GilfordGrok

Limited Government means exactly that - limited.

And that means government does a few things and not all things for all people just because "it is a good idea" or solves someone's specific need.   Why do we have Big Government?  Many reasons:

• One general reason is the socialistic nature of Progressives (think mostly Democrats, but can be Republicans too - those that believe that only Big Government can make the right decisions for us all).
• One more is that our education system is failing to teach the basics of our founding - not only the history but the WHY of that history (and given Reason #1, this reason isn't too difficult to grasp). 
• Yet another reason is that faced by Project Managers all over: "scope creep", or the tendency of all projects to get bigger so as to do more "good stuff" and thus get too complicated, misses milestones, and costs too much.
• Lastly, another is that too many folks are too lazy or unwilling to live up to their own responsibilities - easier to outsource the fulfillment of a need to others (both the service and the cost). 
  

Thus, we end up with Bigger Government either through ideology, lack of knowledge of our historical roots, bureaucratic sprawl, or unwillingness to step up to the plate.

Town budget season is wrapping up all over NH; my hamlet is no exception. Last part of our job was to Recommend / NOT Recommend four Petition Warrant articles to fund charities with taxpayer monies (if that sounds like gobbledy-gook, see after the jump). Of COURSE, there are those that have no compunction about donating their fellow citizens tax money for charitable purposes - regardless of whether those citizens would normally support that charity.  One of my fellow Budgeteers tried to equate donating to these social services organizations with funding the Town's Fire Dept; after all, we pay for the latter's service and thus, fails to see any difference: 

"Back in the day, our families used to provide this service but that doesn't exist anymore for most of us. So many of us will rely on these services at some point in our lifetime.  So I don't think it is like giving to  other charitable organizations which are kind of nice but you don't need them in your life."

The dirty secret why it doesn't exist is because we let it - it has become far easier let to of that responsibility and outsource the care of our families to society at large than do it ourselves. Before I get into the argument of why this is a straw-man argument (as well as being irrelevant), watch this shortened clip:

What she fails to mention is significant:

First: The Fire Dept IS a town dept - we appropriate monies, and we control their expenditures.  The employees of the dept are under Town control - the Town Administrator and the Selectboard.  Not running right?  Correction applied - and there is accountability.

Two: These charitable groups / social services / non-governmental organizations do not report to the Town Administration OR to the voters - we have NO idea where the money can really go OR apply corrections if badly spent.  In fact, there is NO accountability and therefore, not the "same" as the Fire Dept.

Third: she implicitly argues for Bigger Government via "scope creep" (e.g., "our families used to provide this service") - it is easier to just let Govt do just one more thing - it's a great idea!

Before going further, take a look at a part of a speech that Davy Crockett gave to his fellow Congressmen when presented with the chance to use taxpayer monies to pay for charity (emphasis mine):

Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.  I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity.

Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as  members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. ...

..."We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as  we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of  Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no  doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.

How FAR we have strayed from that!  Go read the rest; it truly explains the context of the above.  It is what brought forth my response. I make no bones about it - I am a Conservative.  In fact, when the Democrats call me a far-right Conservative, I just smile broadly.  Fiscally, politically, and socially; I am that person.  I believe in the Founders vision of a limited government whose job was NOT to provide for the needs of its citizens; instead, they sought a form of government that would to protect a citizen's Rights as enumerated in the Constitution.  This is in direct opposition to what Statists and Progressives would have you believe; their world view is all but indistinguishable from a purely Socialist agenda where Government is responsible for everything you need (with the current twist of "why own the cow when you order the owner what he can do with it?") - and you will pay for their dream of Utopia with your taxes with the commiserate loss of individual liberty (both financially and the resulting regulatory environment).

So what's my beef?  That we, as a society, have so easily passed on our responsibilities and have shucked them off to others in our communities (Socialism via laziness?) - and in doing so, raising taxes for everyone.  I keep getting told "times have changed" as if that is a good thing - I think not.  Progress is not always forward; the only "progress" being made is in freedom of responsibility while forcing others to pay for it.  Why don't politicians consider the cost of making it "free from necessity" for some and a bigger burden on others?

For me, it is the height of hubris that a politician should force fellow taxpayers to pay for charities that they might not otherwise support.  Charity by Government is simply taxes collected by force and given to others - a redistribution of wealth by politicians.

*****

Explaination of Petition Warrants - here in NH, the citizens in each Town (as opposed to a City) get to vote on the budget for that Town - EVERY voter has that opportunity!  In our Town (being what is called an SB2 Town, we use paper ballots - non-SB2 towns all vote in an actual meeting.

Petition Warrants are those "things" that get at least 25 people in town to sign their names and attest to the fact that they support this "thing".  If this "thing" (or "Warrant Article") has to spend money (e.g., buy a fire engine or, in this case, give money to social services organizations), the Budget Committee has to, by law, give either a positive or negative recommendation.  In our town, this recommendation often sways the ordinary voter - most often if the BudComm does NOT recommend a budget or Warrant, the voters vote it down. Thus, the reason for fighting for this NO Recommendation on my part.

Our society was built on self-responsibility - this is but another incentive to not be responsible for ourselves and our families and instead, become yet another step more dependent on Government.

Obama (and Ely and Dewey) are smiling.

(Cross-posted at GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 08:12 PM | Permalink

This past Thursday night, the Gilford Budget Committee presented its Budget to the townfolk of Gilford.  Here is the presentation that I was able to record:

For the most part, things were uncontroversial; the majority of the discussion from the audience were from folks stating that we MUST give taxpayer monies to their charities (Community Health and Hospice, Genesis) - after all, they provide uncompensated services FAR in excess of what the town gives them.

The only "surprise" of the evening was when Evans Juris showed up and started to ask questions of the budget.  The surprise was not so much, to me, that he showed up (although there were a few raised eyebrows at his late entrance) but more the questions he asked - even though the budget amounts / line items were "moved around" by the current administration, he was the Town Administrator and should have known some of the answers.

Of course, right after the Public Session, the Budget Committee held another BudComm meeting to discuss its recommendations for the Petition Warrant Articles concerning the outside agencies / social services / charitable organizations.  It can be seen here:

Overall, the budget, including Warrant Articles, is flat over last year.  Now it will be up to the Deliberative Session for the taxpayers to make any adjustments that they want.  Then, the SB2 voting by ballot will make it official and binding - the Legislative body of Gilford, NH - the voters - will have spoken.

Posted by Skip at 10:34 AM | Permalink

This past Tuesday, the Gilford Budget Committee held its Public Session concerning the SAU / School District budget.   Overall, the BudComm found no real contentions to deal with - the item that received the most discussion was that of adding yet another sport to the school system - Lacrosse.  You can see the discussions here:

Of course, the Bud Comm also had its meeting afterward to either bring up any issues for reconsideration and to  Recommend or Not Recommend the Warrant Article for Lacrosse.  That can be seen here:

Posted by Skip at 09:02 AM | Permalink

UPDATE II:  The PDF of the settlement is here.

UPDATE:  Now, I ticked - it wasn't $37K - it was ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 37K ??

I sent the following to Scott Dunn, the Town Administrator:

Hi Scott,

Question for you - do I need to file a Right To Know request to find out the Selectmens' vote to settle with Juris?
-Skip 

What I got back was this:

On 1/13/2010 9:05 AM, Scott Dunn wrote:

Here is a copy of the settlement agreement.

The minutes of the meeting where the agreement was reviewed and approved
by the Board were sealed during a non-public session.

I have the PDF - I will post it up later on today.  My return email was this:

On 1/13/2010 9:20 AM, Skip Murphy wrote:

So the public is NOT going to know if the vote was a 2-1 or a 3-0?

For how long are the minutes sealed?

-Skip 

OK, John, Kevin, and Gus, how long did you seal them for? You going to let us know how you voted?

My take away?  I don't know how much would have been at risk if a trial had gone forward.  It looks like the Local Government Center may have taken the lead on this (being the insurer) and just paid Juris off.

So the message, and morale of the story is - just sue, even if it looks like a loser - and get paid off by the Town and LGC.

I want to know who caved in!  While it may have been the checkbook of the LGC that ante'd up most of the zeros to the left of the decimal place on the check, the Selectmen (Gus, Kevin, and John) had to have had a vote to agree to "buy peace" as the PDF puts it.

Such a price to pay - Juris is smiling all the way to the bank.

I still give kudos to Gus and Connie for doing the right thing, but this was not.

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

Both the Citizen and the Sun ran stories that basically heralded the end of the Juris era in Gilford.  Yes, his actual tenure ended March of 2008, but this lawsuit kept the door opened ajar against a final closing.

Now we know the final amount - and Juris has to pay his lawyer and the Feds their due of that amount.

A couple of points:

• I still wish that the Selectmen had pushed it right to the end and not settled.
• Who gets paid first: the Feds in income taxes or the lawyers?  In this case, I'm rooting (oh my gosh, I can't believe I'm saying this!) for the Feds to get theirs first....for obvious fallout reason.

Lastly, the Citizen article had this:

"The purpose of the release is to 'buy peace' from further dispute and controversy" between Juris and the town, states the agreement, signed on Nov. 11.

I ask:

Why has it taken almost two months for this information to come out?

'Bye, Evans...

Posted by Skip at 10:50 AM | Permalink

Streaming live!

Video clips at Ustream

Posted by Skip at 06:29 PM | Permalink

First I’d like to thank Mr. O’Brien for his contribution to Gilfordgrok. We always welcome opinions of differing views, especially, a post as lively as his. I like to let a posted opinion stay on top for more viewing until at least the next day before responding.

He brings up several good points worth discussing. Unfortunately, his post is a rambling hate filled rant that contains so many incorrect assertions that a response would be very long and time consuming. I will however address the actual point of my original post. Just for Mr. O’Brien’s clarification, the point; my surprise in his “yes” vote to add more spending to fund another school sports program. I was surprised because his vote didn’t square with the views that he expressed to me in person.

I’m now concerned that it’s actually worse than I originally thought. Mr. O'brien is telling us that before the long scheduled Budget Committee “discussion”, on Lacrosse, he didn’t know the Lacrosse program was for both boys and girls, has attracted 70 students, their grades are improving and they will provide their own equipment.

 It appears I truly have mischaracterized the man because I serious thought he was more researched on Budget committee topics before the meetings. I suppose holding up a moist finger and checking the political winds works just as well for some elected officials.

Posted by Terry S. at 08:17 AM | Permalink

I'm not going to address most of the guest post by John but I do have some thoughts:

Mr. Stewart, it would be interesting to know your overall bottom line budget strategy goal. 

I don't know about Terry, but here is my philosophy - at no time (during "normal times") should the rate of Government spending be above the rate of inflation.  Roughly stated, that is also, in general terms, the rise in income of most families.  My guiding question has always been "WHY should the revenue growth of government exceed that of the families that support it"?  Government should serve the taxpayers - not the other way around.

That has always been my focus - and always will.  Sure, it gets me in trouble with folks that have no problem in extending the role of government - for them, the Proper Role of Government is that of a more socialistic state - the collective doing it all for the residents.  With a healthy dash of "we know best" thrown in as well.

Is it your goal to cut budgets 10%, or is it 20%, or is it 30%? 

As was said repeatedly this budget season, this is not normal economic times.  Don't get me wrong - I DID appreciate seeing that both the Town and School budgets came in a tad less than last years, but I believe that they should have been trimmed more and my votes reflect that.

Not in all cases, as the Selectmens' viewpoint (often discussed during our deliberations) was to "save jobs and cut stuff"; my problem was that when I tried to cut more stuff, I was outvoted - consistently.

I'll answer the question: would 5% have been OK with me?  Yes - put off the new phone system, a truck, a cruiser, and a couple other "big" things.  10%?  OK, but at that point, you would be near the bone.  In this environment, perhaps needed as many of our residents have seen decreases in their incomes of at least that much if not more - I see no problem in ratcheting Government down in a similar manner.  20 - 30% - certainly not in one fell swoop - I'd rather keep spending flat for a while and let taxpayers "get ahead" and then let expenditures have a controlled growth.

Do you want to eventually cut services to the people of Gilford? 

Since when did "services" become sacrosanct?  It seems that the Holy Grail of any level of Government is to NEVER decrease an existing level of "services" - only grow them (or strive to keep them level if it is absolutely clear that decreasing them is the alternative). 

Look, in bad times, things have to get cut - Companies cut services or the production of goods.  Families have to cut their expenditures when times get rough as well.

I have news for folks that believe that Government has to supply all needs - it cannot.  Nor should it. Instead, I would challenge the Leadership in Government (elected and appointed) to have the courage to tell the citizenry:

• What is the "internal ranking" of departments - which is the most important and which is the least"?
• Of the  services offered by each department, rank them: most needed to least needed".

Example: the Police would be either the number one or two ranked department.  However, the "call the seniors programs" that seem to be springing up all over would rank well below that of being able to respond to a burglary.

In fact, such a ranking system should be implemented and made known - letting the citizens know where the Selectmen priorities are set and then see how the funding follows that.

Is your intent to totally demoralize the employees (which also affects services) and the people of Gilford?

This will make me unpopular, but I will say it anyways - no employee, private or public, deserves a job.  No one is entitled to a job.  While Management does need to take that into account in either sector, there are times that "doing the right thing" is to remove funding from an organization - not doing so is mgt malfeasance.  But I am tired of hearing, when a motion has been made to defund a line item or a series of line items, the immediate, knee-jerk response:

• You're cutting services!
• You're demoralizing employees!

Sorry, my PRIMARY role as a Budget Committee member is to watch out for the taxpayers' wallets.  Period.

Let me also state this: I believe that the taxpayers are adults, not children.  Sure, special interest groups are going to complain when their specific ox is being gored, but we are elected to make the tough decisions - not run away from them, scared of the heat that might rise from making an unpopular "cutting" action.  Most taxpayers, especially right now, understand that sometimes, they cannot have what they want.  They deal with priorities all the time - I think that they understand that (except for that particular special interest group) that not everything can be done all the time.

They can deal with that - being adults.

  Is it your plan to make Gilford only a “town” and not have any sense of community? 

Sorry John, but I'm going to blunt here: this was a stumble in the long, dark hole called "dumb".  Since when has ANYONE (other than a collectivist EVER said maintained that Government spending is a foundational criteria of having a sense of community?  C'mon John, you were kidding when your keys were tapping on the keyboard, right? 

High GOVERNMENT, or Government spending is NOT equivalent to a sense of community.  Nor is a sense of community dependent on NO spending, either.  Frankly, IMHO, anyone that maintains that HAS to agree with the following (or some variant thereof):

People can only be happy when Government provides things to them.  And ONLY Government can provide those things that create a sense of community.

Prove me wrong.  John continues:

But let’s insure that we don’t add to the tough times by making low dollar amount cuts that affect morale for everyone any more than necessary. 

Sorry John, I depart from you again.  Yes, morale is important - but does it rise above families that have to do without in order to pay their tax bills?  What about THEIR sense of demoralization - I heard little about that except for Sue, Terry, and I on a regular basis.

With these words, what you are telling the taxpayers of Gilford, especially those at the lower end of the financial spectrum, that you are  saying is that you value the morale of the employees over the struggles of the taxpayers that pay the bill.

Oh, one last thing - in reference to your bullet items of detailing the discussion items at which Terry was not present and thus, giving the impression that he should not voted?  Two thoughts:

• the Dormady Defense
• The discussion we had last year where Dale insisted that a decision has to be made solely on a line item / numbers basis while I disagreed saying that disagreeing on a purely philosophical basis was just as valid.

Terry's No vote, based on those two observations, was as valid as anyone else who voted.

Posted by Skip at 06:10 PM | Permalink

Guest post by John O'Brien (Selectman and Selectboard representative to the Budget Committee)

I want to thank you for your personal review of my recent vote and YOUR opinion of how I should vote.  It’s certainly comforting to know that there is another standard (yours) that I should follow in using my voting privilege.  However, I am disappointed that I don’t get an “at-a-boy” when my vote agrees with yours.  Interestingly, you and I have voted positively on just about all the issues of the 2010 budget.
 
While I was not “whispering” about your lack of attendance at meetings, there was a question in my mind of your ability to come to a conclusion on the merits of the proposed Lacrosse program.  Evidently, in your opinion the discussions/debates during the committee meetings are worthless and we should just fall back to your sub-committee of one to form our votes.  However, in speaking of Lacrosse:

• You were not there when we discussed that this sport is growing in interest in this area.
• You were not there when we discussed that the number of students currently involved in this sport numbers 70, which is more than football.
  
• You were not there when we discussed that both young men AND women are involved in this activity.
• You were not there when the athletic director and the school principal reported that grades were improved for students wanting to be involved in these sports
• You were not there when we discussed that there is fundraising in place that is helping students with safety equipment and uniforms.
  

However, I am now better informed from your report that the Lacrosse players don’t pick up divots on the shared field……(you based you vote on that?).  And, you are correct, I have had some questions about spending in the schools but when we can achieve some balance of support and morale building for a large number of male AND female students and give them a productive after school activity, I’m all for it!

It is very sad and unfortunate that you have to resort to “name calling” and “personal attacks” for folks that have a different opinion from yours.  I expect that your other “peers” on the budget committee did not appreciate being referred to as “suspects”.  The other members of the BC respect your vote, you should respect theirs!  Also, I believe it was you that wrote earlier that your fellow committee member, Ms. Corrigan, should tend to her garden rather than be involved on the committee.  And evidently, you have not followed our votes well enough as Phyllis and I have not agreed on a number of issues over the years.   Additionally, you did not report that as a Selectman, I was supportive and involved in recommending a flat 2010 budget to the committee.  And, being on the Budget Committee for a number of years, I continually supported and was greatly involved in a reduction of the town budget every year.  But I never was fortunate enough to receive an official Stewart published approval.  Perhaps I can look forward to that?

Mr. Stewart, it would be interesting to know your overall bottom line budget strategy goal.  Is it your goal to cut budgets 10%, or is it 20%, or is it 30%?  Do you want to eventually cut services to the people of Gilford?  Is your intent to totally demoralize the employees (which also affects services) and the people of Gilford?  Is it your plan to make Gilford only a “town” and not have any sense of community?  Yes, times are tough!  But let’s insure that we don’t add to the tough times by making low dollar amount cuts that affect morale for everyone any more than necessary.  Let’s insure that we look at budgets with a watchful eye and cut costs of frivolous spending.        

John T. O’Brien
Selectman’s Representative to the Budget Committee

Posted by Skip at 05:47 PM | Permalink