Congrats, dude - you've now joined the club.  However, instead of trying to right a wrong, you simply wanted to make a crass political play.  You cost a whole slew of hours of work to a whole bunch of people, including Barbara Aichinger.

And if that was your sole point, you succeeded.  Such a thing to be remembered for.

But you will also be remembered for not having the courage of your convictions by being a "no show".  If there was any thought that this was a truthful challenge on your part, you proved that with the lack of your shadow in the hearing room.

Thanks for proving our point for us.

And as always, remember this:

Oh wait! Joe may have a big problem now:

II. No person shall use or threaten force, violence, or any tactic of coercion or intimidation to knowingly induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular candidate or ballot measure, or refrain from registering to vote.

III. No person shall engage in voter suppression by knowingly attempting to prevent or deter another person from voting or registering to vote based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information. Prohibited acts of voter suppression include: (a) Challenging another person's right to register to vote or to vote based on information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.

Hey, Joe! I think that the phrase " Lawyer-up" may be in your future. Your latest post in Facebook at Gilford, NH may have been a bit premature.

So, Joe? Here's a bit of advice for you:

Here is the full video from the hearing:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Part 7:

Ms. Fraser,

I stand by my post on GilfordGrok where I referred to you as the “Lady in Green” (because I could not hear your name). Often I will comment, as a blogger, on what is said (or how something is said) at public political meetings – and the joint meeting of the Select and School Boards certainly fit both adjectives. Anyone has the right to address their elected officials either to inform them of their opinions or to seek redress for perceived wrongs by those same elected officials. At the same time, when anyone rises to speak at such a public meeting, there is that same right to comment upon those words as well.

I stand by the information that was given to me concerning your spoken words:

“The gal who gave that tear jerking speech was sitting in front of me. She was given that speech in the form of a hand written piece of paper that was handed to her by the teacher beside her. When she came back to her seat she handed the paper back to the teacher and the teacher thanked her for reading it. "

as well as the demeanor in the video. I also added the following, since I did not directly see the paper passing: “Truth or not? Reality or a great facade? Who knows? “. I also point out – you could have sent your email to me as well, as my email address is readily available on the Town web site – but you didn't. Thus, I could only comment upon the information available.

But I also stand by the thrust of my post – those connected (either directly or loosely) are fighting the tax cap because they wish to see no financial limits placed upon the district. There are many that construe my willingness to see a tax cap put in place as “he doesn't support education in Gilford”. Rather, the proper categorization is that “I don't support education in Gilford 'at any price' or 'at a price beyond that of the average family paying the bills'”; remember, while the costs are rising, our enrollment is decreasing. Given that the majority of that rise goes to union members, is it "for the kids" or for the adults?

Once again, we see our language perverted for political purpose (i.e., “support” equated with “willing to not reign in spending” and “you're against kids” as a euphemism for “you won't spend what I want you to!”).

Spending other peoples' money requires hard decisions on actual dollar amounts as in "when is enough, enough Ms. Fraser?".  To a write a check, the Town first has to take that money from someone else; stating "it's for the kids" and hoping it all works out doesn't cut it. 

If that is insulting, then I have no idea how to sugarcoat that for you.

I wonder what C. Bradford Morgan would think about this statement: “Every child does not deserve a public education; instead, they deserve a publicly funded education”. The first is a locked system that is government funded, staffed with government employees, and teaches a government specified curriculum: a couple of systems fits all. Add to that the growing philosophy by the educational system that they know what is best for the children than their parents. I have personally heard this view and have video of teachers saying that to back up that claim. We also see this trend in society in general – let the professional make the decisions for us.

The second is a 180 degree change of direction by putting the parents in charge to choose the best of a number of systems for their child (which could included a “government school”, as C. Bradford Morgan put it). This is how most of society works still – parents making choices for their children (seems to have worked well for the last few hundred years). In fact, this used to be the norm up until the rise of the Progressive movement in the United States at the beginning of the last century. Then, such Progressive luminaries as John Dewey advocated for what has become our current “industrial style” system that become so union dominated. It may well be time that in order for our nation to educationally progress forward, we have to return back to letting those invested the most, the parents, make those decisions.

This is emblematic of the two polarizing political views now becoming more and more public – who knows what is best for society, its citizens, and the children? Is it Government, where it seems that our educated bureaucrats (assumed to be non-partisan in theory and rarely in practice) are making more and more “for the common good” as they insert themselves more and more into what used to be considered “private society”? Also, bureaucrats are deciding that they will make those decisions independently, regardless if empowered by actual law or not. We end up with Government by Regulation instead of by Legislation by our elected (and therefore, accountable) peers.

Or is it individual citizens, in their own “pursuit of Happiness”, making their own decisions for themselves with a Government sitting in the way back, and getting out of the way by enforcing and protecting our individual Rights and allowing the private sector to solve its own issues and problems?

Frankly, my take is this: the Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen. The more that Government intervenes, the more that crowding out of private society happens. As that happens, the foundation of our Republic is weakened. I'd rather see Parents make the decision and my trust is with them. After all, as one looks across the nation, it is clear that our current system has severe problems that merely throwing more money to do more of the same invokes that popular definition of insanity. In this, Doug Lambert is correct: more choice, not less.

There are those in Gilford, chief among them Kevin Roy and Joe Wernig, that seem to be constitutionally incapable of accepting an apology as they continually assail and berate the unfortunate (and wrong) words that Doug Lambert uttered a couple of years ago. He was contrite, apologized several times, and finally withdrew completely from local politics. He admitted wrong, took ownership of that wrong, and did the right thing. He did not do as some have in the past which has been to merely duck down for several months and then slowly come back – a mere pittance of penitence, a hollow “oops”. Instead, a strong Conservative voice was silenced – for years.

While there are those accepted that apology, I personally received comments that said “no apology will ever be sufficient” and that they wanted to see him gone from the public square and his family penniless, destitute, and homeless. And it is obvious that both these “gentlemen” may fit into this category. The apology was meaningless – the actual aim was complete political and personal annihilation.

While I am not saying that Wernig and Roy are wishing for the latter, they are actively trying to keep Mr. Lambert speechless in the Gilford political sphere. They may well say it is about the word that was said but their actions belie their words. Notice their words in the paper – they can only dredge up that history and attack the person – always never accepting the apology. Have they no Christian charity in their hearts? No, it isn't about the apology or, seemingly, Christian forgiveness either.

This is strictly political even as they have not even tried to debate the issues of the day in Gilford in any logical fashion. It seems that “their agenda” as they have accused me over the years of having one (hint, I keep saying it over and over again: “Why should the rise of government spending ever be greater than that of the family income?”) is not to extract an apology from Mr. Lambert. That is not their purpose.

As we have seen this last couple of weeks concerning Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, it is not about civility (as the Right seems to be able to dredge up FAR more examples misogyny and real hatred on the Left than the Left can of the Right), it is about silencing the opposition.  Add to this, Joe Wernig's Chicago style political stunt of trying to get Barbara Aichinger off the ballot on a technicality that is false before he called his press conference.  These are Alinsky style tactics to remove powerful players from the field – they brook no competition.

Sidenote: Joe, wasn't your wife the Gilford Democrat Chair? Certainly Mr. Lambert and Ms. Aichinger poses a huge ideological obstacle to the Statist vision!.

Maybe Wernig and Roy owe Doug an apology for not accepting his? For by not accepting his, what does that make them to be?

“Shall the School District raise and appropriate the sum of Two Hundred Nineteen Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($219,500.) to be added to the operating budget for the purpose of extending the current half-day Kindergarten program to a full day Kindergarten Program. (If this article is approved, the additional cost for the full day program will be included in the operating budgets for future years.”

• if this truly is being done at no cost now, how do we eliminate the full day sessions when they start costing us money in the future?

• Will Kurt Webber and the School Board identify when this happens?

• Will there be a warrant article to eliminate it?

• If it is presented as a taxpayer warrant article will we be told it is advisory only?

• What could the voters do if Kurt Webber decided that they were going to institute all day Pre-School because “studies” that the School Board liked concluded it was beneficial for the children.

None of these questions were answered by Kurt Webber. The only defense he made was that “they didn’t think the previous warrant article mattered now because it was a money issue then."

HUH? Does anyone see a severability clause in the above Warrant? Do you, the taxpayers and voters of Gilford see the conundrum that the School Board has put us in again? How many times must we “digest” what they feed us with this kind of arrogance? Do you see why there is a discussion about “lack of trust”? I ask no matter what your viewpoints are shall we abide this fiat by an elected body? If you were on the other side of an issue and this happened again and again would you accept it? Is this the “Gilford Advantage” that you want and is this how you want to get it?

Oh, by the way, the RSA’s of NH tells us that “NO MEANS NO.” Consider the potential ramifications.

The Citizen petitioned warrant articles on this year’s ballot are a direct result of this continuing method of operation by Kurt Webber that runs contrary to the sacred, secret ballot that we hold as part of our Constitutional Right of Free Speech. I ask that you examine these issues and decide for yourself if they are right for Gilford. I also ask you to vote for those candidates that are sure to respect the will of, and trust in the will of the voters.

These candidates are Doug Lambert for School Board, David “Skip” Murphy for Budget Committee, Stuart Savage for Budget Committee and Barbara Aichinger for Budget Committee.

If the people elected to carry out the will of the people do not, we must elect people who will.

Sincerely;

David R Horvath, Sr.
Gilford, NH

Gilford, NH

We feel compelled to point out, in response to Mr. Murphy’s comments, that the article which appeared on Page A3 of last week’s issue was written as part of our “In Our Schools” series before the controversy over the all-day Kindergarten program erupted. The purpose of the article was to spotlight the Kindergarten program itself, not to investigate whether or not the school board was correct in its decision to implement the program. We believe both sides of that issue were covered fairly and accurately in the separate front page article.

Fair enough.  But seeing that you are the "buyer of ink by the barrel", either this information or another disclaimer could have been put with "In Our Schools" article.  However, the question remains - where ARE the Fourth Estate" questions, Mr. Editor?

==========================

While our form of Government has three branches (i.e., Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches) there is also the “fourth estate”: the Press. The Founders knew that the purpose of a free Press was to objectively inform the citizenry of the news and events of the day so that when the times come, they can make the important decisions. They also intended this “fourth branch of Government” was to act as a watchdog on the activities of Government – to shine a flashlight into the deep dark corners so as to “afflict the powerful and comfort the powerless”, for who is more powerful than those that can tell us how to run our lives or use our property? They depended on the Press for that specific purpose.

Thus, imagine my dismay when I read about the controversy concerning the School Board disregarding the vote by Gilford residents to not implement all day kindergarten on the front page, but then on page A3 was an above the fold puff piece on the kindergarten program: “Look what we are doing for the children”.

At the same School Board meeting, Doug Lambert had three items to address:

• The fact that the School Board would settle on policy, by a vote, without first getting the public's input - effectively cutting the public out of the process.

• The policy change effectively denied access of parents to their elected officials pertaining to removing their child from a class when controversial material is presented in class.  Instead, the highest level of redress is to an unelected (and there, unaccountable to the public) employee (the Superintendent)

• Doug disputes the assignation of "appointed" to the Superintendent pertaining to the electioneering prohibition on behalf of the employer (the school board).  An employee is not allowed to do so (Mr. Hemingway was going to speak about voting no on the tax cap that has been proposed for the District), but an appointee can.  But how many "appointees" have employment contracts? 

It is clear that the Board's council is highly stretching definitions in order to shield the Board from the blowback.

It is rather sad that a School Board member, if telling seniors at the proposed meeting to vote the tax cap down (here are Kent Hemingway's own notes for that meeting) was so important, why didn't they handle this themselves?