GilfordGrok

as the Citizen of Dec 8 made clear - and the Selectman are gearing up for a fight.

Good for them!

We have no idea of all of what the information might be.  From what has been reported in the local media, I still think that this was a $ grab after a failed political grab.  Yeah, the person that both Evans Juris and Allie Boucher did not want as Selectman, John Goodhue, did not get in.  However, the result that they tried to forestall, Evans's firing, did not come about.

My only hope is that the Selectmen fight this as hard as possible and do not settle with Evans or his lawyer(s).  I know that in the Steamer of 12/11, Connie said "from what I understand, it could still be settled". However, I hope that they go to the jury trial and then turn around and sue him to recover costs, as this seems to be nothing more than a "slap suit' on his part (in this layman's eyes and knowledge).  That kind of agression should never be given in to.

Posted by Skip at 10:17 PM | Permalink

Well, the Dec 5 Sun reported that the "old - new" library site did not sell - no bids at all.  Hmm, so much for being a liquid asset - not even one to match the $150K purchase price.  And in this economic time, I doubt that there will be any for a while either.  Thus, the $110K that was promised to the Trustees from the sale of the property evaporated into thin air.

What was surprising was that is that the article said that the Library Trustees opened up a substantial line of credit partly in anticipation of the sale of the land and the $110K it would have given them. 

Oops.  That's going to leave a mark....

Posted by Skip at 10:04 PM | Permalink

Update:  Gus emailed a correction:

Skip,

While reading the Grok today I noticed that you incorrectly stated that I used the analogy of turning your Chain saw into a race car.  “Oh, back to my example - what I failed to say, however, when Gus said he turned the chainsaw I lent him into a race car, I failed to say "But when did I give you permission to turn my chainsaw into your race car?"  In my eyes, that was an illegal taking - I've not only lost my chainsaw but (continuing with the applicable law), I'm not able to even get the race car as compensation”   That analogy was given to you by TA Scott Dunn and not me.  Please correct this error on the Grok.

Happily updated and apologies for the original mistake!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words said by Marshall Faye, an heir to the old library.

I guess I am against the Town proceeding with the taking of the library against the original wishes of Reverent Wilbur Harding and his wife Loise back in 1922.  Yes, the Library was deemed too small over the last few years, but the taxpayers kept saying "No".  But then, a new building was raised by the Friends of the Library.

Well, now what to do? 

My opinion? Let them have it back.  Yes, the Town has added onto the original building - without asking the family.  I used the analogy of lending a chainsaw to Gus, waiting a long time, and then finding out it was not used for its original purpose (cutting down a limb) but was turned into a race car.

Well, there was some back and forth about the applicable laws concerning town property.  And yes, I do have to bow to those that know more than I about the laws concerning this area of the law overseeing this particular problem.

But in reading the Sun earlier this month (4th, 6th for examples), it seems that there may have been more going on than what I thought. While the Town has claimed before that it could not find the heirs, it was easy enough for others here in Town were able to find a few and send them updates on the on-going process.

Oh, back to my example - what I failed to say, however, when Gus said he turned the chainsaw I lent him into a race car, I failed to say "But when did I give you permission to turn my chainsaw into your race car?"  In my eyes, that was an illegal taking - I've not only lost my chainsaw but (continuing with the applicable law), I'm not able to even get the race car as compensation

Fair?  No.

Let the heirs have it back. Tell the Town Counsel to stop the legal proceedings.

Posted by Skip at 09:41 PM | Permalink

...especially what has been going on here in town.  Certainly, with the exception of the Library budget (on which I have previously commented), the process of going through the Town's budget has fairly uncomplicated this time around. After all, when the overall budget is basically flat compared to last year, what's not to like?  Nothing is being cut,  services are being funded, and the Selectmen and the Administration took the time to prioritize the needs of the town without going into the "wants".  Fortunately, insurance and fuels are trending in the right direction.  Good job, as the overall assessment of the town was down (which means that there is less taxable property, which sent the tax rate up).  Thus, with two legs of the stool going in the wrong way, it was good to see the third (and the most easy for ordinary citizens to control) stay relatively stable.

Back at the beginning of the month, the School Board approved Dr. DiMinico's plan to downsize the budget by 0.66% that incorporated cuts to the educational staff (elementary assistant principal, lessening of the elementary guidance by 0.4 FTE). Fortunately, Dr. DiMinico has done the right thing in recognizing that with the declining enrollment, the current economic times, this is not the time to be asking the taxpayers for more.  I actually applaud him for the philosophy of "time to take the taxpayers into account and protect them".

And of course, the teachers are all up in arms with 58 or so teachers / guidance staff signing a petition that said:

"We believe the elimination of the Assistant Principal position and the reduction of guidance services at the Elementary School undermines the commitment that we make to every child that enters our school.  Our Assistant Principal and guidance counselors provide direct support to many of these children, their families, and their teachers....This support allows all of our children to become successful....With the current economic downturn, we can expect an increase in student and family needs.

That's nice... 

My concern was, when I ran for the Budget Committee, was for the ordinary taxpayer.  And that taxpayer, I still believe, expects that they should be able to take care of themselves without having to rely on government. Unless of course, Big Government (and those that believe that Big Government is the only way to a successful life) decides that it continually needs more and more of said taxpayer's money.  It is very easy to justify this position and that position, and adding yet one, two, or more services or expanding existing ones.  Yet, is a government that does everything for us a good government?

Russ Armstrong said that the role of government was "to care for people". Now, that may have been the role that FDR first espoused in articulating his Second Bill of Rights. 

However, that is dead wrong and is not what the Founding Fathers thought.  Instead, in reading the Constitution and the real Bill of Rights, the concept of the Founding Fathers was the protection of individual rights FROM government.   And that is what government should do.  We seem to have strayed a bit (I'D say!) from that truth.

With that said, I disagree that an Assistant Principal position and downsizing (a bit) a guidance position is automatically going to cause children to fail - that's not how it works, folks. 

The problem is that it seems that the purpose of the schools are for the benefit of the taxpayers and their children - somehow, I get the feeling that the teachers sometimes believe it for their benefit (especially when I go to the national websites for the NEA and the AFT and see what their platforms are all about.  Go ahead - it's not just "for the children") instead.  At the individual teacher level?  Sure.  At the union level?  Not so much - unions exist for one reason - and often it is not just for the union members either.

Anyways, I digress but I'll leave it at this.  Last year at the Deliberative session for the SAU, I heard one of the teachers (I believe it was one of the union folks) state "the numbers may be going down, but the needs will always be going up!".

And that seems to sum it up - faced with an economic downturn that seems to rival that of President Jimmy Carter (no, we are a LONG way from another Depression at this point), there seems to be a reluctance to give in just a tad. Seemingly, there will always be a justification to never cut the size of government...

Government can never meet all of everyone's needs - nor should it.

Posted by Skip at 08:45 PM | Permalink

Filed under Appreciation.

At our last Town's Budget Committee this past Thursday, the BudComm Chair read a letter from our Town Clerk / Tax Collector that nearly had my jaw dropping onto my laptop keyboard:

“Recreation Center of New Hampshire”

Telephone: (603) 524-4713                                    Denise Morrissette, NHCTC

47 Cherry Valley Rd.                                              Town Clerk - Tax Collector

Gilford,New Hampshire 03249    

EMail: dmorrissette@gilfordnh.org

Memo:

To:       Board of Selectmen; Budget Committee
CC:       Town Administrator; file
From:    Town Clerk – Tax Collector
Date:     December 10, 2008
Re:        2009 Budget Adjustment Request

This memo serves as a request for a reduction in salary in the amount of $2,173.00 (3.75%) of the Town Clerk – Tax Collector (line item #01-4140.1-100) for the 2009 proposed budget.

This memo serves as a request for a reduction in salary in the amount of $2,173.00 (3.75%) of the Town Clerk – Tax Collector (line item #01-4140.1-100) for the 2009 proposed budget.

As this budget was due back in August of 2008 the original request was being made inline with the overall budgeted request for town employees.  However, due to the economic downfall I am requesting that the line item remain the same as budgeted in 2008 at $57,952.00 and appreciate having my job and benefits currently provided to me by the Town of Gilford taxpayers.

THAT is an elected official putting the needs of the taxpayers first.  Here is an elected official that shows appreciation for her job when others in the private sector are losing theirs.  She didn't have to do it; no one asked her to do it.  But because she and her staff deal with the taxpayers every day, she related to me (I called her the next day) how some of those come in almost in tears of not being able to pay their property taxes, or having to really choose between paying and other important issues in their lives.

This is why I get SO mad at politicians that seem to be so cavalier about spending taxpayer money on things that are wants, or even vanities to the politician's ego, instead of only those things that are the proper role of government.

Well done, Denise, and thank you!

(Cross-posted at GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 08:06 PM | Permalink

In these trying times of financial uncertainty we find ourselves struggling to realign our financial priorities. Have we become so accustom to getting what we want when we want it or have we become so bound to our own little thiefdoms? It appears the answer to that question may be both. The silver lining to a recessed economy is that it shines the light on spending. Notice I didn’t say wasteful spending because that is in the eye of the beholder.

As I look over the landscape of the budgeting process it gets really difficult to isolate a particular item that needs more funds or is more absurd with how those funds are spent. Just in the sleepy little town of Gilford the list is endless. Compensation for town employees, sports programs, outside activities, buildings and grounds and even donated money. There just isn’t enough space available to pine on about all these things. As the population of students decline in the Gilford school system there is an average of only 13 students for every teacher yet we still here calls to add more teachers. With a ratio that low, we should have the best mentored children on the planet but as I've come to learn in gilford, they'll do nothing without getting a stipend for it!

If we truly are in the most difficult financial times of our lifetimes, then why is it that government doesn’t seem to get it? While we all struggle to keep our jobs, forgoing raises and contributing less or nothing to our retirement, why do government increases live on? Somehow we should feel good about the fact that the teachers will live with just a 3% raise and contribute a small portion to their health insurance. Do you know anyone today that gets free retirement, dental coverage, paid sick days or the money, paid for college courses, and their jobs are protected by tenure?

Posted by Terry S. at 12:09 PM | Permalink

It is well known that the number one facet of success in school is parental involvement.  Looking at the story below, it does seem that the educational system has taken it to heart and enforcing it.  From STACLU:

Your Governments Schools In Action….Actually, This Sorta Makes Sense

When I first caught the brief news blurb on this story, it made me think of the Nanny State and how they force involvement. Second thought, maybe this isn’t too bad

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indianapolis elementary school treats parental involvement just like homework - and if a student’s parents fail to meet strict expectations, their child can be shipped to another school.

Indianapolis Public School 57, the city’s only so-called “fundamental school,” requires parents to sign their children’s homework every day, volunteer at the school and respond to teachers’ calls or notes within 24 hours.

Teachers sign similar agreements, and the school’s 210 students have strict rules, too, The Indianapolis Star reported. If students don’t turn in homework for several days, for example, they can earn enough demerits to kick them out of the school.

Students living in several east side neighborhoods are automatically assigned to School 57, but those who don’t agree with the rules can transfer to another school with no questions asked.

Parents having to be be involved with their children’s schooling if they want their kids to stay in the school? Homework has to be turned in? Excellent! On the flip side, it says something about our education system and many parents that they have to be forced to be involved with their kids’ education, eh?

My problem is exactly that - the parents.  Look, I rag on unions and the education-industrial complex (did you know that we really do spend more overall on education than on the military [war expenses exempted]), but it is true that having the parents deeply involved in their childrens' school work is the major indicator of success - and that cost is a zero dollar expenditure.  What it does cost is major time involvement of the parents (and in no small way, the school system in checking).

I do like the accountability factor - and it seems three-way: students, parents, teachers.  

Now, if we knew what their curriculum was too.... 

(cross-posted: GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 07:37 PM | Permalink