GilfordGrok

We had a problem here in Gilford with certain people plagiarizing material without acknowledging that it was from another place (look at the bottom of the post to refresh your memory) - that Code of Ethics for which it was said that "many hours" had been put into it - and it turned out to be a screen scrape.

And again, I think it hilarious that Evans tried to apply it to a non-employee! 

Ah yes, sloppiness does in another:

It seemed like an honorable goal: Draft an honor code for University of Texas at San Antonio students to follow, exhorting them not to cheat or plagiarize.

But when students threw a draft of the new honor code onto the Internet for feedback, some noticed a problem: Parts of the code appeared to have been lifted word for word from another school's honor code, without attribution. Even the definition of plagiarism was, well, plagiarized.

You gotta love the Internet.  You have to feel sorry for those folks that don't understand that ALL malfeasance can be caught - almost everything ends up there and then becomes searchable.

You know, your mother told you not to lie.  The paddle Dad was holding was made of wood.  Society's is made of bandwith, search engines, and derision. 

 

Posted by Skip at 08:11 PM | Permalink

Well, it certainly seems that the outside agencies / non-profits / prof. services / professional charities are certainly being active on the local scene as the kvetching as tax fund spigots all over are being closed.  They just don't seem to be getting the message that in many cases, that the general public is NOT stupid or ignorant about their mission.  Rather, they would just prefer, in most cases, that their tax money not be spent on them.

Abbreviation - town support is NOT the same as tax money.  Yet, many still think that access to tax money is the only yardstick to be used to judged the level of support.

Well, even the erudite George Will weighs in on this - in his latest column, he quotes from the book of one of our earliest guests on Meet The New Press - Dr. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse.

The money quote (pun intended): 

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

As a conservative, I stick to the traditional view of charity - by an individual for individuals (or group of such people) as an active choice of will.  It is an action that takes thought. It is a personal sacrifice that is willingly made to help my fellow beings (here or abroad)

Payment of property taxes is an obligation - not an act of charity. From my property taxes, I expect concrete actions put in motion via regulaed / approved methodology with measurable results.

Thus, there seems to be a wide chasm over my protestations of using my tax money for someone else's charities vs their belief that forced collective payments is their right to have government posses the right to do so. 

And George enumerates some of these:

• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. 

[snip] 

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other people's money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

(cross-posted over at GraniteGrok) 

Posted by Skip at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Obviously, folks are looking at Nashua where the Teachers Union is not a set of happy campers (perhaps more properly, the subset of happy teachers within the larger set of teachers is a minimal set). And our teachers will soon be negotiating their contract real soon too.

Well, the "ill will" being displayed by the Nashua teachers seems to be going around.  When I saw this, the ONLY word that came to mind was:

CUTE 

Not cute as in "little kid" cute or "cuddly puppy" cute, but "aw, isn't that just barely amusing" cute coming from professionals (I cannot, for the life of me, seeing code herders doing something like this - naw, not a chance).  But at least, it isn't disobeying the law (e.g., going out on strike).

From EAOnline Intercepts:
 

In Indiana, the Michigan City Education Association is planning a unique protest of slow contract negotiations in the district:

As a protest, teachers will wear clothing in colors to express their
feelings about issues they say affect not only their working environment but
also students.

On Monday, they will wear blue "because we are sad for our children for not getting services they need due to large class sizes and the omission of programs."

On Tuesday they wear red because "we are seeing red because we are working without a contract."

On Wednesday they wear green because "we are envious of (school) districts that treat their teachers fairly and respect them as professionals."

On Thursday they wear orange. In the style of a children's riddle, they
ask, "Orange you glad you're with a highly qualified teacher today?"

On Friday, they wear black "because we have not received a raise to reflect a cost-of-living increase." 

Now, who is going to be seeing these colors?  Well, primarily, the kids - after all, it is ALWAYS for this children, isn't it (even contract negotiations).  People who use kids to make political  points in adult negotiations? Let's just say I keep thinking about that Pilgrim phrase "the stocks"...

Well, not leaving an opportunity to go to waste, the EAOnline folks decided on some colors of their own:

Here are a few ideas for the following week:

Monday - Silver and gold "for what we want from the taxpayers."
Tuesday - Brown "for the citizens who brown-bag it to pay for our benefits."
Wednesday - Yellow "for the politicians who cave in to our demands."
Thursday - Pink "for the pink slips against which tenure protects us."
Friday - Maroon "for the generation of maroons and ignoranimuses we're turning out."

A diversity of colors...and we have to celebrate diversity, right? 

Posted by Skip at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

To the Editor:

          The agenda for the Gilford Selectmen’s meeting today (March 26) includes, under “Appointments”, the item “Alice Boucher – Petition”.   I haven’t seen the petition, but I gather that it asks the selectmen to re-instate Town Administrator Juris, to hold a public hearing on the subject, or both.   Perhaps they should hold a public hearing, but it should be solely for the purpose of allowing citizens to speak on the record on the subject.   The selectmen should not reverse their decision and should not make any attempt to explain it.

          The Town Administrator (“Administrative Assistant” would be a better title) is not like a department head, with a well-defined job that lends itself to objective performance evaluation.   Rather, he or she is the alter ego for the Selectmen when they are not in session, which of course is most of the time.   The Selectmen have full authority and responsibility for whatever happens.   It is absolutely essential that a majority of the Selectmen have full and complete confidence in the Administrator and comfort in their relationship with him, both objectively and subjectively.   This is what serving “at the pleasure of the Selectmen” means.   Without it, the person in question must go.   There should be no explanation because the reason may be simply a clash of personalities with no fault involved, no malfeasance or misfeasance.   No shortcoming need be proven, or even suggested.   The Selectmen are our elected representatives, subject to removal by not being re-elected, and they must be free to choose and to un-choose their principal agent.  

Richard H. Campbell
Gilford

Posted by Doug at 05:47 PM | Permalink

While this will be under the aegis of the Gilford Town Republican Committee, I thought many others may wish to come hear Jeb speak as he is continuing his run for the Congressional seat from NH District 1.

All are invited!

 

Date:   This Thursday, 3/27/08
Time:   6:30pm

Where:    Gilford Town Hall
              47 Cherry Valley Rd,
              Gilford, NH 03249
              Conference Room A

Special Speaker:      Jeb Bradley

Candidate for NH Congressional District 1

 

Posted by Skip at 02:01 PM | Permalink

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall...

When the men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go...

Go ask Alice, I think she'll know

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead

Go ask Alice...

As the town waits with bated breath for former Selectman Alice Boucher to submit her silly petition demanding answers from the present Board of Selectmen today at 3:00, I thought the folks might like to see her now infamous question that seemingly set a chain of events in motion that led to the firing of Town Administrator Juris. Recall she started the public questioning at the March 6th candidates night with an accusatory question aimed at candidate John Goodhue-- one of the targets of the infamous Juris letter (on town letterhead) submitted to the Selectman after its initial release to the media.  Many folks in town feel that Alice's actions Thursday evening followed by the letter most likely altered the outcome of the election. Anyway, here's the video:

See you at Town Hall today at 3:00! [NOTE: The missing letters at the end of some of the script in the video is an apparent glitch in Windows Vista/Moviemaker. While the words are all there during the editing process, for some inexplicable reason, some letters get dropped during the "publish" phase.]

 

Posted by Doug at 12:16 AM | Permalink

I posted here about the most recent Gilford NECAP results here (2006 results here).  My comments on the recent results were:

I am almost all but sure that the following will be absolutely raise a few hackles, but since this is an opinion blog, I'll oblige.  Given the numbers, somebody's gotta step up and speak out.  What's that's obnoxious Liberal phrase - "speaking truth to power"? 

• I'm just dying to hear what the explanations are going to be for the Reading fiasco.  After all 87 or 120 are not just the "challenged" few.
• When is "more time" enough, and when is "more resources" enough?"
  

When is it time for results?  Is it time for "taxpayers pay for performance"?

If it were just a few, one could say "students".  A few more, "uninvolved parents" or "unable to enforce discipline".  Time to add another......

To say that I was underwhelmed at reading the scores when they were released is to be kind.  I looked at our results, looked at the overall state results, and then when I remembered what the Gilford SAU Budget was vs the State average was, well I was not a happy camper (we spend about  $17,329/student).  That said....

Our unofficial motto is "spank'em when they're wrong and thank'em when they're right"!  Here, I may have been a bit rough on Paul Blandford, as he helped, with his own words, to prove a point on Right To Know requests.  But, you've heard the phrase "from zero to hero"? 

Now, give the man a ceegaarr!

“Maybe they’re just not learning what they need to learn,” said Blandford. 

Yup, looks like the Gilford School Board finally lost its patience, too, given the recent NECAP scores.  I do remember using the word "accountability" several times on Saturday when Dr. DiMinico and Ken Wiswell were on MTNP.

Now, I was not there at the School Board meeting.  I bet it was not taped (but you can BET I'm going to be looking for THOSE minutes!).  Thus, I can only go by what was in the paper - so I shall!  From the Daily Sun (pages 1 and 9, I'm only quoting the "relevant" parts):

Gilford board very disappointed with ‘average’ state assessment scores

GILFORD — The message from the School Board was clear: average is not good enough for Gilford students. The message was a reaction of the board last night as it reviewed results from the elementary and middle school’s New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) tests, administered in October 2007.

 [snip]

NECAP scores fall within one of four categories: level four is “proficient with distinction”, level three is “profi cient”, level two is “partially profi cient”, and level one is for “substantially below proficient”.

Elementary School Principal Sandra McGonagle began the presentation of the NECAP results, reminding the board that the state Department of Education has set the goal of all students scoring profi cient or better in all categories by the year 2014. As such, she said “we always have an eye towards improvement.”

Really?  Can you show a graph (or did you) of how well we've had continuous improvements in the scores ? 

I scoured the Annual Report Card (not listed on the SAU web page that I could see found it!  ) that was sent out. 

• I saw the great (really!) dropout rate percentage. 
• I saw that Suspensions are up (could be a good thing, as that means discipline standards are being raised.  Or bad, in that Zero Based Tolerance silliness is reigning supreme). 
• I wonder that with the financial demographics of Gilford, why so many kids are getting Free & Reduced Lunches?
  
• I noticed that the State average SAT scores are consistently BETTER than Gilford's.
• I saw that the NECAP scores were nothing to write home about (actually, only every other student would be proficient in doing so)  
  

But I digress....a tad

Looking at the results of the tests, though, board members failed to see such improvements. The scores for Gilford’s students in grades three through eight hovered within a few points of the state averages, which is just where board members have seen scores in previous years.

“I’m disappointed,” said Board Member Derek Tomlinson. “I expect that we’re going to be above state average.” He noted that the district has dedicated a good deal of time and resources lately to improve the scores.

Superintendent Paul DeMinico shared with Tomlinson’s disappointment. “We shouldn’t be average,” he said, especially considering the demographics of Gilford. “We should a leap, by a good size, beyond the state.”

Glad I'm not the only one.

Tomlinson said, “I feel like we’re doing a lot but I don’t see the data coming out.” He wondered if teachers had the time they needed to apply the results from previous tests to their curriculum planning. “How much time to they really have?”

Board Member Kurt Webber said he wasn’t sure if students were taking the tests as seriously as the board does.

But Board Member Paul Blandford said the students might be taking their cues from teachers. “I think it goes beyond the students to the staff taking it seriously. It’s extremely disappointing. We do not want to be average.”

I'm not convinced that the major reason for low scores is that the students are not taking the test seriously.  That's a cop out, and perhaps laying blame at the wrong feet.

I think Paul has it right on target again (and YES, I VOTED for him!) and here's why.  If it is just a single year, or happening sporadically, looking at the class of kids is justifiable - teachers have said (and I agree, having been a member of some) that some classes are bright, some not, some good and some are very ill behaved.  You could blame the kids - but only partly and only some of the time.  You DO have to look at who is managing that class!

But long term results that don't meet the community's standards?  The only things that cannot be ruled out are curriculum... 

...and the people who teach that curriculum.

McGonagle said the staff has been “working as hard as we can to make sure [improvement] happens.” The school has taken such steps as giving students bagels and fruit on testing days, giving pep talks to impress the importance of the tests, and asking parents to send students to bed early on nights before tests.

I think that these efforts may be a tad misguided....let's see, what could it be?  Oh Yeah:

“Maybe they’re just not learning what they need to learn,” said Blandford.

Question: if the kids are being taught the fundamentals, tested on the fundamentals, and then corrected on those fundamentals, then shouldn't they fundamentally be able to score well on the NECAPS?  So what does it say when the scores are not "well"?

Certainly, what has been the process so far for years isn't working.....empirical evidence is proving that out.

The data may be similar to last year in result, but Middle School Principal Jim Kemmerer said the format and specificity of the reports is better and more useful than in years past. He said the results show teachers exactly which students are having trouble and with what types of questions. He said a teacher can quickly see if all students got the same question correct, and if many got it wrong, the teacher can see what wrong answers were given. “We’re for the first time getting really good data,” he said. He also noted “Middle school students take the test seriously, but they do get test-weary.”

I'm getting tired of the "blame the students" game - it seems like the School Board is losing it's patience with this too.  While reviewing test results to locate curriculum / teaching "holes" is fine, there's still a problem:

Why weren't our students being taught from the get-go with respect to demonstrably provable curriculum and methodologies? 

I keep hearing (and seeing the in the SAU Report card) how Highly Qualified our Teachers are.  Thus, THE QUESTION that HAS to be asked, given the simple results requested (and no small boasting of the Report Card of how well Qualified our teachers are) is:

where, then, are the above average results? 

I hope this question is at the forefront of the teacher contract negotiations - after all, they are the adults in the room doing the teaching and should be held responsible for the results (or lack thereof). 

Perhaps the district could take steps to give students reason to take it more seriously, Board Member Margo Weeks said, such as making the results part of a student’s permanent record, or holding a contest wherein the grade that had the most improvement would be rewarded. High School Principal Ken Wiswell said he already was thinking along those lines, and would present some of those ideas at the April 7 board meeting, along with the High School’s results.

I still think that the emphasis here is a bit misguided.  Yeah, some will rise to the competition (egads, competition!) within the student body. You know, that just gave me an idea - A GREAT IDEA!!!!! 

How about a competition between the teachers
for the best classes relative to the State Averages? 

Hey, School Board members - can you find it in your budget to reward merit pay for this?

Naw, I know, the Teachers Union will never buy into it......but it was a thought..... 

Posted by Skip at 07:28 PM | Permalink

And again, just like what was seen in Ohio (which I posted about here; the post also talking about Dr. DiMinico's dislike of standardized testing - how appropriate given Saturday's discussion!), secondary education may not be doing the of sufficiently preparing students for college:

Community college drop-outs

Three out of four students who enter California community colleges seeking a degree drop out in frustration, researchers estimate.

Most students are unprepared for college work, reports the Contra Costa Times. The story features an instructor who estimates only a third of his pre-algebra students will make it to algebra, a course they were supposed to have mastered in eighth grade.

One in 10 students at the lowest remedial levels — community colleges sometimes have up to five courses below the lowest college-level course — reaches a college-level course in that subject. The numbers are worse for black and Latino students.

Chaffey College in middle-class Rancho Cucamonga faced the remedial crisis in 1999:

Using a broader definition of underpreparedness than most schools, Chaffey educators determined that 98 percent of their students were unprepared for college work in at least one basic area.

The realization led to the most radical transformation of a community college in the nation. The school began hiring more basic-skills instructors, sometimes delaying the hiring of professors in fields such as biology and sociology.

With tutoring at “success centers,” the college tripled the number of students who transfer to a four-year university.

Aren't kids supposed to be ready for college by the time they are at, er, college?  So now, it seems, CA community colleges are mere extensions of what should have been taught in high school.

(H/T: Joanne Jacobs) 

Posted by Skip at 07:09 PM | Permalink

This past Saturday, we had Dr. DiMinico and Ken Wiswell on Meet The New Press (I'll be posting up the video soon) talking about NCLB.  I suppose that if I rewatched the video, I'd remember how we got on the topic of vouchers.

I am in favor of vouchers - we allow for free market competition in almost all other markets except for elementary / high school education.  I do not believe it unreasonable that EVERY child deserves a publicly funded education - after all, we do that now!  Dr. D certainly is behind the "Follow the Child" philosophy; I just want to preface that with "Let the Money" too!

Well, Dr. DiMinco immediately brought up John Dewey (guess we'll have to look into his philosophy of education) and one other person who I cannot remember in defense of public education when I brought up home schooling.

Then he immediately came up with the example of a home school parent that would take the money and spend it on themselves instead of educating their child as the antithesis of public education.  Well, I should have ID'd right then and there as the silly outlier example it is (possible, yes....probable?).

Instead, let me go to the OTHER extreme and show what a home schooler parent has done that is probably WAY beyond what most school systems would do (once again, H/T: Joanne Jacobs emphasis mine):

Learning starts at home

Home-schooling has spread far beyond religious or counterculture families, writes Gregory Millman, a home-schooling father of six, in the Washington Post.

We joined a Shakespeare troupe founded by a single mother who was a college professor of literature. She taught the children to find the characters through the language, and they staged a complete Shakespeare play every year. Other members of that troupe founded a home-schooled robotics team, building robots to compete in regional, national and international events. We founded a debate and speech team that continues to compete at the middle school and high school levels.

The results? Studies have shown that home-schooled children outperform the conventionally schooled not only on standardized academic tests but also on tests of social skills.

Home-schooled students outperform conventionally schooled students on college admissions tests, and earn higher grades in college, according to admissions officers at Indiana University-Purdue and at Georgia’s Kennesaw State University.

Associate Dean Joyce Reed of Brown University has called home-schoolers “the epitome of Brown students,” telling the university’s alumni magazine that “they are self-directed, they take risks, and they don’t back off.”

Home-schooling parents are, by definition, highly motivated, education-first people so it’s not surprising their children tend to do well.

Hmmm, I wonder how home schoolers compare to the IB students that Dr. DiMinico is gushing about lately...standardized tests might tell us more... 

Posted by Skip at 06:52 PM | Permalink

On the Saturday radio program, Skip, former Laconia Mayor Tom Tardif, and I discussed the termination of the Gilford Town Administrator and Right to Know law questions. We answer Bill McLean's accusation of us not applying the same level of scrutiny to the BOS as we do to others.

Click here to download the podcast, or use the handy player below. It runs just under 15 minutes long.

powered by ODEO

We will be in attendence at Wednesday's Board Of Selectmen meeting at 3 pm to show our support for them.

Posted by Doug at 06:29 PM | Permalink

On Friday, Doug and Bill McLean discussed the recent Town Administrator termination and the Selectmen's next move. As he did in his recent letter, Bill asked why Skip and I are somehow treating allegations of RTK law violations differently than we might in other circumstances. I say we're not-- there's just nothing to any of them.

Click here to download the podcast from WEZS' "Straight Talk with Bill McLean" recorded March 21st-- or use the handy player below to listen:

powered by ODEO

[H/T Steve for audio]

 

Posted by Doug at 08:31 PM | Permalink

This week on Meet the New Press radio, we will, of course, continue to discuss the termination of Town Administrator Juris and the ongoing fallout.

Also, Superintendent Dr. Paul DeMinico and GHS Principal Ken Wiswell stop by the studios to chat about NCLB and the proposed IB Programme.

Click here for more details and the complete schedule...

Posted by Doug at 09:22 PM | Permalink

Er, Bill? There are places other than in the "dead wood" press that people have the ability to comment on the news of the day.
 

To the editor,

The recent firing of Gilford Town Administrator Evans Juris is a great loss to the citizens of the town and is cause for great concern regarding the actions of Selectmen Connie Grant and Gus Benavides. Evans provided the town with competent management and he did all that he could to see that the governance of the town was open and honest. Apparently, that was his downfall, as he raised the ire of Grant and Benavides by going public about their failure to conduct the town’s business in compliance with the rightto- know laws and about Benavides’ interference in the evaluation of town employees.

All we, the general public,  have seen so far are vague allegations of violations by Mr. Juris of the RTK law.  Nothing that we can prove or disprove at this time.  Given the combination of the timing of his letter and the accusation by Mrs. Boucher, it seems, to me, an attempt to get to political rivals from the other side first.

In a blatant move to silence Evans, Grant and Benavides took the easy way out — get rid of Evans and get rid of the threat to their running the town their way.

Until you or anyone else can provide the general public specific and concrete examples of malfeasance by Connie and Gus, this latest letter is not much raised above those same allegations?  After all, basing an argument on an argument of allegations only is not much of an argument, n'est pas?

The only things that we do know for sure are:

• Mrs. Boucher political slap against John Goodhue,
• Mr. Juris's letter (with allegations but no specifics)
• Mrs. Boucher's attempt to slow the process down
• Mrs. Boucher's political loss by being outvoted by Connie and Gus to fire Mr. Juris according to the terms contained in his employment contract.
  

That's it! 

This firing is not about authority; it’s about open and honest government. And it’s no small irony that the erstwhile champions of open government, Doug Lambert and Skip Murphy, have been totally silent on the questions raised about the propensity of Grant and Benavides to operate behind closed doors. Why, in this instance, has there been no attempt by Lambert and Murphy to shine the light of day on the actions of these selectmen? All the talk has been about expediency and authority, which is all pretty petty in comparison to the real issues raised by Evans.

Oh Really?  So far, on GilfordGrok, we have

• Posts    12
• Podcasts    3
• Video    2
• Poll 1

On GraniteGrok (not including Meet The New Press)

• Posts    2

Meet The New Press

• Podcasts    2
• Video 1 

In addition, we have over 4,800 words written commenting on this situation.   This is saying "nothing"?

All we have to go on is, as stated above, the vague allegations of Evans Juris (and now Mrs. Boucher).  Doug and I are not reporters - we have day jobs other than blogging or the radio show.  While we have done independent reporting, it is when we have the time and opportunity.  I frankly do not have the time to run down "what might be's" right now - do you Bill?

Finally, the actions of Grant and Benavides should serve as a warning to the public about a 3-person board of selectmen. When a two-person majority can collude and raise the havoc that these two have, we should quickly recognize that we would be better served by a 5-person board. Election day 2009 will be here before we know it and we will have the opportunity to restore open and honest government in the town.

I will agree to a 5 person board. In fact, I think it is a great idea!  You write the petition warrant and I'll sign it!

However, I think that for you to state as fact that Connie and Gus are "colluding" is putting yourself out on a limb with respect to facts.  You accuse Doug and I not running this up the reporting flag pole - go ahead, show us what YOU have in this respect to actual facts.

In the meantime, we’ll rely on the honesty and integrity of Kevin Hayes to keep the Board on the straight and narrow.

Well, we now all know where you stand with your take on Connie and Gus - if Kevin is the only one mentioned for "honest and integrity", I can see the PR war as been joined.

And remember, I believe that this has been a political bet gone bad and my words have spoken to that event and those that have transpired since then to support it - I've not assailed either Mr. Juris's or Mrs. integrity or honesty.  Connie and Gus, I'm quite sure, will be pleased to hear of your  view of them.

 

Posted by Skip at 12:20 PM | Permalink

Let the Letter writing begin!

Doug has one in the Citizen, along with Mrs. Boucher and  Bill McClean

Editor, The Citizen: On March 12th Selectman Grant and Selectman Benavides voted to terminate Town Administrator Evans Juris. As the former Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, I am bewildered by this vote.

Yup, it certainly showed in the video.  It certainly seemed from your opening remarks that you believed that you had the situation well in hand - as I said on Meet The New Press, that was the run up to "kick the can down the street".  It was VERY clear that you did not want to deal with a pressing issue in town.  After all, it seems very clear to me that you and Mr. Juris made a political bet to influence the political atmosphere here in Gilford.

This you did - it is just that the end game hasn't worked out the way you wanted.  Yes, John lost the election by 20-odd votes - perhaps within the margin of error that your accusation may have made?  However, while Evans was saved from John, you unleashed a sequence of events that ended up in that which you were trying to prevent.

Yup, Mrs. Boucher, meet Mr. Law of Unintended Consequences. 

Selectman Benavides stated,"Despite what has been said, if there is a way to work this out I am all for it. As a man of faith I have to turn the other cheek". Shortly after saying he would like to work things out, he voted to terminate Town Administrator Evans Juris. Why?

I'm no mind reader, but I have heard people say the same thing that Gus did, even when it is obvious that there really is no way to recover that situation of which they spoke.  I'm not sure of why the "faith" statement came up.  My only take on that is while as a man of faith, that may well apply to him as an individual but it does not apply to a governmental office.

I wish both Grant and Benavides would have listened to what Town Counsel suggested and not deal with the situation until all parties could come together to air out all of the concerns.

It is clear from the recording that they did - they just came to a different conclusion to how to deal with the situation.  Again, you have used the word "defy".  Perhaps in your mind, they "defied" the Town Counsel.  We, and You, do not know that given the fact that Connie stated that she had talked with the Town Counsel herself (ditto Gus).  You had, at the time, no good knowledge of what was said in those two separate conversations. 

And I hope they were separate in order to be within the Right To Know Law!  A good deal of that video, recorded by the Town cameras, show YOU berating Connie and Gus for not calling you.  THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN a serious problem with regards to the RTK law.  And there you were, the Chair of the Select Board, saying (in essence), "Forget the law, call me!".

I thought the Chair was supposed to uphold the law, not cause others to break it....

Since Selectmen Grant and Benavides were elected by the people to serve the town, an explanation is warranted. A petition is being circulated and I would appreciate the concerned citizens that called me, join me in signing it. It is truly a sad situation for our town to be going through something that could certainly have been dealt with differently.

This is just SO rich.  How many times did the Board NOT make decisions? There you were in your opening statement stating that the Board will do nothing, then again trying to get them to do nothing, and now that there is no political fallout on you part, you berate Connie and Gus all because they refused to do your bidding from the lofty position of Chair.

Methinks it may be that in not kowtowing to your demands, admonition, and outburst, they proved themselves to be more capable to react decisively and appropriately.  It is only now, free of the office of being Chair, that you are so willing to "beat feet" and hurry along the talk.

Politics?  Yes, indeed 

 

Posted by Skip at 11:37 AM | Permalink

Well, first Alice Boucher started this ruckus at the Candidates Meeting when she "sucker punched" John Goodhue with the question of "are you out to get Evans?" (paraphrased).  Then she tried to delay the Select Board from doing anything.  Now, she wants the citizenry to rise up and demand that Evans be reinstated and Connie and Gus brought onto the carpet.

I think it's rather obvious what Doug and I think - Fat Chance!

However, that is not the purpose of this post.  Now, YOU get a chance to tell us (shhh, we won't tell anyone else in Gilford either!) what you think.  Take the poll and let us know!

.

What do you think of the "Save Evans" petition by Alice Boucher?
	I support Allie!
	Save Evans?
	A waste of time!
	She started this at Candidates night, right? Deep six it!
	I want a "support Connie and Gus" petition!
pollcode.com free polls

.. 

Posted by Skip at 07:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

With the elections/people now come and gone, I've updated the left side of the site:

Town Administration        Evans Juris has been replaced by Debra Shackett.  As far
                                    as I know, I've also left her as the head of the Finance
                                    Dept. as I have not heard differently.

 

Selectmen                      Alice Boucher has been replaced by Kevin Hayes.

 

Local Commentary:         NH Commentary has been removed along with
                                    Laconia's Purse.

                                    We do want to welcome Chan's new blog to the
                                    blogroll - One Voice In Gilford.  Although it was created
                                    for his run for Selectman, we believe it will be a local
                                    companion site to his national blog,
                                    Weekend Pundit (which remains on our blogroll), so
                                    we are looking forward to seeing what he has to say!

 

See anything else that needs a bit more tidiness?  Let us know! 

Posted by Skip at 07:02 PM | Permalink

Former Selectboard Chair Boucher (GG2 file photo)

There can only be one explanation for the recent behavior of former Selectman Boucher. My problem is that there are two apparent choices. Either she is woefully ignorant of the Right-to-Know laws, or is knowingly looking to bait our present selectmen into committing violations of them. If you are like me, the quandary is that when considering who we're talking about here, both ignorance and deceit are equally believable. 

Let me explain.

The Right-to-Know (RTK) law bars a quorum of Selectmen, in our case, two, from conducting public business outside of the confines of a properly noticed public meeting. Recalling that both her and the former Town Administrator imply without specifics that the other two Selectmen were somehow  violating the RTK, you can watch the video of the March 12 meeting where Selectman Boucher admonishes Selectman Grant for not calling her about this beforehand. HELLO? Attention Ms. Boucher: This would have violated the RTK. Reasonable people might conclude that if the law was in fact violated, perhaps it was Selectman Boucher leading the way.

Now, according to letters in the papers, we find that former Selectman Boucher, citing her years of "experience" (some might question whether "led down the primrose path" counts as such, but I digress...), is leading a petition drive that asks demands

"the selectmen give answers on why Evans Juris was fired with no explanation."

Silly Ms. Boucher. She knows that first of all, their counsul has advised them NOT to comment. This is normal for these sorts of things. Secondly, much like it is out here in the "real world," employers do NOT blab about the reasons an employee has been dismissed. This isn't legal, as far as I know. Why, businesses know that when it comes to giving information about a former employee to a prospective employer, you NEVER offer negative information, lest you get in trouble. In addition to those constraints, the selectmen face the added conditions of RTK requirements governing their every move. The very act of publicly stating a reason could violate that  law. Again I ask, is former Selectman Boucher hopelessly clueless when it comes to this, or is she simply seeking to lay out a trap for the present board?

Ms. Boucher's letter, in addition to "demands" for "answers" the Selectmen cannot legally give, again follows on a familiar theme as noted above when she writes

"Both Selectman Grant and Selectman Benavides should have spoken to me before hand to get my point of view as to how this could all have been dealt with professionally and not in public like it was done.

Once again, former Selectman Boucher advocates for the violation of the RTK law with this statement. Twice, as a matter of fact. First by looking to communicate outside the confines of a public meeting, and again by suggesting it not be done in public, despite the request of the employee in question, as was his right. Again I ask-- Is this ignorance, or deceit?

Boucher's letter closes by lamenting the "sad situation for our town to be going through." I actually agree with her on this one. Unfortunately, it is the continued actions that SHE has engaged upon that are causing this to drag on. While she might claim to want what's best for the town, her actions are in all actuality what's best for one person and one person only: the terminated Town Administrator. If former Selectman Boucher actually wanted what's best for our town, the she would simply

and just go away. Enough, already!

.

Posted by Doug at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I have to applaud Connie Grant for showing that she could lead as the new Chairman of Gilford’s Board of Selectmen. I’m sure that buying your first home, deciding to get married or choosing to have your first child felt much the same as her difficult decision to make the motion to end the strained relationship with the Town Administrator. I believe she, along with Selectman Benavides, knew that ending the controversy sooner than later was the best thing for the Town of Gilford. Clearly, the former Administrator’s contract stipulates that he “serves at the pleasure of the board” and that alone should give the Selectmen the right to dismiss him. I see nothing in his letter that defines a “hostile work environment” unless having your boss tell you to do something you do not want to do is now considered hostile. If anything, I believe his letter violates Title 62, Chapter 643 “Abuse of Official”, Section 643:1 “Official Oppression” which states that “A public servant is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office.”

 A reasonable person could conclude that the nature and timing of his letter could have skewed the election process. Evan Juris has served the Town of Gilford with distinction as both the Police Chief and Town Administrator. It would be unfortunate to see that distinction tarnished by a contentious prolonged departure. Hopefully, he will realize that people in his position are routinely replaced by incoming administrations. We see this sort of thing occur in Washington, DC all the time. I continue to be puzzled by some Gilford residents, particularly the elected officials that are demanding a public explanation from the Select Board in this matter. For his own protection Mr. Juris has been advised by his attorney to refrain from commenting on this situation. Doesn’t it make sense for our Select Board to do the same in order to protect the town?  I hope that our town leaders can get on with the business of governing and move our community forward. 

Posted by Terry S. at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Board of Selectmen met Monday afternoon at 4:30pm following the swearing-in of new member Kevin Hayes. The agenda consisted of discussion and prep work for the upcoming March 24 DES public hearing on the Liberty Hill cleanup question. They will be seeking the agenda from DES and will ask about the possibility of moving the event to the school due to expected (encouraged) crowd size.

They also talked about the need for a consultant or environmental lawyer at this point, and whether anybody needs to look over DES' shoulder on the cleanup, or is DES the certifying agent.

Lastly, acting Town Administrator Shackett asked that the Board schedule time to discuss her duties and compenstaion. Gus asked to have the salary ranges of the positions made available to them. They agreed to take up the matter at the next meeting.

With no other business, the meeting adjourned around 40 minutes after it began. The atmosphere was quite orderly, professional, and businesslike. I thought that the chemistry between Selectmen Grant, Benavides, and Hayes along with acting Town Administrator Shackett seemed rather cordial and relaxed. Everybody was very well prepared.

I am upbeat about the prospects for achievement and progress from this point forward. The next regular meeting of the Selectmen is on March 26 at 3:00pm. Between now and then, if you have any thoughts about how to approach the Town Administrator/ Finance Director positions, or something that should be considered in the job description or contract, send it in. The Selectmen need to hear from people with their thoughts and ideas. Who knows-- maybe there's a better way that just hasn't been thought of yet...

Oh, and at that same meeting, the Chair will be elected, along with other positions, and committee assignments. You know-- it almost is starting to feel a little more like spring here in Gilford...

 

 

Posted by Doug at 07:43 PM | Permalink

It IS ironic that it seemed that Evans Juris was the person pushing forward the idea of recording the meetings that now take place in the Conference room.  As Doug indicated here, the firing of Evans Juris was discussed on Meet The New Press.  Now, you can see the video of the Selectmen meeting!

I was able to record it from the Public Access cable broadcast.  What I have done for now is to convert (using free software from the 'Net) and clipped out just the part of the Selectmen's meeting pertaining to the firing of Evans Juris - it starts with Doug's remarks to the Board at the end of the meeting.  The only problem is that the Public Access folks did not have the beginning monologue of Alice Boucher stating that nothing was going to be done concerning the matter at that meeting.  

If anyone happens to have that, please let us know and we will post it.  If there is sufficient interest, I can also post up the entire meeting....

 

Former Chairman Alice Boucher's opening remarks (paraphrase: "we'll do nothing")
Note: she is talking about Town Counsel's advice to the Board 

Selectmen meeting - discussing and voting on the termination of Evans Juris.
(Courtesy of GraniteGrok) 

Posted by Skip at 10:04 AM | Permalink

Ronnie Bean forwards the following. I've got to say that this is fairly representative of what I'm hearing from people around town.

I would like to applaud Connie Grant and Gus Benavides for the courage they displayed in the latest Selectmens meeting. At the many meetings I’ve attended, I have never witnessed selectmen Benavides conduct to be anything but professional, never mind "Hostile." I have nothing against Evans Juris personally, but he is known for having an intimidating nature. I think he took that to the next level with his letter that he put out just prior to the town elections. The timing of his letter was clearly an intentional manipulation of the election process.

Juris mentioned that if John Goodhue were a town employee he would have been charged with conduct unbecoming a town employee under "Town Policy." Juris IS a town employee, and manipulating the town elections process is without question "conduct unbecoming a town employee."

Juris also mentioned that Benavides may have wanted to run for town tax collector and wanted to "force an issue with her." Juris actually did run for that position against the previous clerk, and claimed he didn’t even really want the position. This seems a bit hypocritical.

As to the statement that Goodhue made about Juris obstructing the conservation easement of Saltmarsh Pond, I believe it to be true. Goodhue probably had more inside information than I did, but I can tell you that Juris and Sandy McGonagle, Land Task Force Chairman and town employee, definitely attributed to the months of delay. Many people don’t know that, although this project was voted in favor of in March by taxpayers, the town didn’t seal the deal until mid December. This not only cost the town of Gilford, but also the Beans, thousands of unnecessary dollars in legal fees. If they didn’t favor the project personally, and voted against it, that’s their right. To let that, or personal differences with the Beans, effectively delay them in executing the will of the taxpayers is also "conduct unbecoming a town employee."

Juris mentions the two selectmen stating the Administrative staff being hard to contact but that they couldn’t give details. I can tell you of several times, especially Friday afternoons, trying to reach Juris about the continued delay of the Saltmarsh project without success.

On the subject of Administrative staff, I can also tell you that I was quite surprised at the fact that Mcgonagle could have several meetings regarding this project during school hours, in the school office. Also having the custodian serving snacks and beverages to attendees. I believe this would be better known as "theft of time" in the real world. Many other town employees witnessed these meeting, but I’m sure none of them want to be "whistle blowers." Should people who volunteer their "free" time be incorporating that into their time "on the clock" for an employer, in this case the Town of Gilford? Sorry, this is a whole other issue that should be addressed by the SAU Administrator. In the last of the three years of dealing with the town on the Saltmarsh Conservation Easement I expressed concern about this, and the many delays of the process, to the Town Administrator and Selectmen. This project originally was supposed to be voted on in March of 2006.

I would not have brought any of this to light if it weren’t for the fact that John Goodhue was unjustly criticized for what he said. Although the wording of his statement may have been politically or ethically incorrect, it was an absolutely true statement. This didn’t warrant him being "railroaded" out of the election. I had spoke with Goodhue many times as to the constant stalling on the Saltmarsh project.

I would like to take this time to, again, thank the many people who voted in favor of preserving this pristine property. The Bean family has enjoyed its beauty since the early 1860s. In the decades to come many people will praise the foresight that the majority of us had in preserving this irreplaceable landscape.

                                                                                  Ronny Bean Gilford

Posted by Doug at 07:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

On the radio program Saturday, Skip, Terry Stewart and I discussed the actions of the Selectmen in terminating the Town Administrator's contract with Evans Juris. We all agreed the Selectmen did the right thing. In talking to folks around town, the feeling is it was none too soon...

Click here to download the podcast, or simply use the handy player below:

powered by ODEO

.

Posted by Doug at 07:07 AM | Permalink

Thus spoke Evans Juris appearing on the radio Wednesday morning with Alan Harrison on WEZS 1350.

Click here to download the podcast.

Click here to hear the phrase only "They will have to fire me"

Posted by Doug at 09:35 PM | Permalink

From the Concord Monitor: 

Gilford's selectmen fired Town Administrator Evans Juris yesterday, in apparent response to a letter Juris wrote to the selectmen last week that was critical of the board.

The vote surprised and upset the outgoing chairwoman, Alice Boucher, who said that the other two selectmen defied the advice of the town's lawyer by their move.

Again, tail wagging dog?  It is the Selectmen that are in charge, not the employees and not the outside consultant (for that is what a lawyer is).  The latter may give advice, but it is expected that the Selectmen will make decisions, even the difficult ones.

To say that Connie or Gus "defied" anyone is laughable.  No one in a position of authority is compelled to do anything with advice. A proper motion was made, seconded, discussed, and voted upon.  Both Connie and Gus are to be commended for having the best interest of the Town in the fore front and doing the right thing by making a decision.    I have a feeling that they just were not going to sit on their hands - it was time to make a decision even over Ms. Boucher's desire to lengthen out the process.

Doug, even though speaking about the office of the Town Administrator, gets it right with the role of the Selectmen:

The Town Administrator does, in fact work FOR the Selectmen, not the other way around.

Now add this:

Boucher said her fellow selectmen have placed the town in jeopardy

For those of us not involved in the "inside baseball" game, may I remind our now-former selectman of this - it seems to have been the kickoff of a political bet that ended up badly for those making that bet.  Placing the blame solely on others seems to be an act of silliness (or working in legacy-saving mode).  Especially when you made the bet.  Stop the spin.
 

On another note: 

"He has done an outstanding job," Boucher said. "This is not going to set over well with the townspeople."

I think that as far as the town folks are concerned, this may be a bit premature to pronounce this as a fact.  I think that the jury on Juris is still out....

 

BTW, I thought that this was REAL rich (and REAL ironic):

"People need to either attend the next selectmen's meeting to voice their concerns or write letters," she said. "I don't know if this can be reversed."

I've made it quite well known that I believe that the Selectmen should be holding their meetings in the evening when most of the taxpayers could attend.  Ms. Boucher adamantly refused to change the meeting time just so that working stiffs like me could not attend. The time that I could attend was the meeting when Ms. Boucher, dare I say, intimidated Connie and Gus to not move the time to evenings, even on a trial basis, until after her "retirement".

Consider the Letter written here for all to see. 

(H/T: PolitickerNH)

Posted by Skip at 06:54 PM | Permalink

Are they willing to embrace change?  From the Education Intelligence Agency:

Unions Poke Holes in $125,000 Teacher Plan. So a proposed New York City charter school will pay all classroom teachers $125,000, plus a possible bonus for performance, and will pay for it by eliminating some support positions and passing those duties on to teachers.

I'm skeptical, but it's a bold idea, and that's supposed to be why we have charters. What surprises me is the raft of union people who are also skeptical.

In the charter, the principal will make less than the teachers. This, according to the head of New York City's principals' union, will lead to "anarchy and chaos." United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten must have been taken off guard by the New York Times, because she actually gave a candid explanation for her hesitation: the charter isn't unionized.

UFT hasn't gotten teachers a $125,000 salary after 47 years of trying. A non-union charter schools opens with that, with no negotiations required.

We have two UFT charter schools, with regular contract salaries and all the union protections and benefits a teacher could want. And we have The Equity Project charter school, with $125,000 salaries and without those protections and benefits. Let's see which one prospective New York City charter school teachers prefer.

No, I'm not advocating that salary for Gilford (at least until the numbers can be run).  But look at the audacity of it - a startup situation, large cash for the risk, throwing off the rules, and a chance to do it (perhaps) your way.  Get this:

...the principal will make less than the teachers...

In the private world, the producers get the cash.  It is not unknown for top sales folks to earn more than the owner of the company.  Why not?  If they are bringing in the cash, they should get it and a smart owner knows it. 

Why should it be different in the education industry? 

It should be interesting to see what happens.... 

 

Posted by Skip at 08:55 AM | Permalink

I would like to thank all the people that helped support me through my successful bid for a position on the Gilford Budget Committee. The list is extremely long and I am truly blessed to be surrounded but such great people. I’m grateful to those that put up signs in those treacherous snow banks, endorsed me in the paper, and allowed me to communicate my platform in various media outlets (especially here at Gilford Grok and on Meet the New Press). I especially thank my amazing wife for her unconditional support and patience with all my endeavors.

Posted by Terry S. at 06:22 AM | Permalink

Gilford Selectmen terminate Town Administrator

As the fallout from the termination of Town Administrator Juris' employment continues, you should keep several things in mind...

The Town Administrator does, in fact work FOR the Selectmen, not the other way around. The official job description states that the Town Administrator

Serves, at the pleasure of the Board of Selectmen, as the chief administrative officer of the town. Responsible for carrying out the duties and responsibilities assigned by the Board of Selectmen.

It continues to provide that the Administrator

Establishes effective working relationships with all town boards, commissions, committees, and departments.

Last Friday, Town Administrator Juris, in a letter on official town stationary sent to the BOS and released to the media, declared

"a hostile work environment, along with discriminatory and threatening behavior by Selectman Gus Benavides."

After laying out a list of grievances, many of which appear to be rather petty and of the nature of what reasonable people would think "go with the territory," the Town Administrator's letter thus closed:

In the event that the Board wants to resolve the matter, please let me know so that I can attend the meeting with counsel.

Translation: "Have your lawyers contact mine." As one can see, this type of situation completely flies in the face of the job duties listed above, and represents a fatal flaw in the relationship between the Administrator and the BOS. When two parties communicate via lawyers, there is no "effective working relationship."

Beyond that, the official job description states the Town Administrator

Coordinates and administers all Town legal matters. Assists Town Counsel with the collection and review of material for preparation in legal matters. Recommends, with the advice and consent of Town Counsel, legal strategies for approval by the Board of Selectmen.

As you can see, because the legal matter exists between the Administrator and the Board, the conflicts of interest are impossible to resolve. This effectively prevents the Administrator from fulfilling his duties to the Selectmen here, too, creating yet another fatal flaw in the relationship.

In this instance, the Board of Selectmen exercised the only option that made any sense when considering what was best for the town, which is their duty. Nobody could possibly claim that in the existing situation, fatally flawed as it was, anything positive could get accomplished. As a citizen and taxpayer, I don't want to see a situation like we had brewing fester and drag on. I pay taxes and expect them to be used to fulfill the duties required of the municipality by law. A nasty and poisoned relationship between our elected representatives and the person charged with operating the town in no way satisfies that mandate.

Section 15 of the Employment Agreement Between the Town of Gilford, NH and the Town Administrator holds

The Town shall defend, save harmless and indemnify the Town Administrator against any tort, professional liability claims, or demands or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of performance of the duties as Town Administrator. The Town will compromise and settle any such claims or suit and pay the amount of any settlement or judgement...

In other words, we, the taxpayers of Gilford, are on the hook to pay the legal expenses of BOTH sides in this matter. How is that beneficial to Gilford?

I openly and publicly wish to thank Selectman Connie Grant for demonstrating clear and strong leadership for a quick resolution in this matter. Together with fellow Selectman Gus Benavides, she showed courage and a sense of responsibility that is rare in today's times. For that, all citizens of Gilford should be both grateful and proud...

 

 

Posted by Doug at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Today at their regular meeting, by a vote of 2 to 1, the Board of Selectmen have invoked the termination clause of the employment contract of the Town Administrator. Thirty days' notice has been given, and the Town Administrator will remain on paid administrative leave during that period of time.

 

Posted by Doug at 05:25 PM | Permalink

Here are the numbers from today's vote. Once again, Gilford sets the pace when it comes to citizen involvement and making SB2 a wonderful thing for everybody...

RESULTS ARE IN...

TOWN BALLOT:

		Hayes	Goodhue	Corrigan	Hoffman	Eddy
	Selectman:	726	700	198	30	26
		Saunders	Hoffman
	Town Treasurer:	1549	97
		Morrissette	Hoffman
	Town Clerk/ Tax Collector:	1558	91
		Hoffman	Millham
	Moderator:	150	1491
		Marcoux	Lachance
	Sup. of Checklist:	872	432
	Trustee of	Snow
	Trust Funds:	1423
		Henderson	Spear	McDevitt
	Fire Engineer:	147	1043	356
		Bosworth
	Library Trustee:	1340
	Budget	Stewart	Corrigan	Greene	Murphy	Roy	Brent	Hoffman
	Committee:	830	555	938	610	734	560	102

		Yes	No
Zoning:
	#2 Signs	1233	405
	#3 Water Setback	1280	364
	#4 RC to SFR	619	1013
Town Articles:
	#5   Budget	1389	238
	#6   Ambulance	1202	452
	#7   Cap Reserve-Police	1102	539
	#8   Cap Reserve-Bridges	1344	293
	#9   Cap Reserve-HiWay Equip.	1324	310
	#10  Cap Reserve-Ambulance Repl.	1190	442
	#11 Cap Reserve-Glendale Dock	1112	431
	#12  Cap Reserve-Rec Fund	1275	369
	#13  Cap Reserve-Sewer	1169	450
	#14  Cap Reserve-Water Supply	1171	464
	#15  Cap Reserve-Comp. Absence	971	630
	#16  Cap Reserve-Bldg Repair	1266	364
	#17  Library	1116	574
	#18  Outside Org.-Youth Services	793	858
	#19  Outside Org.-Hospice	908	736
	#20  Outside Org.-Family Services	907	761
	#21  Outside Org.-CAP	766	889
	#22  Outside Org.-New Beginnings	778	888
	#23  Outside Org.-Genesis	659	997
	#24  Outside Org.-Red Cross	812	830
	#25  TC/TC salary	903	726
	#26  Outside Org. (sailing)	237	1434
	#27  Anti Pledge Resolution	926	685
	#28 Record vote tallies on ballot	1199	389

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 1726

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

SCHOOL BALLOT:

School Board:

        Blandford  1375

S.D. Moderator:

        Cameron  1408

S.D. Clerk:

        Varricchio  1367 

S.D. Treasurer:

        Simoneau  1430

Articles:

	Yes	No
#2 Budget	1228	440
#3 Roofs	1348	332
#4 Move SAU	702	971
#5 Football	953	718
#6 Robotics	1152	516

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 1724

 

 

 

Posted by Doug at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

We will be voting for John Goodhue for Selectman and Bob Brent, Sue Greene and Terry Stewart for Budget Committee.

Other items of note---

Town Warrant #4: NO

Town Warrant #17: NO ("free" library $$$)

Town Warrants #18 thru #24: NO (outside agencies)

Town Warrant #27: NO!!! (If your property taxes are too high, then advocate that sommebody cut some spending!)

Of course, there are many more items of interest that you should pay attention to as you vote. ANd there are others you should vote "NO". Please scroll down this page to check out the entire list of recommendations and rationale as we see 'em. See you at the polls!

Posted by Doug at 05:29 AM | Permalink

One of the first things that this blog site did was reporting the Budget Committee (Salary study sub-committee) results of of comparing all of the towns that shared the same population demographics as Gilford for the positions shared in common. 

From information supplied by the Town (under Right To Know requests):

	Town Administrator
	Min	Max	Actual
10/25/06	$73,304	$95,295	$89,542
10/29/07	$73,304	$95,295	$92,900
	Percentage increase		3.75%

 This table shows that the minimum and maximum pay range for the Town Administrator has not changed from 2006 to 2007.  It also shows that Mr. Juris recieved the full amount possible, 3.75% increase under the new Merit Pay system.

Note: from the previous salary study conducted by the Budget Committee subcommittee, where the data is approximately from 2005, we can see that the Min/Max salary range has been increased:

			Percent
Salary Ranges	Min	Max	Increase
2005	$64,303	$73,304	14.00%
2006-2007	$83,594	$95,295	14.00%

by 14% 

 

 

Posted by Skip at 09:09 PM | Permalink

You know, this election period at the national level has become rather whiney from the Democratic side at the Presidential level.  With all due respect to those of the Democratic persuasion, it is kind of typified by Michelle Obama's recent outbursts that have seemed to be really "out there" in   complaining about American life in general.  Meanwhile the main candidates, Obama and Hillary,  seem to want us all to believe that everyone in America is a victim of their circumstances, the corporations are all out to get us, nobody can rise to wealth and fame on their own (excepting, the two candidates, I guess - all of whom will out-earn just about 99% of us after starting poor or middle class themselves), yadda, yadda, yadda.  Face it, America seemingly is just is a horrible place to them (and yes, I really disagree with all that, can't you tell).

In my opinion, seems like Mr. Juris wants to join in that whine fest here in Gilford.  Sorry, but "Big Burly Guy claiming victimhood" doesn't cut it.

Especially a few days before an election.  Anyone remember the dirt that came out just before the last election when Debbie Eastman was running for re-election for Town Clerk / Tax Collector?  Anyone remember who her opponent was? 

I certainly was surprised when Doug posted Town Administrator's Evan Juris's memo to the Selectmen and then saw it in the Sun and the Citizen. I've read it, and reread it, and have thoughts on it on several levels.  My thoughts just on the angle of the upcoming election. 

Note:  I'm not a lawyer (so far be it for me to speak to the legal ramifications), not a professional politician (ha!), and I wasn't present at any of these "events" he describes.  But, I certainly have opinions and will exercise my First Amendment rights in commenting on the letter and what was printed in the paper! 

Some quick thoughts:

1. Going ballastic on the guy that approves YOUR performance review is neither smart or serves to promote longevity in your current position.
2. The Law of Thermodynamics says that for each action there is a equal and opposite reaction.  Works a lot like that in politics too.  Unlike the real world, however, sometimes, the opposite reaction is multiplied far beyond what is expected.
3. Mr. Law of Unintended Consequences, meet Mr. Juris.  Shake hands (we all know who will win).
4. Going back to point #1 - it doesn't help, either, to slag the NEXT guy who may be doing your performance evaluation.  Especially after he already apologized (does that mean ANYONE who opposed you should be apologizing? Heck, I wasn't all that thrilled with the Saltmarch Pond thing either - should I be getting an apology from someone too?)
   

Note:  You know Mr. Juris...

...sometimes I really believe that you have no idea of what the Internet is all about.  Remember that silly code of ethics that you worked on and claimed 'we've spent lots of time and effort on" in a way to shut (in my humble opinion) Doug and I up?

You remember, the one, that I found to be a screen scrape of a city in California (and it only took about 15 minutes to find it, too)?  Trying to repurpose that in this case? 

In June of 2007, I filed an official complaint with the Board of Selectmen concerning the Chairman of the Gilford Conservation Commission, John Goodhue, relative to his conduct at the June 19, 2007 conservation commission meeting, clearly stating that if Mr. Goodhue, at the time, were a Town employee, he would have been charged under Town Policy with conduct unbecoming a Town employee.

Making rather silly and inane remarks like "if here were a Town employee" - guess what, dude, he ain't.  Frankly, this probably ain't helping your chances of remaining one either.

Serious note:  Town employees, work for the taxpayers and voters of the Town.  Not the other way around.  This shows a total lack of respect of that relationship in trying to influence a political campaign.  

Given this too,  where Ms. Boucher started this all,  would I be far off the mark in thinking that there is a convoluted effort to stop Mr. John Goodhue in his bid to become a Selectman?  Or should "convoluted" be swapped out for "bungled"?

Hey Evans, guess what - we at the 'Grok want him to win!

Given this seemingly inane stunt, even more so, now. 

But I digress. 

Also, during the September 26, 2007 meeting, in front of all Board of Selectman members, the Assistant Town Administrator and Administrative Secretary, he [Gus] stated that when he took office that it was the perception that the “Town Administrator” ran the Town and he was going to make sure now that the Board of Selectmen “runs the Town”, not the Town Administrator.

Trust me, Gus is not the only one.  You kinda made his point well at my first meeting of the BudComm LAST year when at the end, you hammered us all for being "adversarial".  Heck, all I remember is the BudComm folks asking a whole lot of questions (frankly, that's what I thought the BudComm was supposed to do!).  I thought that you were going to sweep the table of all the books (including my laptop) at the time you were so angry.  Everyone else was saying "where the heck did that come from"?  Or even "why?", as all of us thought that the meeting to that point had been exceedingly polite.

I want the Board of Selectmen to clearly understand that I do not expect any type of retaliation because of my freedom of speech.   I am concerned about discriminatory practices, threatening behavior by Selectman Benavides and the hostile work environment created by the members of the Board of Selectmen.

I think Mr. Juris needs to go back and read the First Amendment and then read some legal opinions of it.  Unless he has a contract, he is an "employee at will" - the will of the Selectmen. 

There may not be a legal or employement action as a result of slamming your bosses.  However, the word "ridicule" comes to mind as a consequence coming from the general public.

Should I have done the same, declared a hostile work environment as a BudComm member when you attacked us (in my opinion) at the end of that meeting?  After all, pretty much everyone else was getting along.....until you started in.  It does work both ways.....but we accepted his apology and moved on. 

First Amendment rights.....strange, the Code of Ethics you were pushing would have taken that away from us....and now you are depending upon it?  I hear strains of "Fine for me but not for thee" waft along the breezes..... 

Big Burly Man trying to assume the mantle of victimhood?  Again? 

More opinions later. 

Elections - ya gotta love'em......

Posted by Skip at 06:43 AM | Permalink

Two “Grok” Thumbs - wish we had more!

This is the perfect opportunity for diverse students bring a range of skills to bring a single project to fruition.  This is not just engineering and building a robot, it is also marketing, public relations, fund raising, web site creation and maintainance, graphic designs, logistics, and a bunch of other skills.

This is theory and interests brought to a head just as in the real world.  Not one person can succeed, it takes a voluntary team united for a given purpose.

ARTICLE VI Citizen Petition – Gilford High School First Robotics Team

To see if the school district will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Six Thousand Dollars,  ($6,000), to fund the registration fee and program materials for the Gilford High School FIRST Robotics Team. This will be an ongoing annual appropriation to be funded from general taxation. (Submitted by Petition)

School Board: Recommended Budget Committee: Recommended

Principle: Learning is just an intellectual exercise unless applied practically.  This is the epitome of theoretical application of knowledge.  Besides, it is just plain fun to watch the kids swarm over a problem with THEIR project!

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote for this article.

 

Posted by Skip at 10:17 PM | Permalink

“Grok” Thumb - withheld

Last year, the Gilford Friends of Football tag teamed with the School Board to embed funding of Football into the overall budget.  This ignited a firestorm as it was shown that the GFoF had previously promised that when it was time, it would do as as a Warrant article.  Both the GFoF and the School Board bet on its success....and lost.  This year, they have fulfilled that promise and they are to be commended for it. 

Skip - I abstained on the recommendation vote of the BudComm; while nodding approvingly for the petition warrant, I am worried about future increases.

However, we can see that this may well be a harbinger of increased budget requests going forward - after all, when the Varsity reached the finals, the NHIAA imposed regulations on the final game for equipment et al.  The 'Grok also has concerns about the continued level of fundraising - will that actually happen or will taxpayers be forced to fill in the gap?

Further, given a new need for locker rooms that will meet requirements, once again we see additional dollars spinning as fast upward as the DOW spinning downward.

 

ARTICLE V Citizen Petition – Gilford High School Varsity and JV Football

To see if the school district will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Thirty ThousandDollars, ($30,000) to fund a varsity and junior varsity football team for Gilford High School. Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, ($7,500), will be raised from gate receipts, fund raising and concession sales; the balance of Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) is to come from general taxation. This will be an ongoing annual appropriation and part of the operating budget to be funded from general taxation. (Submitted by Petition)

School Board: Recommended               Budget Committee: Recommended

 

Principle: The Gilford Friends of Football is bringing this matter to the taxpayers as they promised years ago. It will add significantly to the budget in years to come.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote your heart.  We are not making a recommendation.  At least one of us will be voting "no".

Posted by Skip at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Two “Grok” Thumbs Up

It is time for the SAU offices be located in SAU buildings, and the timing is right for this.  The need for the space is decreasing and will be decreasing over the next few years as enrollments go down and the accompanying need for teacher staff goes down.  Up to five or six classrooms will become available over the next few years.

Much has been said (a lot of kvetching on what I hear from some of the union folks) negative to this.  The BudComm Recommended it, and from the overall space needs of the Town, it makes a lot of sense for fairly short money.

Note:  The SAU had another Warrant for $50K outstanding before this was presented.  Upon the request of the BudComm, it was pulled and this brought forward.  We complemented the SAU for working with the BudComm on this. 

ARTICLE IV            Gilford School District Administration Offices Relocation

To see if the school district will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Fifty Eight ThousandDollars, ($58,000) for the cost to relocate the Gilford School District Administration Offices tothe Gilford Elementary School. This expense is to be funded from the June 30 unreserved fundbalance (surplus) available for transfer on July 1. This is a special warrant article. (Majority vote required)

School Board: Recommended              Budget Committee: Recommended

Principle: The SAU Administration belongs in an SAU building.  With decreasing student enrollment and needs, it makes sense to move them to the Elementary School.  The money requested is far less than moving to other quarters (such as the soon-to-be old library)

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on  this article.

Posted by Skip at 09:46 PM | Permalink

One 'Grok - One Thumbs up 

BUMPED and UPDATED:

We talked, and have decided to endorse this article. 

============================== 

The 'Groksters are talking...we're talking....and will talk a little bit more

Go ahead, leave a comment and talk to us. 

Article 7:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to be added to the Police Facility Capital Reserve Fund previously established.  This sum to come from undesignated fund balance and no amount to be raised from taxation.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee) 

Principle: TBD

Recommendation: We're talking - we'll get back to you when we've figured it out (up, down, or split decision)

Posted by Skip at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One 'Grok - One Thumbs up

My only question on this article was if one roof could have been done this year and another one next year.  Turns out, it would have cost more overall if it was a "one and one" situation.  Expensive, but overall much more expensive if all the equipment et al had to be brought in a second time.  BudComm members did get up on the roof and look at it.

 

ARTICLE III                 School Buildings Roof Replacement

To see if the school district will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Four HundredSeventy Five Thousand Dollars, ($475,000), for the replacement of the school building roofs to the Gilford High School and the Gilford Elementary School and authorize the withdrawal of Fifty Thousand Dollars, ($50,000), from the capitol reserve fund created for that purpose. The balance of Four Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars, ($425,000) is to come from general taxation. (Majority vote is required).

School Board: Recommended      Budget Committee: Recommended

 

Principle: You have to maintain what you have; it gets more expensive if you don't and the life span of the roofs is gone.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on  this article (just wish it didn't cost this much).

Posted by Skip at 09:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

BUMPED and UPDATED:

The Blogging Councilor has picked up on this nonsense and has a post here - go read it! 

This initiative is being put forth by a group that wants to institute broad-based taxes on all of us. The latest attack has been by putting warrant articles in about 80 town elections calling for the removal of the pledge.

Their thought is that if the pledge doesn’t exist then politicians wouldn’t be seen as reneging on their word when the tax is instituted.

The main argument for bringing this new tax to life here is that it will greatly reduce our property taxes. This argument requires a belief that the politicians in Concord that don’t pay their bills to the counties, towns and cities now will properly fund local government and schools. I wonder what imaginary world that these people live in.

And Greg has it exactly right - one cannot just look at one tax, all taxes have to be taken into effect.

The comment over there also caught my eye. From Jane:

Basically these articles would like you reject the Pledge by discouraging candidates from taking it or not voting for candidates who have taken it so they can leave the dialog open for more discussion about ‘fairer’ taxes. This is a non-binding resolution. But it is the first step in the demonization of the Pledge and those who take it, under the premise that they are preventing the legislature from considering more ‘fair’ ways of taxation.

You cannot legislate away the ‘free speech’ of candidates. Candidates will continue to take the pledge as offered by CNHT as seen here: (and hopefully at our annual picnic on July 5t, 2008)

http://www.cnht.org/images/pledge.jpg

Even Governor Lynch signed our Pledge.

 The Pledge is our NH Advantage.

 

Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (which is not for fair taxes, just taxes

Article 27: To see if the Town will vote to approve the following resolution to be forwarded to our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor:

Resolved: We the citizens of Gilford, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair.  The property tax has become unjust and unfair. State leaders who take a pledge for no new taxes perpetuate higher and higher property taxes. We call on our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to reject the “Pledge”, have an open discussion covering all options, and adopt a revenue system that lowers property taxes. (Submitted by Petition)

It seemed that the sponsor for this article was Mr. Rogers as he was the one that moved the question (reasoning: why would someone move the question if one was not in favor of it?).  Yet, at no time did he mention that it is really the GSFTC that is pushing this!

Why do I think this is silly?  Earlier, he had stood up and advocated for spending more taxpayer money on supporting the Outside Agencies / Non-Governmental Organizations. Effectively, this is 'I want the Town to spend more, but let someone else pay for it!"

 

Now, I am of the camp that property tax monies should be spent solely on local government activities but I will address that again in another post. 

Several counter arguments to this were offered:

• Lower spending results in lower taxes
• Adding additional tax revenue streams will not result in lower property taxes in the long run (the saddest example of this is NJ).
• We lose local control of how taxes are gathered and spent.

Terry Stewart, Doug Lambert, John Goodhue, and I all spoke against this article on these arguments.  It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when the green light is given to write checks to MORE places using tax payer money, the revenue stream has to be increased by some method.  Just WISHING that by avoiding property taxes with another tax will make the overall problem of high taxes go away is ludicrous.

Did anyone else notice that while folks spoke against the article, giving what I thought were valid reasons, no one spoke at all in favor of it (or at least, even trying to give a rebuttal)?

One important issue, at least to this transplanted New Hampshire-ite of 22 years, would be the total loss of control of what is the largest tax revenue stream in the state.  Once gone, that control will never return.  And given the stupidity of the Democrats now controlling the levers of power in Concord and seeing that they, in less than one year, are spending the State into a deficit, do you really want to take that fiscal governor off?

Now for the hypocrisy bit (in my opinion): Mr. Rogers wants the Town to spend the money for the outside agencies yet he complains that local property taxes are too high? Now he doesn't want to pay for the stuff he wants us to “buy”?  This is supposed to be fair and just?  Consider it – on one hand, he  wants everyone in town to pay for services but probably not him?  Yes folks, there is a connection – wanting to spend more money in the Town Budget causes increased property taxes.  Yet, here he is, crying that property taxes are too high!  Is this a case of cognitive dissonance or what? 

Next, I believe that this is a Trojan Horse, and here is a great example of that.

I mentioned the “Purple People” earlier.  These were the folks, sponsored by the Service Employee International Union (“SEIU”), that would be in purple shirts with “I'm a Healthcare Voter” emblazoned on it.  They would come up to you and ask “Are you in favor of healthcare that is affordable for all people”?  Well, of course you'd be – how could you be against that (until you really started to think about it)?  Well, lots of people signed their petition.

That petition was then presented, with millions of well meaning signatories, as proof that Universal Healthcare is being demanded by the American citizens (and you wonder why I'm not enamored with unions....).  A simple question in one area resulting in its use for another agenda.  A Trojan Horse.

This Trojan Horse effort by the GSFTC is not all that well disguised and it is an agenda of getting a broad based tax established in New Hampshire.  They are trying all over the State to set the stage for either an income or a sales tax.  Never do they attempt to solve the problem by attacking the spending problem but rather they wish to make the revenue side all but impossible for the ordinary citizen to control.  Unlike the Carbon Coalition (who were at least honest enough to let people know) with their article last year, these folks are aiming for title of “pernicious” for their article and their lack of transparency.

Let me continue by pulling this article apart:

    Resolved: We the citizens of Gilford, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair.

Pure pap.  Who doesn't want a “just and fair” New Hampshire?  I rarely see people holding signs stating “let's be unjust and “screw you” - do you?  The problem in this case is always in the definition – what is just and what is fair?  In this case, Mr. Rogers is talking out of both sides of his mouth – spend more but get someone else to pay for it.  If he was being honest, and truly believed in wanting lower taxes on his property and for what he is paying, he would be trying to aid those that are having a hard time paying for those taxes by advocating for a more minimalist local government and for people keeping more of their money.  And studies have shown that when people feel more secure financially, they are more willing to help out those in need.  It has also been shown that when the responsibility of helping others is moved primarily to the government sphere, individual citizens give less of their time – and their money.  Why should they – the Government is responsible!

All in all, what he is advocating is NOT just and not fair – he just wants what he wants regardless of the impact.

The property tax has become unjust and unfair.

Gee, I wonder why?  If you look back and time and plot the percentage rate increase of taxes, they have generally well outpaced that of inflation.  I can agree with this statement (just not the entire context of his article).  Thus, how do we make it just and how do we make it fair?

The simple answer is to answer the question “what is the proper role of government with respect to its citizens capability to pay”?  We ALL would like LOTS of stuff done for us – it is ALWAYS easy to say “Yes!” to new proposals to provide this new service or enlarge that present service.  It is hard, however, to say “no”.  Unfortunately, those that say “no” are often characterized as being cheap and stingy, or uncaring and cold-hearted.  Skip, there are people who need to be helped!

Yes, and maybe that number might well be less if government took less of their money too!

State leaders who take a pledge for no new taxes perpetuate higher and higher property taxes.

I will repeat - No they do not.  Let's be clear – it is State AND local leaders that continually agree to have government do more and more that perpetuate higher and higher taxes of all kinds (not just property taxes) that raise the need for higher taxes.  It is fault of State and Local leaders that never decide to review what is being done and ratchet services backward.  To wit; when is the last time that you heard of a bevy of services being cut?  Heck, governmental and advocacy types scream bloody murder if a program is just funded at the same level it was the year before (to them, that IS a cut)!

We call on our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to reject the “Pledge”, have an open discussion covering all options, and adopt a revenue system that lowers property taxes. (Submitted by Petition)

Instead, it should read:

We call on our Local Officials, our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to have an open discussion covering all present and planned serves options, and adopt a plan to evaluate all services and their cost to see if they fit the financial capabilities of their citizenry to support them with respect to being with a point of the overall inflation rate.   (Should be submitted by Petition)

In other words, why does government have to be all things to all people?  Can the adults in our town and state stand up and declare that we are adults and not seen as mere wards of the State?  Why is it that some, many of the Liberals, always insist that Government can fix problems?  Why don't they rally people themselves and charge ahead and fix the problem on an individual basis?

Mark my words, there are those that do need assistance and we as a society need to provide them.  However, we do need to be careful of ramifications of such ill advised articles such as this one – else we end up like New Jersey with not only a property tax but also a sales tax and an income tax and lots of other taxes.

After all – It is the Liberals that always want to have Government do more and force everyone to support their ideas by involuntarily raising taxes.  And to repeat, notice that Mr. Rogers did not take stand to rebut the above arguments.

The 'Grok recommendation is to vote against it.

Posted by Skip at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

                                                                

To play (or "stream") a clip now, just click on it.  To download it to your PC, right click on it and tell the process where to save the file for you.
 

Posted by Skip at 07:09 PM | Permalink

Last year we supported Gus Benavides for a seat on the Board of Selectmen. He promised to ask questions and consider all input before rendering decisions. For whatever reasons, Gus hasn't really been able to have a crack at everything that he would like try here in Gilford as a member of the Board. We think it's worth trying it his way, and see if there's a different way of managing and delivering municipal services in Gilford-- or at least provide oversight with a degree of questioning to satisfy the citizens that we are indeed getting the most bang for our bucks.

To that end, Gus has publicly asked that voters choose John Goodhue to help him in his efforts, and Skip and I are willing to join him achieve that goal. We will be supporting Mr. Goodhue this coming Tuesday, and encourage everybody to do the same. As a long time Gilford resident, always active within the town and its government, John provides a solid foothold both in Gilford's proud and traditional past and in the present as well. There will be no "on the job training" for Mr. Goodhue-- he will know how to be one of our Selectmen from day one. While we have not always agreed with John Goodhue on every issue, and probably won't each and every time once he's our Selectman, we trust that at the end of the day he will do what he thinks is in the best interest of Gilford. John Goodhue is a known quantity, and what you see is what you get. We think a Board of Selectmen that includes a Gus Benavides, a Connie Grant, and a John Goodhue is one that will serve the citizens of Gilford in a way our present times require.

Vote John Goodhue for Selectman!

 

Posted by Doug at 08:14 AM | Permalink

The following letter has been obtained by GilfordGrok. We are printing it in its entirety, saving comments for later...

To:  Alice H. Boucher, Chairman
  Connie Grant, Selectman
  Gus Benavides, Selectman

From:  Evans E. Juris, Town Administrator

Re:  Notification of Hostile Work Environment and Discriminatory  Practices

This letter is to officially notify members of the Board of Selectmen that I am advising you that I am declaring a hostile work environment, along with discriminatory and threatening behavior by Selectman Gus Benavides.

It has now become overwhelmingly apparent that from the time he assumed office that his intentions were to bring personal harm to me through the use of his political office.

As this Board is aware, this matter with Selectman Benavides began within the first weeks of him assuming office.  Mr. Benavides asked questions that had been posed by a former Budget Committee member on how cruiser bids had been awarded in the past.  I had no problem with the questions and explained the process to him and the fact that the Board of Selectmen award bids, not the Chief of Police.  I also did state to him, at that time, that his questions were the same as a former Budget Committee member.

In June of 2007, I filed an official complaint with the Board of Selectmen concerning the Chairman of the Gilford Conservation Commission, John Goodhue, relative to his conduct at the June 19, 2007 conservation commission meeting, clearly stating that if Mr. Goodhue, at the time, were a Town employee, he would have been charged under Town Policy with conduct unbecoming a Town employee.

I outlined the matter to the Board of Selectmen because Selectman Benavides had been present at the time and said nothing in defense of the Administration.  What he did was tell Mr. Goodhue that he would report back to him.

The next day Selectman Benavides interviewed the Assistant Town Administrator and me, without mentioning anything about the public accusation Goodhue had made.  I only later found out after it was brought to my attention by the Planning Director, John Ayer, that I probably wanted to listen to the recording of the June 19, 2007 Conservation Commission meeting.

I brought this forward to the Board, asking them to review the matter. Initially Selectmen Benavides stated that he didn’t recall the accusations until the tape of the meeting was played for the Board. The Board of Selectmen was reluctant to do so because of “political fallout”.  After another two weeks of non-action, it became apparent that the Board would not consider any action I agreed to withdraw it so that the “political fallout” wouldn’t take place.  Selectman Benavides was in the forefront not to take action, but to allow him to speak to Mr. Goodhue privately.

Additionally, as the Board of Selectmen is aware, Mr. Goodhue flatly denied making any statements during the June 19, 2007 meeting, when I brought it to his attention, at a meeting in which you and members of the Land Conservation Task Force were present.  It was not until I stated that it was on tape and that the Board of Selectmen had listened to it that he stated “then I apologize”.

In July, after being in office only three months, Mr. Benavides added items to my evaluation concerning interaction with another department and its employees and then denied that he was responsible for them until Selectmen Grant and Boucher corrected him. 

In a meeting on September 26, 2007, I advised the Board of Selectmen that I felt I needed to seek legal counsel because of actions primarily of Selectman Benavides.  At that time, I informed you of his attitude towards Administrative personnel, and more specifically me.

I also raised concerns over Benavides spending over an hour trying to get me to change the evaluation of a female employee.  During that meeting, he repeatedly told me that I did not do a proper evaluation.  I told him repeatedly that I would not change it, that he has not worked with the employee and that he is unaware of the job that she does.  He, in fact, did speak with other Board of Selectmen members by phone about this and they apparently did not agree with him. He then did not sign the authorization for a pay adjustment.

Also, during the September 26, 2007 meeting, in front of all Board of Selectman members, the Assistant Town Administrator and Administrative Secretary, he stated that when he took office that it was the perception that the “Town Administrator” ran the Town and he was going to make sure now that the Board of Selectmen “runs the Town”, not the Town Administrator.

He went on to say “You know, Evans, when you walk into a room”, he referred to me as having a “big, tough cop image”, because you were Chief of Police, people think you’re running the Town.  He referred to me as intimidating.

It was also apparent during the budget process with the Board that when the Conservation Commission Chairman Mr. Goodhue made his presentation that he could offer no explanation on his budget of less than $5000.00, yet we have a Selectman endorsing him because of his knowledge of how the town operates. This is clearly raises a flag.

Then the situation with the Town Clerk/Tax Collector.  The Administration was instructed to provide options.  We did that.  Selectman Benavides was adamant for a review on how to separate the position and cut the salary and/or eliminate the benefits.  He even mentioned that had he known what this position paid that he would have run for it. His intentions were to force an issue with her and to put her in her place.

 

Most recently, Selectman Benavides and Selectmen Grant has stated that there are times when Administrative members can’t be contacted but neither could provide details only to say there must be an administrator in the building at all times. This requirement is not placed on any other department nor has it ever been.  When I asked this meeting to be a public session under Right to Know and I was refused.

There has not been a time in my twenty (20) year career of working for the Town of Gilford that I have not been able to be contacted.  The allegations made by Selectman Benavides and Selectman Grant are unjustified.  It is well known that I have a cell phone or pager with me 24 hours a day.  I return phone calls and have always been available. In fact Benavides called me after hours one night on an issue and the threatening way he talked to me made me want to hang up. Selectmen Grant has called me on a Saturday afternoon over a public access TV issue. The Administrative Secretary is well aware of my schedule and how to contact me. Additionally Selectmen Benavides has not always returned phone calls from the Town offices or the current Chairman.

He also accused me of not properly filling out exit interview forms correctly and leaving information out of them, despite being told that the employee reviewed the form had signed the form.

In closing, it is apparent that with Selectman Benavides’ endorsement of John Goodhue as Selectman, why he would not take any action against Goodhue and with Goodhue saying that Selectman Benavides has encouraged him to run for Selectman Boucher’s seat and is quoted as saying that Benavides said, “I could really use your help”, it certainly appears that an agenda is present.

Perhaps Mr. Benavides wants the position of Town Administrator.

I want the Board of Selectmen to clearly understand that I do not expect any type of retaliation because of my freedom of speech.   I am concerned about discriminatory practices, threatening behavior by Selectman Benavides and the hostile work environment created by the members of the Board of Selectmen.

I have been a loyal and dedicated servant to my community.

It is my hope that this matter may be resolved. In the event that the Board wants to resolve the matter, please let me know so that I can attend the meeting with counsel.

Posted by Doug at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Goodhue denies he’s gunning for Juris 

Nice headline in the Daily Sun today, eh? Nothing like a shot to stir up trouble or start a rumor. Or put a kibosh on a candidate just before the starting gun goes off.

Retiring selectman Alice Boucher, whom Goodhue, Kevin Hayes, Dennis Corrigan, Chan Eddy and Joe Hoffman are bidding to succeed, posed the question, prefacing her remarks by citing Goodhue’s assertion that selectmen must put the best interests of the town “ahead of personal agendas.” She said that she was moved to ask the question after receiving calls from “a number of residents” alleging that Goodhue intended to try and fire the two employees.

Ah yes, the "unnamed, anonymous residents" campaign trick. Funny, how come she didn't take the same line of reasoning she did over the printing of the salaries in the Town Report ("ANY one can come in and request that information") - why not just let those folks ask the question themselves?
Did she...

...ask that question of anyone else? And no, frankly speaking, I don't believe the motive was a play to invoke reverse psychology.

“It’s not true,” Goodhue answered bluntly. He suggested that the allegations originated with “people in town who don’t want me elected.” 

I may not see eye to eye with John on some issues (but also agree with him on others!), but as far as I am concerned, this poor political stunt has backfired.

Thanks parting gift,  Selectman Boucher.   She has talked about the 'Grok in the past about being mean-spirited; I guess she's not above it either, truth be told.

'Course, it seems that there was one she should be afraid of if he makes it into office:

Hoffman, who has long made himself the bane of town officials, offered that if he is elected, “Juris in gone”.

heh!

Posted by Skip at 09:39 PM | Permalink

Hold onto your hats!

Starting Saturday morning at 9 am!

This week is town meeting/election time for many towns in NH. Here in our little slice of Heaven that iis Central NH, we have an exciting and vibrant body politic-- especially in our little town of Gilford. Ever since we adopted SB2, things have only gotten better! Here's the lineup:

.

• We are pleased to announce that four of the five Selectmen candidates will stop by for a quick visit. Dennis Corrigan, John Goodhue, Kevin Hayes, and Dale "Chan" Eddy are all confirmed. This should be exciting.
• Roger F. Moran of Hobe Sound, FL wrote an excellent letter about reducing government spending rather than to raise taxes, which we printed in this post. Wrote Roger:

  A family living frugally can always tighten their belts a notch more during adverse times. There isn't a small business that, squeezed in a recession, cannot cut its overhead. There isn't an international conglomerate which, under pressure, cannot improve its bottom line.

  Only federal, state and local governments seem unable to perform this basic necessity.

See what I mean about all politics being local? What Roger writes is totally applicable here in NH, too.

• Once again, given that it's on the ballot in many towns around us here in Central NH, we'll talk about the benefits of adopting the Official Ballot (SB2) method of voting for local matters. While the opponents are crying to high Heaven, the fact remains that by accepting this change at town and school district meetings, NOTHING REALLY CHANGES except that the final decisions are made in the privacy of a booth with all day voting and the opportunity to vote absentee. Oh, and participation goes way up...

• The Granite State Fair Tax Coalition declined our offer to join us on the show to defend their "anti-taxpayer pledge" warrant article appearing on 88 town warrants, including ours, this year here in the Granite State. As we have noted in prior postings, this is nothing more than a means to demonize our present form of property tax driven government funding system with a new, broad based tax, thus destroying the NH Advantage. VOTE NO!

There you have it! It all starts at 9AM EST Saturday. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here... The best radio (in our humble opinions) anywhere...

Posted by Doug at 08:59 PM | Permalink

Two 'Grok Thumbs Up

Being on the Budget Committee means a lot of work, a lot of minutiae, and a lot of questions and hours. Departments and people pitch their ideas as to what they believe is in the best interest of the Town and why those ideas should be brought forward and funded. However, it can be a thankless job as no one like to say “no” to good ideas and initiatives. Sometimes, saying “yes” is the proper and right thing to do, even when they have been declined by others. Yet, in order to provide the best quality services to the town folk at the best cost to the taxpayers, it is “no” that needs often times to be said.

There are three people that deserve your vote in Gilford for the Budget Committee – Sue Greene, Bob Brent, and Terry Stewart. They have the knowledge and the wisdom to know when to say “yes” and when to say “no” without compromising the quality of life in Gilford. They've asked the questions, they asked for the proof and challenged the providers of that proof. And when they they have not been satisfied, they've gone out and done their own investigations to ensure that Gilford residents are getting the best result for their hard earned dollars. And most of all, they have proven, Sue and Bob over the years and Terry this past year, that they will protect the average taxpayers' wallets. Sue and Bob both bring years of experience on the Committee and Terry with years managing private sector budgets.

They know, and advocate for, fully funding the needs of Gilford as a requirement. They know and realize when wants conflict with needs and act appropriately. With their leadership, the budgets for both the Town and SAU budgets have slowed their rate of increases (the Town budget was less than the year before!). They have earned your votes; I ask that you return them to the Budget Committee when you cast your vote during our SB2 voting (March 11). We certainly will be voting for Sue Greene, Bob Brent, and Terry Stewart.

Skip and Doug
Gilford

Posted by Skip at 07:42 AM | Permalink

This caught my eye over at PolitickerNH (a relatively new site that is aggregating political News here in NH [and am pleased to say, GraniteGrok is one of the few websites posted on its blogroll):

Towns looking for candidates to fill positions

New Hampshire has the world’s third largest elected body, but towns across the state are having a difficult time finding candidates to run for various offices.

Positions ranging from town selectman to cemetery trustee are being left unfilled.

“In about 15 local towns and school districts, there is not a single contested race,” The Concord Monitor reports.

Forgetfulness, increases in town population and hectic schedules have been blamed for the lack of candidates.

"People are drawn in many ways by jobs, family, other responsibilities. As small towns grow, there may be less and less of a feeling of ownership,” said Tom Haley, superintendent of SAU 53.

I can easily say that I am proud of Gilford as its citizens take their responsibility to make this Town their own with respect to Town positions.  Certainly, not all of our positions are being contested, but just look at the plethora of folks running for Selectman and BudComm!  I may not agree with some of the folks some of the time, nor will I agree with some of the folks ANY of the time, but I AM glad they run. 

Diversity of opinion is what is really important (and not the simple-mindedness, quota-based type of diversity you see talked about in some social engineering circles). 

 

Posted by Skip at 10:17 AM | Permalink

That's how much more the county will be snatching from a Gilford family of four this year to fund it's ever-expanding budget.

No matter where one looks, there are events taking place, and choices that need to be made, all of which will have a profound impact on our lives—especially our wallets! Whether it’s budget votes on the ballot, candidates that will either be frugal with our monies or spend it like drunken sailors, and the question of adopting SB2 (surely a no-brainer), this is the time of year when the power is in our hands. In many instances, the choices are pretty clear between business as usual, or adopting a new degree of scrutiny and oversight. The beauty of our system funded through property taxation here in NH is that almost the entire cost and function is controlled right at the local level, and residents, should they choose to avail themselves, have a large amount of say in the final outcome. Except for when it comes to Belknap County, that is. For that, we are at the mercy of 18 people….

By now, most taxpayers in Belknap County should have heard about the looming impact posed by the need for more funds due to reductions in revenues from the state. The county portion of our property tax bills is estimated to rise some 13%. This isn’t chump change. In this prior post, Skip has calculated that this will cost an average Gilford family of four an additional $136 in new taxes, on top of an increase generated no matter what happens at the March 11 budget voting. Laconia, under the constraints of the tax cap, will have to shave some $250,000 from its budget to stay compliant. Proportionally, the story is the same in the rest of the towns in the county.

And here’s the rub—not a single taxpayer from any of the communities has any say in the county budget whatsoever—except for the 3 County Commissioners and the 18 members of the County Convention, comprised of the delegation of NH house representatives. It is their shoulders that we rely upon to keep expenditures under control in order to maintain tax stability. They are the eyes and ears of the taxpayers of the county. Based upon my recent observations, they have failed us miserably.

 

Instead of poring over the budget with a fine toothed comb, and pondering what exactly the role of county government is, they have seemingly rubber-stamped the thing, blaming all the increases and woes on the state of New Hampshire. All you have to do is open the budget and take a look, and you’ll quickly learn that while the state has some impact, the County Convention isn’t entirely truthful in passing the buck. Like your typical town or school budget, the devil is in the details, where much of the spending covers payroll. While our “representatives” in county matters claim that everything contained within is necessary spending that leaves no options, I beg to differ.

As one is likely to find is the case in nearly every modern governmental budget big and small, the underlying factor that gets tossed aside is the question of wants versus needs—or, to put it simply, deciding exactly what is the role of this particular piece of government. The question should be asked, “Is this budget item, and whatever its increase happens to be, absolutely necessary in achieving a defined and proper function?” My contention is that this hasn’t been done. And judging by the pace the county government has expanded and grown, I would say it has been many years since anybody gave the taxpaying residents of the county any consideration whatsoever.

For example, in most towns and school districts in the area, we have seen the percentage raises dished out decline from the highs we saw some three to four years ago. In general, we find 3 to 4 and a half percent pay raises the norm, with some municipalities and school districts asking employees to shoulder a larger portion of their ever-rising benefit costs. Not so with Belknap County. A quick sampling of key administrative and elected official raises shows that the taxpayers have been awfully generous in remunerating them for their services. The Chief Administrator/Finance Officer saw an increase of 6.52% in 2007 ($5340) and 7.01% ($6117) this year. The Citizens Council Executive Director got 6.53% ($4867) last year followed this time around with a raise of 7.01% ($5573). Not bad, eh? The Sheriff (an elected position that people actively seek out and campaign for) saw an increase of a whopping 9.07% ($5779) last year with a generous 6.94% ($4825) allotted presently. Get the picture? Just THREE employees cost the taxpayers over $32,000 in pay raises in just two years’ time! Do the math. How many employees does the county have?

My point is that these represent just three line items out of a budget that, with all of its pages, measures nearly an inch thick. I contend that the county has been on autopilot, and NOBODY has been minding the store. We seem to be funding every conceivable social service that can be thought up. I want to know who decided all of this was necessary, and why I am obligated to pay for it all?

Thanks to the actions of two lone activists here in Belknap County, there will be one last chance for the hapless taxpayers to have a say this coming Tuesday during a public hearing at the County Complex at 7 PM. Will anybody use this opportunity to tell our “representatives” to wake up and do their job? Or will we just complain and fall into the trap being set by those eagerly waiting to inflict broad-based taxes upon the Granite State?

Oh, and one last note-- don't let some loyal Republican try to tell you that this is all the fault of Gov. Lynch and the Democrats. No way! The county has been run by a single party- the GOP for years on end. They hold the majority-- and the power. And they choose to do nothing. Think about that-- supposed "good" conservatives like Rep. Fran Wendlebloe sit among the 18 delegates. What has she ever said about growing county spending? I'll tell you what: ZIP. ZERO. NADA. Why? She's too busy raising her hand on command and rubberstamping the budget to actually say anything.

The bottom line is we need good, conservative Republicans to step up to the plate, make a sacrifice, and run in the primary in order to take out the current crop of do-nothing Republicans and replace them with people that are actually willing to do more than hang out at the country club with the little name tags after winning an election (when they're not voting for more spending, that is...).

Anyway,

TUESDAY NIGHT, MARCH 4th 7:00PM at the BELKNAP COUNTY COMPLEX: PUBLIC HEARING.

BE THERE!

Posted by Doug at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)