Recently in SB2 Category
The Laconia Daily Sun May 23rd, 2008
Letter to the Editor:
The Moultonboro Selectmen recently decided to hold their meetings on the second and fourth Thursday’s during the month of June rather than weekly. Selectman Ed Charest was quoted as saying that the agendas are usually lighter in the summer months, so it makes sense to have fewer meetings.
He further stated that, ‘It could be a good thing. My reading folder is so thick each week. I hate coming here and making decisions with material I haven’t even had time to think about’, as quoted in the Meredith News.
I have to wonder just what he is implying buy such a statement. Is he saying that he is not fully informed when he is voting on how the town spends it's tax dollars? One might conclude that he may be following the votes of his fellow selectmen and not voting being fully informed himself of this issues set before the committee.
This is not unlike the tendency to follow the flow as it may be for many folks at Town Meeting. The idea of not voting along with the majority is intimidating to people at Town Meetings, that’s why SB2 is so important.
Linda Punturieri
Moultonboro, NH
The Citizen May 20th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: The selectmen just don't get it. At the May 15th selectmen's meeting they refused to read into the minutes a letter to them that was asked to be "read not summarized" in their usual manner. It was then barely summarized, after some rather condescending comments by the chair. It is a sad note when a taxpayer cannot have a note read into the minutes of a selectmen's meeting because it is in disagreement with them.
The letter that caused her disdain was one that challenged the issue of closing all town facilities for Town Meeting Day. On the surface, closing these facilities to allow all town employees to go to Town Meeting would seem a noble effort, at the very least. However, let's take a deeper look at this inane endeavor. If the town proceeds with this false nobility, as they have firmly stated, they will close all facilities "except emergency services". Well where does that leave those that would use the waste management facility? "Go another day" was their firm take. What if the working stiff only has that one day to go? Those non-citizen taxpayers that are forking over the lion's share of our taxes may have something to say when they are refused access to that facility before they want to return to their residences south of here.
How will they manage the "fairness to all employees" issues? Those that will be working are being paid… are those that are taking the forced day off being paid? If not is this to replace their regular day off; or do they just lose that day's pay? If they are getting the day off to go to Town Meeting, will there be a roll call of those employees to assure that this farce is successful? If they are getting paid and they are expected to go to the meeting could this be perceived as collusion for a supportive vote?
Let's jump to the private sector. How do we handle those would-be voters that work on Saturdays for businesses in the area? In this Orwellian World would we expect to see those employees get that day off by edict of the Moultonborough Fiefdom town fathers? Or should all businesses in town be ordered closed for that day? Rather strong you may say. Well the comment was made, seconded and reaffirmed (in a letter answering the protesting citizen) that "town meeting is a part of this town and everyone should be in attendance". We know what they think of those retirees that are enjoying the warmer climes in the south when Town Meeting is being called to order. "Those people that spend months away in the winter don't care what happens in Moultonborough". (Note to Moultonborough retirees: be sure to get your "permission slip" from the selectmen before you head south)
This is not about the good town employees who I think should be able to vote on all town issues. No, this is about all registered voters that should be allowed the same right. The selectmen can't have it both ways. Maintaining the "functionally obsolete" town meeting form of voting but disenfranchising all except town employees (and not all of them… remember "emergency services") is duplicitous, disingenuous and discriminatory. This "noble" effort is no more than a ploy to sidestep the real issue. SB2 is the only fair way to serve all voters and be nonprejudiced to those that are otherwise unable to comply with the demand of the selectmen that we "be in attendance".
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
The Citizen May 10th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: I would like to commend Paul Dascoulias for his letter to the editor, of May 7th, addressing the intimidation experienced at Sanbornton's town meeting. I understand his plight as it is similar to what some towns encounter if they do not have the SB2 form of government.
As a matter of interest, petitions were circulated, which RSA 40 allows, in Moultonborough for secret ballots for seven warrants, most were $100,000 or more, for the Town Meeting this past March. Some people blamed the resulting voting delay on citizens that backed the SB2 plan for Moultonborough. The real fact is that citizens from both sides of the SB2 issue signed the same petitions for the privacy of the vote and it had nothing to do with intentionally delaying the meeting. It is puzzling to me what all the fuss is about when it comes to voting by secret ballot. We vote by secret ballot in the local, state and national elections.
The beauty of SB2 is the 30 day "cooling" off period between the deliberative session and the actual ballot, giving the voters the opportunity to think about, research and speak with others about the intent and ramifications of each warrant article and especially any amendments. There is no pressure to make an immediate decision or be swayed by a clever on the spot argument that may present only one side of the issue. The polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. giving everyone a chance to participate and allows for absentee ballots for those unable to be present on ballot day. It's a fact that more citizens participate in the process when they are able to vote at the polls vs. a town meeting.
SB2 encourages more voter participation, isn't that what democracy is all about?
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
The Citizen May 10th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: As Sanbornton voters goes to their town meeting next week, participants should be aware that the right for secret ballots for any articles voted on during the town meeting is prescribed by State Law: "RSA40. Government of Town Meeting. At any meeting of a town with a population of more than 500, 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. Upon receiving such a request, the moderator shall conduct the vote by secret "yes-no" ballot."
While some in attendance may feel this is a delaying tactic, it is not. It is a means to allow a fair vote without intimidation... and it is the law. It should be noted that only the moderator (or designee such as town clerk) has the authority to verify the minimum 5 petitioners, not the audience. Per "40:6 Penalty for Default of presiding officer. Any moderator or other officer presiding who shall willfully neglect or refuse to follow the procedures for voting established in RSA 40 or who shall willfully violate or neglect to enforce any rule of proceeding which shall have been established by vote of the town or otherwise, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
As a proponent of SB2 and therefore full voter participation in government, I support Sanbornton's efforts to get SB2 passed on this years ballot.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
To the editor Laconia Daily Sun May 8th, 2008
On a cold, dark and windy March evening a small group of citizens assembles to participate in what some have called “the purest form of Democracy,” the Town Meeting. The assembly of citizens in small
assembled to discuss the past and the next year’s goings on and then enjoyed a pot luck supper are long gone. Today we routinely fi nd that a small minority of the few thousand citizens in a town show up for the annual Town Meeting. Ten percent, or less, is a good estimate. Are they informed? The presumption of the “traditionalists”seems to be that they are, or will be, once they hear the arguments for and against the various issues to be brought before them at the town meeting. The belief of the “reformists,” or those who support Senate Bill 2, is that there is no way that anyone should be asked to listen to both sides of a debate and make a decision when someone who feels that the “tide” is fl owing in their favor yells: “Call the question.” “Wait a minute, I still have a question,” many say as they look to the left and right confused and concerned. “I don’t understand ...” “Sorry, it doesn’t matter whether you understand or not, .......
The Citizen May 7th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: Sanbornton voters will go to the polls on the 13th of May and assemble for Town Meeting on Wednesday the 14th at 7PM. It looks like, with the proposed budget, taxes will increase significantly. As all who've attended know, Town Meeting, especially in Sanbornton, can be contentious and manipulated by a majority of the few voters that attend. Last year we started the meeting with about 165 of the 2,000 registered voters in town present – very poor attendance.
One of the problems with Town Meeting is intimidation. Any time a vote is due on increasing police or fire budgets, for example, many who oppose the increase are afraid for numerous reasons to raise their hands. Last year several ballot votes were requested on such issues. Ballot votes are permitted under the law when requested in writing by 5 voters in attendance and allow people to vote their consciences in secret and without fear of intimidation. A number of people at last year's meeting were outraged and incensed that, although due process, these ballot votes were in their minds slowing down the meeting. In fact, the meeting was totally turned on end by people yelling that they wanted to know who signed the requests for ballot votes as if to say: "How dare they?" Once names of ballot vote requestors were made known some even proceeded to verbally assault them. Their effort to intimidate failed.
This year there will again be ballot votes requested. These votes will be requested by five voters who will be in attendance for the duration of the meeting. Anyone attending the Sanbornton Town Meeting should be prepared for such. This is not an effort to slow the meeting down, but to allow people to make their decisions on sensitive issues privately, just like they do in the voting booth on Election Day.
We could eliminate all this. If we voted in Senate Bill 2 (SB2), The Official Ballot Referendum, we would have Town Meeting (the Deliberative Session) just like we do now with the moderator working through the warrant. Discussion and amendments would occur, just like now. Voting would take place a couple of weeks later by ballot in the privacy of a booth. This would allow time to mull over/ discuss issues and eliminate having to vote while there are still unanswered questions. It would also remove the intimidation factor.
Peter Dascoulias
Sanbornton
A letter writer from Sanbornton wrote a letter published in Friday’s edition of your paper regarding SB2 and asking voters to turn it down. The “facts” stated in the letter are completely erroneous. She said that voters in Sanbornton have a “chance to affirm our town meeting form of government by rejecting SB2.” False. SB2 is a form of Town Meeting that separates discussion from voting. That’s all. She goes on to state that “SB-2 includes the idea of holding debate and amending warrant articles on one night and then voting on these warrant articles a week or two later.” False. All warrant articles are discussed and amended during the Deliberative Session. Voting on those articles takes place 30 days later during Election Day. Voters now have 30 days to review and understand articles. During Town Meetings, the amendments are coming at the participants in such a manner that may be confusing and not well understood. Voters need to make a rapid decision without time to review the issues. She also stated that “Officials from other towns tell of having articles amended beyond recognition the first night resulting in an uninformed electorate voting on those articles at the later second meeting.”. False again. There have been few incidents of this occurring. In fact the opposite is true. The sky is not falling due to SB2. The reality is that no school districts and only three (3) towns have rescinded SB2. Of those towns, two (2) were tiny with budgets less than $500,000. Lastly, many votes are disenfranchised by Town Meetings as they cannot get there due to work, illness or even military service. Under SB2 their votes count. A vote for SB2 is a vote for more inclusive participation in local government. The only change under SB2 is when and how you vote. Everything else remains the same.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
March 12th, 2008 Email to the Selectmen
I am addressing this message to the attention of Mr. Charest and Mrs. Crawford.
Congratulations on your reelection. Your service is appreciated whether or not we are in agreement.
Since we use secret ballot to elect town officers, you have no way to know how and why I voted but I would like you to know that I did not vote for either one of you and why.
The reason? I think you did not act in the Town's best interest in endorsing the expenditure of $375,000 to cost out the athletic facilities/community center/senior center project (in that order) that the people of Moultonborugh have not yet agreed they want. I'm so old I think $375,000 is a h--l of a lot of money. At several Selectman's meetings leading up to the hearing when you gave your approval to this article, you stated many reasons why this is inopportune at this time. You heard them all, and agreed with many - too much money, rising taxes, school funding impact, retirement benefits costs, and on and on. However you finally stated that you were so impressed that 300 people had signed a warrant article that you decided to support it. If you indeed feel that the wants of 300 people is in the best interest of the 4500 inhabitants of the Town after you had such misgivings before the 300 (voters?) came forward, I say your thinking is wrong for the Town. The voting almost approving SB2 and the 353 write-in votes against the two of you demonstrates that I am not alone.
End of rant. My request is that on Saturday, Town Meeting Day, you will do the right thing and recant your approval of this warrant article.
Yours Respectfully,
Robert Damarell
www.LaconiaDailySun.Com April 9th, 2008
To the editor,
The traditional Town Meeting is not a hiding place for backward antiquated thought. People, like Mr. Horne and Ms. Pam Finer are offering advice on improving Meredith’s government and some folks just don’t understand the advantages of SB-2. The public’s perception is that if truth has fair play it will always prevail over falsehood. The public, up to a point, is gifted with a charitable bent. But let us not be mistaken, through God’s grace they possess a mesmerizing charisma and charitable nature. They are forgiving until they become fed up with rhetoric which stokes up a controversy about how the town’s gentry know more than they. Mr. Obadiah Plainman 11 a recently resurrected gentlemen told me that one should listen carefully when the better sort of people tell you that they know more about what is good for you; this method of government leads to dictatorship and that can be upsetting. When a certain individual implies that the folk in the street are the mobs or the rabble, heads rise. Well I enjoy being and am proud to be the “rabble”. My breakfast friends enjoy being the “rabble for freedom” and detest hearing that there are folks out there that style themselves as a “better sort” or imply that the common folks are a stupid herd. The common citizenries, the “poor ordinary folk” work hard to meet their responsibilities and pay their property taxes. Cantankerous Yankees get rankled up when someone proclaims themselves to be of the better sort and look at the rest of their neighbors with contempt. Some folks don’t like it when others put on aristocratic airs. We are allergic to snobbery and are proud to be a part of the rabble and a Plainman. It was the “Rabble In Arms” or Continental Army under Gen.
Richard Gunnar Juve
Meredith
www.Laconiadailysun.com April 8th, 2008
To the editor, Mr. Peter Miller promises to study the hybrid “charter” forms of government (allowed to be adopted by towns and cities as set forth in the state Constitution) and share his findings from time to time. What information he will be presenting was already presented in The Laconia Daily Sun on March 24,
2008. The restructuring of local government is stated in state law Title III Chapter 49-B. The forms of government allowed to be adopted are: 1. town council, 2. town council with official ballot, 3. representative town meeting, 4. budgetary town meeting and 5. official ballot town meeting. It was spelled out what they were, and that before any could be voted on by the people the new charter as construed by the charter commission must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of State, Attorney General and commissioner of the Department of Revenue Administration. This process takes at least three years after it is first initiated, and who knows how twisted the meanings written between the lines. What SB-2 offers is rather straight forward and simple, the residents of Meredith will be regaining the right to cast a ballot in deciding articles on the warrant. All the Statutes — RSA’s— are available at the state’s website. Mr. Peter Miller needs to study more that the state statutes, he needs to study history. He has a tendency to construe and present as fact. An instance is his statement on February 14 that Town Meeting is “our direct link to the
achievements of other hybrid forms of local government he can to convince us to keep the form of government we have, instead of allowing all registered voters to vote because that would be the worst thing of all.
G. W. Brooks
Meredith
A response to questions about Moultonborough
April 1st, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: Since Mr. Kim Dubuque wrote an "open letter to me" I must respond and expand on my points in a factual manner. I also must apologize for referring to Kim as "her". We have never met and I just made a wrong gender assumption.
In regards to the secret ballot petitions, you stated: "Could the motivating factor be that you and your core group were trying to make a point? In my opinion you were. I feel you accomplished your goal." The goal was not to make a point. The goal was to assure a fair and equitable means of voting on contentious issues. And yes, on that level it worked. As to your point, "Why were the last two petitions withdrawn"? While it may seem odd that this year there were so many petitions, I was not the only one requesting secret ballots in Moultonboro's Town Meeting. I didn't sign all of them. As for why the last two were withdrawn, I really wouldn't know as I was not one of those that requested that they were withdrawn. Perhaps that can be answered by those that did.
You further stated, "What I think, is that the petitioners became aware of the will of the overwhelming majority in the room and realized that what they were doing caused more harm than good". No. Harm or good were never factored in to the equation. Look at the issues that were on the table. I signed the secret ballot petitions that I felt strongly about. Period. Others did the same. I would tend to doubt that they withdrew the petitions as they were "swayed by the overwhelming majority" as evidenced by dwindling volume of voters after the community center vote.
As to the volunteers, you stated, "Another point I would like to make is I find your insinuation that the citizens who circulated and presented the petition for the community center intentionally inflated or sought out non registered voters to sign it, at the very least offensive. Anyone who knows the people involved with this project knows them to be hardworking and well intended members of our community". The point that was finally made successfully by voting down the $375,000 study funding is that most agree that a community center is worthwhile. The RSPT however drew a line in the sand and never looked for a middle ground. It was all or nothing and a very valuable lesson learned as evidenced by the new strategy of this team to think about how to phase this out and make it more palatable for the public. I have no doubt that those involved in any of the projects on any of the committees works hard. That was never an issue for me. I commend them for their hard work. I commend the selectmen for doing the jobs that they do. The issue I have is when they are swayed by a petition that is one third invalid and never thought it relevant. The RSPT and supporters continually referred to the opposition as a "small vocal minority". Apparently it is not.
As for your last issue, "I would also like to address Mrs. Punturieri comments about our select board. It is easy to accuse using generalizations. For those accusations to be plausible you need to use facts. Knowing the members of our select board, I find it highly unlikely that any of them would publicly ridicule a citizen for speaking his or her mind". I would invite Mr. Dubuque to take a look at some of the film footage of some of the selectmen's meetings available in the library, to view for himself some of the indignities that transpired. They are too numerous to mention and the issues have been decided. Enough said.
Linda Punturieri
Moultonborough
March 26th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: This is a reply to Mr. Tolman's 3/21/2008 letter that questioned my comment about voters feeling "comfortable to express their true feeling" in secret balloting. I have spoken with people that refrain or are reluctant to attend Town Meetings as they are hesitant to openly vote their true feeling because of possible retribution by fellow citizens that see their hand vote or hear their voice vote. That includes business people, parents, etc. I also know people that have attended Town Meetings and stopped voting after a few votes saying, what is the use? Sometimes people feel that way when voice votes seem to be disproportionately louder than the actual number of voters. A vulnerability with the present system is that non registered voters could join in on the voice vote and for that matter the hand vote, but with SB2 that is not an option.
Mr. Tolman made a number of statements and charges in his letter such as "We, as citizens, are not guaranteed or entitled to feeling 'comfortable' in the exercise of our democracy." He apparently finds this to be acceptable in the face of a loud and boisterous opposition and a moderator manning a bully pulpit. It seems to me that Mr. Tolman has no tolerance for true democracy where all votes count and the persons race, creed, loudness of voice or intimidating personality do not matter. Where I do not "have to look one's fellow citizen in the eyes while (voting). "
The answer to his question that " Every major legislative body in our country is held accountable for their individual votes in the public record; would we ask any less of ourselves at the most basic level of self-government?" is a resounding yes! I would ask Mr. Tolman, why do we vote in private for general elections? Why, when we turn in our ballots no one has the right to look it over? I'm not an elected or public official and my right to vote my conscience in private should not be infringed upon by anyone. That is true democracy.
On a more factual note, and for the benefit of the readers, with the SB2 form of government there is a Deliberative Session which is just like the Town Meeting; articles can be debated and amended. The major difference with SB2 is that there is a 30 day waiting period, before voting, that gives voters ample opportunity to read editorials, letters to the editor, talk with others to comprehend any changes made to any articles an yes, even look your fellow citizens in the eye. One then can come to a personal decision on how to vote with a secret ballot.
I believe that debate is a very good thing, but for voting I prefer the ballot box where my vote is between me and my conscience and not between me and my neighbor.
By the way Mr. Tolman, you made one statement that I totally agree with: "SB2, as enacted in our state right now, does not change the fact that we, as voters, have a responsibility to get out and attend an annual meeting where we can discuss and debate the articles before our town."
Vote for SB2
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
April 1st, 2008
To the editor, Laconia Daily Sun:
Two letters in Monday’s Sun need attention; two others speak well for themselves. The one I read fi rst, which Mr. Peter Miller wrote and no, I didn’t do a word count, speaks of fellow citizens as having forked tongues, dastardly ploys, making him pay, ramifications, turkey vultures whispering and circling road kill, as well as slurring neighboring towns people with GilfordGrok banners attached to rear ends and carpetbaggers meddling. I mean like WOW, and Mr. Kahn wants a time out. He also suggests that those for SB-2 are ‘small d democrats’ as opposed to what BIG D DEMOCRATS; I am neither, nor a Republican,party affiliation is not attached to an individuals right to cast a vote. Mr. Kahn’s states that SB-2 opponents want only to continue what has been. If that is true, then why are they suggesting a hybrid form of government? Mr. Miller states that we favor home rule and local control. Perhapshe doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘casting a ballot’. Both writers have something in common though, not reading the state statutes. The worst being Mr. Kahn as he states: “. . . or a group of petitioners die or move away by next February, ...” He is carrying forward a statement made in an earlier March 26th Sun article that the N.H. Secretary of States Offi ce advised the validity of signers residency be checked again in February 09 to determine if everyone (who signed the petition) were still living and living and registered in Meredith. This is the only title, chapter and section in the statutes which speak to petitioned articles. In it one will find no time limitations as the validity of signatories of a petitioned articles accepted by one or more selectman. The Town Clerks duties are to verify the validity of residency at that time. Nothing in the RSA speaks to the petition being able to be rejected because one or more persons died (unintentional or otherwise) or whether they left town willingly (or otherwise). Perhaps in some other state, nation, or time, but not in this state at this time, does a citizen of the state need to be afraid of being driven out of town, coarsened or worse for having signed a petition article to be included on a ballot.I held from speaking to this subject earlier, but Mr. Kahn has raised the volume beyond what our dear Mr. Miller has with his diatribe and supercitizen persona. Anyone can go on line to the states website and read it for themselves — 24/7. And by the way, it is not the Secretary of States function to interpret the state statutes, that function resides with the state’s Attorney General. The Attorney General’s office could only e suggest an inference from, the checking of the validity of residency at the polling place before an individual may cast a ballot, as the requirement of checking a second time in February. To that we may all read and be assured doesn’t stand as if it did many, many N. H. citizens in the last 200 plus years would have declined signing a petition for fear of not seeing the following year’s Spring. Here’s the law: New Hampshire Statutes TITLE III: TOWNS, CITIES, VILLAGE DISTRICTS, AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES; CHAPTER 39: TIME FOR HOLDINGTOWN MEETINGS AND WARNING THEREOF: Section 39:3 Articles. —Upon the written application of 25 or more registered voters or 2-percent of the registered voters in town, whichever is less, although in no event shall fewer than 10 registered voters be sufficient, presented to the selectmen or one of them not later than the fifth Tuesday before the day prescribed for an annual meeting, the selectmen shall insert in their warrant for such meeting the petitioned article with only such minor textual changes as may be required. For the purposes of this section, the number of registered voters in a town shall be the number of voters registered prior to the last state general election. The right to have an article inserted in the warrant conferred by this section shall not be invalidated by the provisions of
RSA 32.
G. W. Brooks
Meredith
BY MICHAEL KITCH
MEREDITH — In a preemptive strike apparently designed to forestall a possible restructuring of town government, advocates of SB-2 this week submittedmpetitions to again put the issue to voters in both the town and school district inMarch 2009. On Monday, Richard Juve delivered a petition for the 2009 town ballot with 32 signatories and another for the school district ballot with 42 signatories to Town Clerk Kerry Parker.
The move may legally stop any attempt by local officials to develop a new, hybrid form of government for at least a year. Juve made his move less than two weeks after SB-2 came within a whisker of success at the polls, falling only 3-percent shy of the three-fi fths supermajority required for adoption in both the town and school elections. In balloting for the town, the majority in favor of SB-2 was 57.5-percent, with 616 in favor and 456 against. In the school district election, 57.1-percent of Meredith voters — 599 to 450 — endorsed SB-2 only to be outvoted by their counterparts in
In response to the strong showing of SB-2 the Board of Selectmen has begun to ponder exploring the optional forms of town government authorized by the so-called “home rule” statute (RSA 49-B), several of which, including the most appealing, incorporate the official ballot (SB-2). The process of chartering a new form of government requires voting to convene a charter commission, electing a charter commission, drafting a charter and voting on a charter itself and would stretch over two municipal election cycles. But, by submitting his petition for SB 2, Juve may have stopped that process in its tracks. The law governingthe adoption of SB-2 (RSA 40:14) reads reads in part “in the event that an alternative method for the adoption of offi cial ballot voting exists under the laws of this state, then once the requirements are met for inclusion of the question on the warrant for annual meeting of whether to adopt this subdivision, neither the governing body nor the legislative body shall commence action to adopt offi cial ballot voting through such alternative method until a final vote is taken on the warrant article.” In other words, once a petition for SB-2 qualifi es for the warrant, its fate must be decided before the question of convening a charter commission can be put to the voters.
At the same time, Juve may have beat the selectmen to the punch. RSA 40:14 also provides that “if procedures have been initiated to adopt official ballot voting under an alternative law of this state, then neither the governing body nor the legislative body shall commence action to adopt this subdivision until such alternative procedures are exhausted.”Parker said that she has been advised by the New Hampshire Secretary of State to verify the signatures as soon as possible and again in February, before the article is placed on the ballot. “We need to make sure everyone who signed is still living and living and registered in Meredith,” she said, adding that she never expected to receive a petitioned article a full year before town meeting.
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.
