Recently in Transparency Category
This is the weekly update sent out to subscribers from the Town of Meredith. Granted, it is from the desk of the Town Manager, but let’s face it folks, we have a de facto Town Manager in our very own Town Administrator. Or so it would seem, as he acts on his on accord for many different issues, agendas and even ordinances. Why, then, would it be asking too much for an informative weekly update that highlights the many goings on in our town, without forcing citizens to search the town webpage? The town calendar is not all inclusive, nor is it enough to decipher any real information. How ‘bout it folks? Let’s ask our town for more!
Town Manager’s Weekly Message
Keeping you informed about what’s happening in the Town of Meredith
This message is updated each Friday to keep residents informed about town issues and activities.
September 23, 2009
UPCOMING EVENTS IN MEREDITH:
Infrastructure Improvements Project Construction Notice
Sewer repair and road improvement work on Main Street between Waukewan St. and Lake St. began on August 31st. Trench paving is now taking place. Weather permitting, work may be completed by October 2nd however, that date is subject to change.
The roadway will be open to local traffic only from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.; however access to sidewalks will be maintained. Traffic coming from the center of town will be diverted to Lake St. onto Route 3. Traffic coming toward the center of town from the intersection of Waukewan and Main St. will be diverted onto Mill St. then to Route 3. Although every effort will be made to maintain water and sewer service, temporary interruption of service could occur. NO OVERNIGHT PARKING WILL BE PERMITTED ON MAIN ST. FROM THE HUMISTON SCHOOL BUILDING TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
For more information contact Jerry Cedrone, Resident Engineer, KV Partners, LLC at 496-1282 or the Town of Meredith Water & Sewer Department at 279-3046. You can also click the links below to view the full construction notice and work detour map.
- H1N1 SWINE FLU INFORMATION –
The MCA is pleased to publish this article, not to bemoan our selectmen, but rather to point out serious violations involving the Right to Know Law. This is an oft misunderstood and easily ignored law. However, when repeated articles are posted on our and other websites regarding the selectmen’s history of conducting business outside of the public’s presence, it is hard to tolerate continued defiance of the public’s right to know. We hate to see things go so far as a lawsuit, but unfortunately, change comes about when and only someone is willing to file such a suit.
It is our sincere hope that the selectmen will understand the error of their ways, and frankly those of our town manager, and conduct their business in public sessions. According to RSA 91, non public sessions are very specific about what can and cannot be discussed. We also suggest that our town officials learn and truly understand this law thoroughly. It is complex, but worth knowing.
www.citizen.com September 14, 2009
A Moultonborough resident's right-to-know lawsuit against the town, claiming selectmen met illegally in a nonpublic session on an unannounced date to discuss, plan and coordinate the process it would use to hire a new police chief, may have been stalled because of a failure to deliver copies of the legal documents to town officials.
Petitioner Paul Punterieri of 22 Nelson Road said last Wednesday that he called the Carroll County Sheriff's Office and discovered that the petition had never been delivered — or served — on the town. He was told the paperwork would be served in the next several days, most likely resulting in a new date for the hearing being set.
A scheduling notice in the court file notes that Punterieri "shall serve the petition upon the town" and that failure to do so may result in the action being discontinued without further notice.
Punterieri filed his petition in Carroll County Superior Court in Ossipee on Aug. 27 and a court hearing was scheduled for this Tuesday.
The suit names Selectmen Karel Crawford, chair, Ed Charest, Jim Gray, Joel Mudgett and Betsey Patten as respondents. It also names Town Administrator Carter Terenzini.
Terenzini said last Wednesday he has not been served with the suit and could not comment on anything regarding pending litigation.
Terenzini also declined to comment on whether the suit has stalled efforts to hire a new chief or the status of the search process.
Punterieri argues that any and all discussion of how Police Chief Scott Kinmond's successor would be named, if and how a search/screening committee would be formed, and who would be appointed should have occurred in public session.
Kinmond, the town's current chief who has served for 24 years, is retiring from that post and will become the town's road agent.
"The plaintiff is contesting that the decision to appoint a committee (or accept volunteers), the membership of that committee and the process leading up to the interviews violates RSA 91-A as they were never held in public session," the suit states.
In the suit, Punterieri argues that the town set precedent when it filled two key positions — the first-ever town planner and a town engineer — by hiring them in full public session. He maintains that a similar process should have been following for naming a new police chief.
Volunteers who have agreed to serve on a committee looking for a new chief, according to minutes of the committee's work, are Belknap County High Sheriff Craig Wiggin, Merrimack County High Sheriff Scott Hilliard, Auburn Chief of Police Ed Picard, Moultonborough citizen Peter Whelley, and Peterborough Town Administrator Pam Brenner.
Editor, The Citizen:
The Right to Know law is as vast as it is sometimes confusing. The NH Bar Assoc. states the "purpose of New Hampshire's Right to Know Law (RSA 91-A) is to make state and local government accountable to the people by requiring that meetings and records be open to the public as much as possible." Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution is the impetus for this oft misunderstood and sometimes pesky law. It states that "All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and AT ALL TIMES accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted".
With this fairly simple but comprehensive language those who would be the "people" and those who would be their "substitutes and agents," from time to time, find themselves at opposite ends of the table. What constitutes a public meeting … what notes or records need to be kept and made available … what is fair notification of meetings ... and what about emails, letters, and telephone conference calls?
All these topics will be the subject for a Right to Know Seminar coming your way on August 10th (7 PM) at the Moultonborough Public Library. Sponsored by the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance, both the public and members of the various boards of area towns are invited. Ed Naile of the Coalition of NH Taxpayers, Tom Tardif, former mayor of Laconia, and Doug Lambert of GraniteGrok.com, all knowledgeable RTK experts, will be there to explain the "ins" and "outs" of this ubiquitous statute and field a Q & A session.
Bravo and kudos to the MCA for reaching out to both the public and their "substitutes and agents" to for a great opportunity to end up on the same page. The good folks who serve on the boards and the volunteers for committees who have to deal with this law on a daily basis should embrace this effort as a learning event to make their job a bit easier. What a great opportunity for all sides to learn, discuss and educate … all at the same time. I would encourage all to attend.
Now I know that at least some of you will consult the Web to see what Article 8 of the NH Constitution says and check this humble scribe's accuracy. While you are there, jump down a couple articles and take a look at my personal favorite… Article 10. You won't find that in any other state constitution!!
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
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........
June 4, 2009
Editorial
Everything about public meetings should be made as public-friendly as possible. That means posting agendas online (consistently, and as far in advance as possible, please), holding non-public sessions at the end of meetings whenever humanly possible, and allowing the public the most convenient method for making comments about town affairs. Recentdecisions and conversations of various local boards and committees have stirred up some controversy regarding how public comments should be handled at public meetings. In Sanbornton selectmen had to reprioritize after backlash from residents about moving public input sessions to the end of meetings. The move angered some,who said the change was an attempt to keep them from being heard, specifically because Sanbornton’s meetings can run late. Ultimately, the board put the sessions back to the beginning of each meeting, which we think was the right thing to do.
Moultonboro changed its policy recently as well, also drawing fire from the town’s more vocal citizens. Instead of allowing residents to comment and ask questions as the meeting progressed, it restricts public input to the beginning and end of each selectmen’s meeting. It might be more conducive to informed input if the board would consider handing out packets of information prior to the meeting. It’s difficult for members of the public to do more than ask questions to figure out what the issue is – and after the vote is cast and the decision made, everyone just wants to go home. It’s unlikely that a vote would be changed, once cast, as the selectmen have suggested they could do if swayed by public input. In its organizational meeting just last week, the Gilford Budget Committee discussed the issue, trying to decide where to place public input on the agenda so residents would have a fair shot to voice concerns or make comments at a relevant time. They, respectably, want to ensure that the public can talk freely before a vote, but perhaps after committee discussion so the speakers are informed. Also making an effort to respect the public, the Tilton Board of Selectmen just started holding a public input session at its meetings. Often there is no input, but occasionally the opening has given interested residents a chance to speak informally without having to make an appointment. It hasn’t appeared to slow the board down in terms of getting things done, and citizens have peace of mind that, should they ever want to throw out a comment or raise a concern, they will have the opportunity and ability to do so. Boards and committees are meant to be working for the residents of a town, so it doesn’t make sense to us when they make residents jump over hurdles to get a chance to speak (or get a hold of an agenda or meeting minutes, for that matter). We understand that they need to get things done, and that sometimes public comments sessions can get out of hand in terms of length or topic, but the board does have the ability to limit speaking time, or to offer a timeslot on the agenda should the topic warrant one.
Editorial
Friday, May 1, 2009
The law applies to everyone — except the lawmakers.
The people who enact laws can, if they choose, exempt themselves. They travel our highways at speeds that would earn we more common folk a summons to appear in court. While the rest of us are using E-ZPass or paying cash at the state’s toll booths, lawmakers pass through at no cost.
Now they want e-mail exchanges with constituents to be privileged information, an exception to the Right to Know law, a law so many people worked so hard to design and implement.
The history of Chapter 91-A of New Hampshire’s Revised Statutes Annotated has been a half-century struggle, two steps forward and one step back. Its beginnings were landed in the altogether logical beliefs and contentions that the people were the final governing authority, and for them to govern effectively, they must be exposed to and have access to the same information to which their elected representatives might be entitled.
There are exceptions to the Right to Know law crafted to protect the interests of the people. Among them is information pertaining to law enforcement investigations, the negotiation of contracts and the pursuit of decisions at law having an affect on the people and their interests.
The broad technological change that resonated through the late 20th century and into the 21st saw giant leaps in communication, not the least of which has been electronic mail transmission — e-mail.
The value of e-mail cannot be overstated. Where once the written word took days to get from sender to recipient, today it travels in seconds.
E-mail has become a useful tool in the execution of government. It is a supplement to traditional methods of exchange or the sometimes misunderstood implications or inferences in telephone conversation.
Transparency is the word that has been coined to describe the need to let the people look through government’s many windows and into its sometimes shadowy corners. Right to know is the term that still best applies. It clearly describes in three words the entire principle and its parts.
State lawmakers — the step they want to take is to exempt from disclosure e-mail communication between themselves and constituents.
The Senate’s committee on Election Law and Veterans Affairs met this week, but took no action on HB 349, which would write the exception into law. Earlier, the measure sailed through the House.
The substance of the bill is to allow lawmakers to decide which electronic communications from constituents would be subject to the Right to Know law. Those feathers you might soon see will be the ones caused by the fox entering the chicken coop.
Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, had this to say about e-mail communication between lawmakers and constituents: “It’s not a public conversation, and it should not be a public record.”
One more barricade between lawmakers and the people as a whole.
The attitude in
There are people in the Legislature who are uncomfortable with codification of the public’s right to know. We are uncomfortable with it at times ourselves — when lawmakers try and sometimes succeed in building a wall between themselves and the people of
It is as if a right to know applies only when they meet as a body while, even then, allowing them to decide what moment qualifies.
Public trust deserves something better.
Editor, The Citizen January 26, 2009
It is refreshing to see a new president take office with so many differences than previous administrations. This new president started his first day with new house rules, if you will. One of their most important policies is government transparency. This is a tremendous undertaking considering the size of the president's staff for one thing. Let's also take into account the volume of responsibilities, the multitude of levels of importance, and the oftentimes insurmountable task of policing the world. It is mind boggling to think of doing all of these things and remembering that first and foremost, to serve those who elected him into office.
I did a little searching on the White House webpage the day after the inauguration. The site was already updated with information about the new President, VP, and the entire staff. All sorts of information are available. One can even sign up for updates. Imagine that? Updates from the White House! I can hardly wait to get my first one! I look forward to watching this new administration proceed ahead, with their most difficult days yet to come.
It's uplifting to feel the energy and the hope. I wish I could feel that on the local level with a much, much smaller number of government staff. I would love to see transparency in our town of
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. I do believe that most that serve or have served on the Board did not intend to be secretive in their actions. Some may have unknowingly done so. Others have been downright deceitful in a vain effort to pull off their personal plans. What is even more disturbing is the manner in which some Selectmen have treated their constituents. I have witnessed sneers, rolling of eyes, sighs of impatience, condescending remarks and even an underhanded attempt to deny citizens information, or to at least make it difficult to attain documents. This is vehemently denied, of course.
There is evidence of the 'good ol' boys' club in our neighborhood. The same folks have served on various committees and boards for years and years. Some of those people have no intention of stepping aside for other people to have opportunities. Some are even bursting with self importance bordering on arrogance. These are people that resist change of any kind. Be it SB2, limited school and town budgets, public access or most recently an attempt to undermine the rights of voters to request secret ballots at Town Meeting with a House Bill changing the existing law. This does not just affect the good folks of
The bill was mentioned to the citizens of the town less than a week before the bill was presented in
I'm afraid I do not see this as transparency. Rather, I see this as a blatant, deceitful effort to slowly chip away at the rights of citizens. What could possibly be accomplished by this bill? Who benefits? Is this a power play? Is this retaliation for something?
I believe that any person entering into politics at any level has to have thick skin to accept criticism even if it seems unwarranted. When someone cannot accept criticism is then that the 'you know what' starts to sling! That is when I believe transparency becomes murky, and trust in government goes by the wayside.
Transparency and The Right to Know are important laws to help protect citizens from pervasive dishonesty or preferential treatment towards cronies. It is so upsetting to me to watch this behavior from elected officials. How quickly they forget that they were elected by the people, to serve the people. How quickly and easily they lose the values that encouraged citizens to elect them in the first place.
Maybe reality will sink in when someone else takes the votes away. Maybe in this day of technology and instant news, the value of transparency and honesty will expose the murkiness of lies.
Linda N. Punturieri
Moultonborough
Moultonborough
The MCA applauds Meredith for this great way to get the public involved and generate real ideas to help improve the community. How about it Moultonboro Selectmen?
‘Meredith Ideas’ session to be held on Tuesday evening
MEREDITH — Town Manager Carol Granfi eld will facilitate another “Meredith Ideas” session on Tuesday, July 15 at 7 p.m. at the
BELMONT — Two members of the Board of Selectmen decided last night not to support a proposal from Town Administrator Jeanne Beaudin to spend an extra $2,000 to implement a plan that would allow the town to begin recording from two camera angles the board’s bi-weekly selectmen’s meetings for showing on Lakes Region Public Access television. Instead, the project will proceed with just a single camera. At the board’s meeting in the Corner Meeting House, Chairman Ron Cormier suggested spending the money to make up for a gap between what the town currently has available for the project and what Beaudin said is needed for making a “quality” recording to show later on MetroCast Cablevision Channel 26. But board members Jon Pike and Reggie Caldwell refused to support the idea, noting that March Town Meeting voters approved only $5,000 for the recording equipment and they did not want to go beyond that figure. “That’s what we (town voters) appropriated because someone stood up (at the annual meeting) and said this is what it’s going to cost,” Pike said. “It’s typical
Public meetings and right to know have been in the news lately with the Belknap County Convention and the successful lawsuit brought to the NH Supreme Court by two Gilford Citizens. The New Hampshire Local Government Center has published a very concise article called "Meeting Minutes 101" intended as a guide for local government to properly capture public meeting minutes. Click on the link above for the full publication. Remember, you have a right to know!
MCA
