $100,000 to be put in reserve for this Recreation Complex. Article 12 is 392,000 for this town's portion to rebuild Ossipee Park Road. Article 15 ,which includes $400,000 for an unidentified Municiple Building. Article 15 should be amended at Town Meeting to reduce it by $400,000.
This $1,267,000 deduction in these Capital Expenditures in our Town Budget will reduce our taxes by 18%, not too shabby.
Let the townspeople show up Saturday, March 15, 2008, at 9:00 A.M. to vote on sensible spending. At the same time lower the Town portion of our taxes by 18%. Show up and make your concerns over our out of control spending be heard. Let your voice be heard by your vote .
Al Hume
Moultonborough
| |||
| |||
| February 14, 2008 To the Editor: I am writing to express my concern about the recent petitioned warrant article to appropriate funds for a "proposed" community center. The appropriation as I understand it is for $375,000 for architectural, engineering, and other related fees for the construction of a community/senior center with fields and other outdoor improvements on the Lions Club property. This represents (per the petition I assume) 8 percent of the construction costs anticipated for this (non) project. | |||
|
January 7, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: In the course of the RSPT to move forward with their effort of a large, very expensive list of improvements and new construction projects in Moultonborough, there has been a loud outcry from those that are in opposition to this excess. That opposition ranges from the quality of the site for Recreation Center, to the $5 million-plus price tag of that portion of the list, to the $180,000 for two outside toilets, to the "mandate" that was assumed by the vote at the late night Town Meeting last year that represented less than 10 percent of those eligible to vote, and to the misreading of the Master Plan Survey results of 2006.
The Selectmen announced that they would like to hear comments from "both sides of the issue but did not want to hear from the same people with the same points over and over". (I have paraphrased their comments) For the past several weeks they have heard from both sides. Occasionally, discussion was passionate and spirited. However, trying to keep to the facts and not wanting to take the arguments or the tone of the discussion to a personal level, those in opposition to the RSPT Report used information from the report itself, the Master Plan Survey, as well as from minutes of various meetings as their sources. When discussing facts that were contrary to the information that was put forth by the RSPT Report, words such as 'misunderstanding', 'spin', 'respectfully disagree', or 'respectfully correct' were used by those responding to the Selectmen's invitation. Many of the speakers, in fact most all of them, opened by stating that they appreciated the enormous work effort done by the RSPT. The only time I heard the words "lies" or "misinformation" it sadly came from one of the Selectmen and was directed at those in opposition of the Report.
There have also been many shouts of "negativism". Enough already! Reasonable people can disagree. There would not be much point in stating a point of view or one's opinion if we all had to be so "P.C." that we should sit on our hands if what we had to say might disagree with someone else. I for one am disappointed in those folks that are so offended by the open discussion over this huge public spending issue. We are not playing "no score soccer" here. We are spending taxpayer money, and in this case, lots of taxpayer money.
A petitioned warrant article to appropriate funds for a proposed community center was given to the selectmen with 300 signatures.
Tom Howard, the chair of the Recreational Strategic Planning Team, gave the petition to the board during Thursday night's weekly board meeting.
The petition calls for the appropriation of $375,000 for architectural, engineering, and other related fees for the construction of a community/senior center with fields and other outdoor improvements on the Lion's Club property.

This letter was read at the December 27, 2007, Selectmen’s Meeting
DEC 2 7 2007
To the Selectmen of The town of Moultonborough,
I would like to commend the Recreation Committee for all their work. They've put in a great deal of time and effort in identifying recreational facilities and programs in Town that need attention and have given us a splendid overview on where we stand. However, I think their enthusiasm has generated a plan that needs much reworking. Let's let the new Master Plan review tell us what's really needed not wanted before going further.
It has been suggested that we needn't worry, there's no problem paying for this entire project because we have all this assessed property to pay for it. I'm sorry, but assessed property doesn't pay taxes, people do. All town taxpayers would have to pay; resident taxpayers who are the more likely ones to use these facilities and non-resident taxpayers who are less likely users.
Some 12 to 15 years ago I was at a Town Meeting when a discussion was being held on a proposal we residents needed or wanted that would be significantly paid for by people who probably had no use for it and would have no recourse to object - our non-resident taxpayers. They just have the questionable pleasure of helping to pay for it.
At that meeting a gentleman, Bob foster, spoke to the issue. Bob served the town well in several capacities and also represented us in the legislature in Concord. I can't remember his exact words but their meaning was; hadn't we already taken enough advantage of the non-resident taxpayers, let's give these people a break. These people being taxed without representation. Here, I thought is a man with a conscience. We would probably not have the one town school system/SAU we have today with it's huge budget without this unique taxing situation.
As Bob said, let's give them a break - and me too.
Robert Damarell
SB 491 – AS INTRODUCED
2008 SESSION
10/09
SENATE BILL 491
This bill prohibits the appraisal of a property for property tax purposes from using the value of the view.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
08-2852
10/09
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eight
AN ACT excluding the value of a view from property tax assessments.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Appraisal Of Taxable Property; Full and True Value; View Excluded. Amend RSA 75:1 to read as follows:
75:1 How Appraised. The selectmen shall appraise open space land pursuant to RSA 79-A:5, open space land with conservation restrictions pursuant to RSA 79-B:3, land with discretionary easements pursuant to RSA 79-C:7, residences on commercial or industrial zoned land pursuant to RSA 75:11, earth and excavations pursuant to RSA 72-B, and all other taxable property at its market value. Market value means the property’s full and true value as the same would be appraised in payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor, provided, however that full and true value shall not consider any value of a scenic view or other view external to a property. The selectmen shall receive and consider all evidence that may be submitted to them relative to the value of property, the value of which cannot be determined by personal examination.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect April 1, 2008.
March 8, 2008
SB2 and the transformation back to majority rule.
The
The early Congregational Church also gave us the notion of Town. The New England town is the essential unit of local government here in
It is especially significant to point out that there was no idea of separation of Church and State and quite to the contrary the meeting and Town government were adjuncts of the Calvin styled Congregational Church.
The current Town Government and Town Meeting are a direct historical hand down of our Congregational ancestry here in
Along with the inherited desired effects of “majority rule” also came the “dark-side” of the ecclesia and the power of the majority. Alexander Tocqueville, an early French commenter on the American experience put it best in his commentaries on the American Democracy:
“In
Simply put expressing your opinion can subject you to persecution, humiliation, and exile.
The town of Moltonborough has many challenges ahead as we face uncertain times. Some challenges are beyond our control, but many are within our ability to affect and change in positive ways. I believe that government needs to live within it’s means, and has a responsibility to be accountable to the people it serves. With the cost of living increasing dramatically due to higher fuel costs and increases in state and federal tax’s. There are many people in our town that are struggling just to make ends meet and provide for their family and save for their future. Local government has an obligation to control spending while meeting the needs of the community. I have the experience needed to help lead our town through these times. When we face challenges together as a community and neighbors we will succeed.
6 HOLLAND STREET
PO BOX 139
MOULTONBOROUGH, NH 03254
Selectmen’s Meeting March 6, 2008
DRAFT
MINUTES
Present: Selectmen: Karel A. Crawford, Edward J. Charest, James F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett, Betsey L. Patten; Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator, Hope K. Kokas, Office Secretary.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Karel called the meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. REVIEW/APPROVE MINUTES: Betsey Made the Motion to approve the Minutes of February 28 , 2008 as written. Ed Seconded. The Motion carried Unanimously.
IV. NEW RESIDENTS: None.
V. PUBLIC MEETING:
1. Recreational Advisory Board: Carla Taylor, representing the Recreational Advisory Board, presented the Selectmen with the RAB’s monthly report. She stated that they have just had a working session and received public input. Ms. Taylor stated that they have had some success with setting up protocol for the meetings, but continue to struggle with communicating back to the public. The RAB is requesting information from the Selectmen concerning the Senior Needs Committee. They would like to know if the Selectmen authorized the Committee, its purpose, the mission statement and if they are independent of the Recreation Department. Karel recalled that the Senior Needs Committee was formed at least six years ago and were charged to identify the needs and to locate a building/place to conduct activities. Initially the Committee was awarded a grant and they developed a vision of a building for the Town’s seniors to conduct activities in. She speculated that once the grant money ran out not much occurred after that. Karel added that she is unaware how often the Committee meets as
| |||
To the Editor: Three high quality people have answered the challenge! Moultonboro Moderator Mel Borrin presented a challenge of sorts, while at the same time condemning those that vote "behind the voting booth curtain," that those who truly care about their town should run for office. We have heard similar words of admonishment from the two incumbent selectmen. Their take is (or has been since the filing dead line has closed for town offices) that "we don't need SB2…you elect us and we represent you" is how the chairman puts it, I believe. Well when it comes to the flip flop that they pulled off this month with respect to the Recreation Center issue, this observer, for one, cannot rely on them to "represent me" anymore. | |||
|
Editor, The Citizen: I would like to echo the words of a very expressive letter I recently read from Mr. Anthony Alibrio of Moultonborough. This effort for SB2 is not just in Moultonborough. Obviously those of us in Moultonborough want this voting initiative for our own hamlet among the hills. However, as the question of caring for one's place of residence while enjoying the warmer climes in retirement has come to the front from comments made by the Selectmen's Chair Karel Crawford it is now necessary to transcend town lines a bit. Assuming that Ms. Crawford will, at some point in time, retire from her political and vocational duties and perhaps desire to stay in a place that offers warm outdoor activity in the winter, or cool ocean breezes year round for longer than what we call "vacation"; should we then challenge her loyalty for the Lakes Region and the roots she has established here? Perhaps we should put her in that class she has attempted to establish by her callous and unfeeling comments; "you can't tell me a person who spends six months away really cares what goes on here." (Selectmen's hearing on SB2)
Editor, The Citizen: The boys at my weekly breakfast outing wanted to know what the real advantages of SB-2 were. I told them I was the luckiest guy in the world because I lived in Meredith where the food is good, dining out excellent, and whether you own a vacation home or condominium you own a piece of paradise. However, even in this spectacular New England town, there is one irresistible opportunity to make our town government better by voting Yes for the SB-2 initiative. The timing is right to show support for the long struggle for democratic voting.
|
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
| March 06, 2008 MOULTONBORO — In the wake of several charged meetings, three men have stepped forward to announce their intention to run as write-in candidates for the previously uncontested races of selectmen and moderator – Jim Castleberry, Al Hume, and Gary Torressen. Castleberry is running for the office of moderator, held by current Moderator Mel Borrin, and Hume and Torressen run for the two selectmen's seats held by Chairman Karel Crawford and Ed Charest. After recent selectmen's meetings and public hearings for the school and town, Castleberry, Hume, and Torressen said they were disturbed by the tone and actions of the current officials and now seek their seats. "I was very concerned that the tone and accusations leveled at the citizenry were not moderate," said Castleberry. "The tone of discourse has gotten ugly, and it pits citizen against citizen." | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
We don't have too many endorsements to make this year, because of so few uncontested races, but we'll weigh in with our opinion where we can, especially on the topic of experience. Meredith Meredith's got a difficult choice to make in its selectmen race; both Chuck Palm and Jim Waldron would make excellent selectmen, and fine additions to the board. Both have served in town government, and both have the experience, the know-how, and the understanding of the region to be highly-contributing members of the Meredith Board of Selectmen. In the end, though, it's Palm's departmental experience that convinces us to give him our vote. Still, whoever wins on March 11, Meredith can rest easy knowing that a good man will join the board. Sandwich In the race between Leo Dwyer and Randy Hilman for the Board of Selectmen, we're going to have to give Hilman our vote. It's no secret that to understand Sandwich, you have to really live in it, and gather some history on it, just to begin scratching the surface. With some substantial budgetary decisions coming up in the near future, experience and understanding of Sandwich's deepest wants and needs is a necessity, and the person who can best speak to that, we feel, is Hilman. We'd like to add that, whoever wins the election, we'd like to see Sandwich's roads fixed. Rural atmosphere is one thing, tire realignment is quite another. Moultonboro Three candidates have stepped forward as write-ins in order to challenge Moderator Mel Borrin and Selectmen Karel Crawford and Ed Charest in their formerly uncontested campaigns - Castleberry for moderator, and Al Hume and Gary Torressen for selectmen. Though we like to see a contested race instead of an uncontested one, we're going to have to go with the incumbents this time. The decision to campaign should be proactive, not reactionary. |
| |||
| |||
| March 06, 2008 To the Editor: With so much attention in Moultonboro focused on the controversial Community Center project and the possible change of our form of government to SB2, many voters might be unaware that there are four proposed zoning amendments on the warrant as well. |
www.citizen.com March 5, 2008
Editor, The Citizen:
The commentary from Michael Lancor highlights the critical need in Moultonborough for real change. He mentioned a number of facts and provided information to support his position opposing SB2 for Moultonborough. Many in our town are aware that he is the Superintendent of the Moultonborough School District (whose school board has decided to take a public position opposing SB2 in Moultonborough) . Many are also aware that he is the President of the Moultonborough Lions Club, a focal point in the very spirited debate on the future use of that property as a Community Recreation Center. Not mentioning those positions in his letter is somewhat disingenuous. He is certainly entitled to his own personal opinion, but look at the stark contrast to the Superintendent and School Board of the Inter-Lake's school district. They decided correctly not to take a position on SB2 saying it is a political not an educational issue. Bravo to them! How disappointing to not have the same sort of statesmanship and leadership here in Moultonborough. What a lesson for his students that would have been, one that puts the public interest ahead of personal. One cannot help but be drawn to the conclusion that in his various capacities he has a vested interest in keeping SB2 out of Moultonborough and promoting the funding of a very expensive Community Center.
In his letter he referenced The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. Mr. Lancor's statements such as the "Center warns us" is meant to give the reader the impression that the Center is opposed to SB2 when in fact they do not take any position and are vigorously bipartisan. "The Center will publicly refute any assertion, whether implicit or explicit, that it has endorsed a policy proposal of any campaign" and in respect to SB2 "The Center takes no position on the issue" as emphatically stated on their website.
He states in the last paragraph that ( in Town Meetings) "voters are guaranteed to vote on budgets as prepared by the Select board and School Board without concern about proposed budgets being controlled by small unelected coalitions during deliberative sessions". Wow. Well, as a member of the "small unelected coalition" ( better known to everyone else as taxpaying citizens of Moultonborough who vote), I am shocked.
I would have preferred to see school officials and board members keep their personal biases out of the public discourse as Inter-Lakes did and focus on doing their jobs.
Does Mr. Lancor believe that there isn't a small group of people already in control of our town and that they do not want to lose that control?
Lastly, here is a real fact from the NH Center for Public Policy not mentioned in his letter. Of the 69 SB2 School Districts in NH, none have rescinded SB2. Not a single one.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
www.citizen.com March 5, 2008
Editor, The Citizen:
I find it very ironic that at the same Moultonborough Selectmen's Meeting where the Selectmen were stating the reasons why the Town should not vote for SB2 they were planning to close the Town Dump & Library so that the employees could attend the Town Meeting. If Moultonborough were an SB2 town this would not be necessary. They could vote at any time from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.
How convenient that the Town can close facilities for Town Meeting. What other businesses can afford to close so that their employees can attend the Meeting?
The non-resident taxpayer may want to use these facilities on the morning of March 15. What service does his tax dollar get him?
In closing let me mention that I am a year round resident of Moultonborough. Otherwise according to the town officials my opinion wouldn't matter.
Jim Morrison
Moultonborough
A group of residents will be running for town positions in write-in campaigns created amid frustration with the town's response to efforts on behalf of the Official Ballot Act and other issues.
Residents Jim Castleberry, Al Hume and Gary Torressen submitted a letter to the town inquiring about the procedure on voting as write-in candidates. Hume and Torressen will seek the two positions on the Board of Selectmen up for vote and Castleberry will pursue the position of town moderator.
