Recently in Town Warrant 2009 Category
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.
The BoS meeting tonight @ 7pm will contain a review of warrant articles for the 2009 Town Warrant. A few in particular have gotten the attention of some citizens who have told the MCA they are opposed to resurrecting the already voted down community center.
In brief, the Selectmen will attempt to place an article on the warrant to change the meaning of the Municipal Building Fund so that money can be taken from this fund for other purposes than from which it was originally intended. They would like to see a broad use of the fund to include site planning, equipment, repairs, etc. They also want to use up to $100,000 annually for “emergencies”. We disagree with this. Once a precedent is set, what will stop monies from being drawn from other trust and reserve funds for purposes other than what was intended? Most of the money proposed to be withdrawn this year is for a soccer field to be designed and built at the Lions Club property as part of a 10-15 year “build out” for a possible community center. This is what voters said no to on Article 9 last year. We understand that the roof of the Town Hall needs major work and probably replacement. Put a warrant article for that purpose. Most of us in town can differentiate the necessity for a new roof vs. the non-necessity of a new soccer field in these difficult economic times.
.
MCA
