Recently in Town Meeting Category
Laconia Daily Sun August 6, 2010
To the editor,
This is a response, and correction to Marty Valengavich’s July 30 letter in The Laconia Daily Sun. I finally got to talk to him on the phone (nice guy) to find out where he ever got the idea
that I was in anyway opposed to anybody being allowed to vote. Even he couldn’t recall when I ever wrote such trash, but, eventually we related it to a letter I wrote supporting SB-2 in
Moultonborough. Seems that Marty had the idea that SB-2 was a way to block people from voting, when in fact, it is exactly the opposite of that: SB-2 is a way to conduct local voting
in a fair way with secret ballots, with greatly improved ways to educate voters about what they are to vote on. ALL of the opposition to SB-2 comes from those few local politicians who
don’t want the voters to know what those politicians are trying to sneak through! With SB-2 you get the usual Town Meeting (informational session) with discussions of issues, but only as an educational exercise, with chances to correct errors (accidental or intentional) THEN, before the final vote later (that’s the part the political thieves oppose). The actual vote comes much later, AFTER everyone has time to checkout all that was said at the informational meeting (“old
Town Meeting”). THEN every voter has a chance to vote SECRETLY over a full day, whenever they can (unlike the antiquated “Town Meeting” which eliminated those who couldn’t get to
or endure a late night of many hours of boring meeting). Sneaky politicians HATE that freedom for the electorate! Obviously we need that system at the state and federal level, where they
routinely pass bills they never read! NONE of Obama’s bills would have ever passed if all who voted for them had to prove they read and understood them first! Marty tried to exceed my humor about idiot ways to block illegals, and I think he won with the hiring of I.N.S agents. He should have stopped when he was the winner! Canadians are not a major problem to the USA, BUT, it does seem that many of the worst enemies of the USA come in legally through the Mexico and Canada borders. They are very few compared to the masses of Mexicans invading
our southern border with the aid of the Mexican police and army. Okay Marty, the old duck joke is often correct: in your case, it indicates you are a radical left wing socialist opposed to the U.S. Constitution, looking for Obama to take over the USA as Hitler did Germany. Any truth in that? I doubt it. Sorry, but I see you as a nice guy, upset with the crap our government has dumped on you, wishing that somehow the government can fairly take care of major long-term medical problems (a valid function of government). Many years ago Teddy Kennedy gave an excellent speech about government medical care (which everyone totally ignored, despite being the best
speech he ever gave). Talking about current medical problems, he noted that the super rich Kennedy’s could afford their outrageous medical costs, but most other can’t. He correctly suggested that the Feds must cover ALL major medical costs that might exceed the person’s annual income (please, someone get the actual numbers on that). With a provision like that, medical insurance costs will drop to under 10-percent of current prices. A good local person like Marty deserves at least that much from our government!
Jack Stephenson
Gilford
By RAY CARBONE
New Hampshire Union Leader
Monday, Jul. 19, 2010
The New Hampshire Attorney General's office has issued a cease-and-desist order to five people, including a Moultonborough selectman and a former school board member, for their roles in distributing political flyers last year.
Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge said the five violated the state's election laws by failing to identify the flyer as "political advertising" and not including information identifying who was sending it out.
"(You) are hereby ordered to cease and desist from distributing any future political advertisement without first complying with the signature (identification) requirements contained in RSA 664:14," the order reads.
The flyer urged voters in March 2009 to turn down an article on town and school ballots regarding adoption of Senate Bill 2, which would replace town meeting with voters going to the polls on town election day. Voters turned down the SB2 idea at both the town and school district meetings. The district vote was 746-975, while the town vote was 704-975.
Selectman Karel Crawford and former Moultonborough School Board member and current Supervisor of the Checklist Laurie Whitley are cited by the Attorney General's Office. The three others are Lisa St. Amand, who has been a member of the town's Recreation Strategic Planning Group, Mary Ann McRae and Anita Blood.
Efforts to reach the five yesterday were unsuccessful.
According to the report, investigator Richard Valenti began looking into the issue last July after state officials received a formal complaint from resident Paul Punturieri. He charged that Whitley had violated RSA 664 by sending out the election flyers without identifying who was responsible for the material.
"It states at the bottom that the Selectmen, School Board and Advisory Budget Committee do not support SB2, but nowhere does it mention that she is a member of the School Board and running for office, nor that this flyer was not actually sent by the School Board, Selectmen or Advisory Board," the complaint reads.
In the interviews recorded in Valenti's report, none of the five reported knowingly sending out a flyer without their signature, but said that it was possible some flyers could have gone out unsigned. In his interview with Whitley, Valenti said she noted that "SB2 has been on the ballot two years in a row and it has come close to passing." Whitley said no town funds were used to mail the flyers.
Just days before the election, the flyers were criticized by the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance -- on whose website Punturieri identifies himself as a one-time member.
In his letter to the state, Punturieri said he feels as if voters did not get a fair chance to hear both sides of the issue before voting. Previous votes on SB2 in the town and school district have been close, (but) "I do not believe it was a fair fight (this time) as powers that be did not play by the rules."
Yesterday, School Board Chairman Mark Borrin said he would issue a formal statement this afternoon, but added he did not believe the report or the orders have anything to do with either the school board or the district.
"It never became an issue the board talked about," he said. "The issue involves individuals who are on the board, but it wasn't a board matter."
Wednesday, July 1, 2010
SB2 is the shorthand title for the Official Ballot Act, RSA 40:13, which allows voters in towns and non-city school districts to decide budgetary and other matters by secret ballot during pre-set polling hours rather than through the traditional Town Meeting format at which those matters get debated, possibly amended and ultimately decided by the vote of those attending the meeting.
Since RSA 40:13 took effect in the 1990s, the consideration on whether to adopt it has been hard-fought. Not only have officials and private citizens strongly argued its pros and cons but, quite often, the protagonists impugn the motives — and sometimes even the decency — of those on the other side of the question.
This should not be all that surprising. The SB2 debate strikes at the core of a community's identity and the place that heritage and tradition play in that identity.
An example of how these feelings can play out is in Moultonborough. Efforts to get the town to switch to the SB2 format have so far failed.
As a result of the last effort to pass SB2, some supporters went to the state Attorney General's Office to complain that there was an organized anti-SB2 effort underway which was in violation of the state's political advertising laws. Those lodging the complaint to the AG's office alleged that the anti-SB2 group in its campaign was sending out flyers which failed to explicitly state that the circulars were political advertising and in addition did not identify who was behind the campaign.
The Attorney General's Office last week issued a cease-and-desist order, saying such efforts in the future must conform to the law's disclosure requirements.
This issue might seem to some like a tempest in a teacup, but the fact that the anti-SB2 group included a selectman and someone who at the time was serving on the School Board raises some issues.
Elected officials certainly are well within their rights to offer their opinions on public issues, and there certainly is no reason for them to feel they need to apologize for doing so. Therefore, why would elected officials want to be less than forthcoming about their views on a critical issue?
As so often is the case in controversial matters, members of official bodies are not of one mind. Some, therefore, question the propriety of one member of the group taking a stand when that view does not reflect the overall sentiment of the group.
Nothing should inhibit elected officials from speaking their minds, but they should do so forthrightly and with complete transparency. If a group, like a board of selectmen or school board, wishes to take a stand, that, too, is their right. Or, if they choose not to do so, they should not stand in the way of the individual members from exercising their rights as individuals.
Wise decisions are reached when discussion and debate are open and vigorous and in a way in which the public can assess the credibility of the arguments.
That means openness and playing by the rules
In light of the recent Cease and Desist orders issued by the Attorney General's office towards former Board of Selecetmen Chair and current Vice Chair Karel Crawford, and former School Board Chair and current Supervisor of the Checklist, Laurie Whitley, we at the MCA feel it is appropriate to comment.
We fought a fair fight for SB2 in March of 2009. We now find out that the election may not necessarily be reflective of the voice of the people perhaps as a result of the actions of the above board memebers.
It's that time of year again! Town Meeting is fast approaching! We recommend that everyone take some time to read the Town Warrant for this year. Click below to see each Warrant Article.
There are several articles this year that we recommend paying particular attention to.We have highlighted a few of the Warrant Articles for readers to consider.
Article 9 for $718,804 for Road Improvement Program. No where does it mention that the bond dollars that the Town paid off for the Transfer Station las yeart, has been rolled into this project budget. Please vote No on this article.
ARTICLE 9
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate the sum of Seven Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Four dollars ($718,804) for a road improvement program, and to meet said appropriation with funds from a NH Department of Transportation Highway Block Grant of One Hundred Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine dollars ($143,259) and the balance of Five Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty Five dollars ($575,545) from taxation.
Project Budget
Paradise Drive (Reconstruction of 2,000 +/- lf) $400,000
Randall Road (Remove pavement rebuild base 550 +/- lf) $12,000
Winaukee Road Shim & Overlay (7,000 +/- lf) $200,000
Geneva Point Road 1” Overlay – Shim (2,000 +/- lf) $32,181
Engineering $74,623 TOTALS $718,804
Note: Inclusion of any road on this list was based upon a condition assessment and budget estimate prepared in January of 2010. It is no guarantee of work being undertaken on the identified roadway. Final construction decisions are made upon detailed engineering and actual bids received. Recommentd vote NO
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0) (Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0)
Article 10 To amend Article 21 from 2009 Town Meeting to extend appropriation date to Dec 31, 2011. Please vote No on this article. This is something that never should have happened. Let Fox Hollow wait its turn. Time to put this one to bed.
ARTICLE 10
To see if the Town will vote to amend its action under Article 21 of the 2009 Annual Town Meeting, relative to the appropriation for Fox Hollow Road intersection improvements, by striking the date of December 30, 2010, at which time the appropriation was to lapse, and inserting in lieu thereof the date of December 30, 2011.
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0) Recommend vote NO
ARTICLE 11
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Three Hundred Thirty One Thousand dollars ($331,000) for a program of capital improvements and expenditures, and equipment as generally illustrated below.
a. Fire Equipment $ 13,000
b. Mosquito Abatement $ 52,000 X
c. Police Cruiser $ 32,500
d. Municipal Buildings Energy & Maintenance Upgrade $ 30,000
e. Highway Dept. Street Sign Upgrade – Phase 2 $ 15,000
f. Highway/B&G 1 ½ Ton w/Accessories $ 80,000 X
g. Highway Dept. Brush Chipper $ 30,000
j. Town Hall Generator $ 30,000
l. Fleet Passenger/Cargo Vehicle $ 25,000 X
m. Town Hall & Old Fire Station Repairs/Paint $ 23,500 Amend Article to eliminate ‘X’s
Total $ 331,000
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0)
Article 14 Phase 2 & 3 of Moultonboro Neck Pathway. This wasn't done right to begin with, so why should we throw good money after bad to extend this? Please vote No on this article.
ARTICLE 14
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($37,500) for a program of capital improvements to the Moultonboro Neck Pathway (Phase 2 and 3) and to meet said appropriation by Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($37,500) from taxation and to designate the appropriation as non-lapsing, per RSA 32:7, VI, until December 30, 2012 or whenever the project is certified as completed by the Board of Selectmen, whichever shall first occur.
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0) Recommend NO
ARTICLE 34
To see if the municipality will vote to establish an Expendable Trust Fund under the provisions of RSA 31:19-a, to be known as the Milfoil Control Trust Fund, for the purpose of ongoing management of milfoil in the town’s waterways and to designate the Selectboard as agents to expend both principle and interest from this fund under rules and regulations to be promulgated. Further to raise and appropriate the sum of Two Hundred Thousand dollars ($200,000) to be placed in this fund.
(By Petition)
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 - 0) Recommend vote Yes
The Real BIG issue is the Town Budget. Frankly, there need to be more cuts. Some of the above mentioned, should be eliminated from the budget until such a time as our economy has improved for all of our residents. Then, they may be revisited. Please send the BoS back to the drawing board and make some more cuts! Vote No!
ARTICLE 41
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, subject to any and all changes made at this meeting, the sum of Eight Million Two Hundred Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy dollars ($8,253,670) to pay the general operating expenses of Town Government for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010.
[Note: This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in any other
warrant articles.] Recommend vote NO
One article of interest is Article 17, the naming of the Lion's Club property to Veteran's Memorial Park. This is a wonderful tribute to our veterans that have, are and will serve our country. This is not an opportunity to make it a children's contest. This is for adults. Frankly, kids don't care about the name of a field or a park. They just want to play. Please support this article with a Yes vote. It's a shame that all the BoS and the ABC did not show support for this article.
ARTICLE 17
Shall we adopt the name for town property located at 139 Old Route 109, formally known as the Lions Club Property, to be named the Veterans Memorial Park. And that any field or ball park be named Veterans Field. And that if more than one ball park or ball field, that name used will be Veterans Field 1, Veterans Field 2. This name shall remain in effect until changed by future warrant article.
(By Petition)
(Recommended by Selectmen 2 Yes - 0 No - 3 Abstain) Recommend vote Yes
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 1 Yes - 0 No - 4 Abstain)
The Town will be holding a "sense of the meeting" vote at the March town meeting to determine the view of the voters as to whether a May town meeting would be desirable. It’s a non-binding vote, but why conduct it at the March town meeting? The people that would prefer a May town meeting won't be present in March. That’s the basic problem that moving to May would potentially solve. Here is a better idea: have a “non-binding" ballot question on ballot day so that many more votes can be counted (including absentees) that are traditionally disenfranchised at town meeting. Afterall, more than 1700 voted on ballot day last year vs. less than 300 at town meeting 4 days later. That would be a true “sense” of the town.
The town voted on the establishment of a Heritage Commission at Town Meeting this year and we have been waiting for months for the Board of Selectmen to finalize volunteers to that commission. Once volunteer letters to the Board have been submitted and reviewed, we would think that the commission would be properly appointed and the newly formed Heritage Commission could meet and begin the tasks ahead of them. Not so: and still we wait. The Board of Selectmen still have not yet finished determining who is on the committee. Why is that?
There are several things that concern us about the appointments made thus far. For instance, at the Board of Selectmen meeting on May 14, 2009, Chairwoman Karel Crawford said that they would work on it at their scheduled work session on May 28th. Yet somehow at the Selectmen’s meeting on May 21, the very next week, announcements were made as to who would be appointed to the Heritage Commission. When did they discuss that they would make appointments at their May 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting rather than at their scheduled work session? Is it possible that all five of the selectmen were on the same wave length at the same time? If they had a discussion, it was not before the public. If so, where are the minutes? Or is this privileged information not available to the public?
We wonder if there was some kind of discussion behind the scenes that no one bothered to recognize as a need to bring to the public under the Right to know law.
Another issue is the selection of one volunteer who serves on several other committees. No questions were raised at the appointment of Jean Beadle who serves as the Chair of the Advisory Budget Committee, as well as a member of the Town Planner Screening Committee. Yet when Selectmen Betsey Patten suggested that Jane Fairchild should be assigned as an alternate, she implied that Jane would be far too busy to be on the Heritage Commission as she is already a member of the planning board. Not Jean Beadle however who is the Chair of the ABC. She should be quite busy finding a replacement for a member that resigned, not to mention all the time to bring a new member of the ABC up to speed.
Don’t forget folks, the school will be in the midst of contract negotiations with the teachers union, the school budget, and the town budget and that should be more that enough to keep the ABC Chair quite busy. Why is an alternate assignment good for one but not the other?
Is there some favoritism amongst the appointments?
The third issue at hand is the select board member that is required by statute to serve on the Heritage Commission. Another statute states that there cannot be 2 members of the Planning Board on the same committee or board. Selectmen Ed Charest is on the planning board as is volunteer Jane Fairchild. How will this be resolved?
How long must we wait? There is a worksession June 25, 2009 @ 4pm........
SARAH SCHMIDT
The Meredith News Marfch 19, 2009
MOULTONBORO —
Moultonboro residents voted in favor of creating a new playing field and beginning repairs on an old one, after an amendment shifted the majority of the tax appropriation to a reserve fund. “This is going to allow us to fix the existing field and continue to meet the recreational needs of the community,” said Parks and Recreation Director Donna Kuethe. “I’m happy.” The article called for $337,500 for field improvements, drainage design, and associated design costs for the construction of a playing field on the former Lions Club land.The total sum of the article will come from three places, and originally in these amounts - $87,500 from the Community Center Trust Fund established last year, $137,500 from general taxation, and $107,500 from the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. Selectmen voted 3-2 to recommend the article last month. The first obstacle to passage of the article was in the article preceding it, asking for a rewording of the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. The change expanded the usage of the fund from constructing a building to using it to also design, engineer and equip a building. This article, created in 1993, and carrying a balance of $972,975.10, came with a bit of disagreement of its own, as selectmen voted 4-1 in favor of it. “Changing this fund is not in accordance with what people voted for in the past,” said Selectman Ed Charest. “If there is a new need, get
a new fund.” Selectman Joel Mudgett disagreed, however, asking residents to approve the article to clear the way for its use for other actions besides construction of a building. “We’ve got $972,975 in the fund, and no future plans for it,” said Selectman Chair Karel Crawford. The article passed by secret ballot, in a vote of 212- 78, attaining more than the necessary 60 percent to pass at 74 percent. In the next article, voters debated the issue of constructing a new playing field and repairing the old one on
part by the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. Of the $337,500, $300,000 would go for field construction, drainage design, and design costs, and $37,500 for construction of a pathway. One resident asked how funds from the
Selectmen Charest and Betsey Patten voted against recommending the article earlier in the year. Both selectmen spoke of the uncertain economic outlook, and of future expenses to the
town, questioning whether the field repair and construction could wait a bit longer. “I did not support this as a state representative and a selectman,” said Patten. “If you look at what’s going on at the state level. We’re working hard not to spend so much, and put down as low a percentage as possible. I felt this was something we could put off - there are other factors involved in what we want here in Moultonboro.” Ken Tatro, who coached soccer in Moultonboro last year, called the
The Meredith News March 19, 2009
Editorial
At almost every town meeting we covered this year, there were debates about whether town employees and/ortown officials should get raises. The results were mixed.In Tilton, an amendment to cut the 3.5-percent raises allocated to all town employees – a total of more than $14,000 – was voted down. An amendment in Moultonboro that would have nixed 2.5-percent raises, plus step increases, for town employees was defeated. On the flip side, two towns’ residents voted down raises of much smaller doses. In
