Balderdash!

Margo tries this stunt here at about 4:28 into the video here.  Paraphrased (some), she says:

What is the difference between Gus and myself?  While we are both fiscal conservatives....I've had people from Doug Lambert to Skip Murphy to Dick Hickock actually, basically, say that to me in the past two years that I have been on the budget committee.

I fail to remember EVAH calling her a fiscal conservative.  Perhaps I may have; she's more conservative than Derek Tomlinson, but that's a rather low bar to step over.  I also point out that her claim to fiscal conservatism is not too well served by this post I did here "Not mine to give"; obviously she does believe that it is her job to recommend that it is her's to give where I wrote (and quoted Margo):

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)...

....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!...

...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.

No, I would, overall, consider Margo, while being a very nice lady, a moderate.  A LOT of people are now claiming to be fiscally conservative this year solely in that the political winds have changed (re: TEA Party movement).

I will also add this - Given the vitriol that Alice Boucher and Evans Juris have shown to both Gus and Connie, their endorsement of you in the papers today does not help. I will never forget the "queen bee being ignored" look and speech from Ms. Boucher as Gus and Connie overrode her wishes in do the right thing and fire Juris.  Talk about madder than hell that her high perch as Chair made no difference in the Right Two doing the Right thing.

I still chuckle over the imagery.

No, Margo, you are not the Biggest Conservative in the race.  While Gus is not as conservative as I, he is more conservative as you.

*****

Dale tries that same "cover me as a fiscal conservative" during his part of the video.  Real conservatives don't have to quibble about definitions of who is and who isn't a conservative; they just are. 

Dale is not and is trying, as many Liberal Progressives have done before, to "turn" or shade the language.  

He then tried it in his Letter to the Editor today in the Citizen:

I first want to thank the voters of Gilford for the privilege of serving on the town's Budget Committee over the past three years. This committee has considerable powers over the town and school budgets, and it is critical that its members be thorough, balanced, and open to the needs and opinions of all Gilford residents.

I am asking for your vote for a second term on the Budget Committee because I believe I help provide this thorough, balanced approach.

From the Liberal side!

I have participated fully and regularly in all committee functions, and have worked with others to conduct thorough and demanding reviews of all departmental budgets. I led the effort to provide more detailed information on the ballot by requiring that vote totals are shown alongside recommendations from the Budget Committee and the Selectmen. I will continue to push for fair and balanced budget reviews.

While the Budget Committee has the right and the responsiblity to conduct a tough final review and to make any budget revisions they deem necessary, they also have a responsibility to demonstrate a complete understanding of the ramifications of their changes, and to be as specific as possible about why the changes were made.

But he doesn't talk to that.

Finally, I have been and will remain a strong supporter of school athletics and the small group of non-governmental agencies that appear on the ballot each year.

A true fiscal conservative believes that charity is an individual act.  It is not, as Dale believes, a communitarianism that all should give to certain charities regardless of individual freedom of choice.

My support of these departments or line items does not mean that their budgetary requests are treated any differently.

His actions belie his words - the Library has ALWAYS been that which he has fought for the most.

What it means is that I approach their budget requests with an open mind, and with an understanding that we represent the entire community of Gilford residents - many of whom expect and in some cases rely heavily on the services that these departments and institutions provide.

I have identified myself as a conservative, and have voted accordingly, all of my life. My brand of conservatism is one that respects and recognizes the value of differing opinions.

Dale, you can identify yourself as a conservative all day long.  The actual truth?  You can't get theah from where you are!  Redefining conservatism to once again fit your campaign is a schlock move.

Remember folks, this is the guy who basically was against the BudComm before he wanted to be on it.  To wit:

• that he and his wife signed the Petition Warrant a few years ago to GET RID of the Budget Committee
• He campaigned the first time on a platform that he would recuse himself from his wife's department (she is the Chief Librarian) budget.  Then it devolved to just not voting on anything dealing with his wife's salary.
• Upon being elected, he grandly announced at the first meeting that he would vote on anything he wanted to and that there was nothing we could do to stop him.  Legally, he was right.  Morally, he broke his campaign promises to all of his supporters.

Fiscal Conservative - what a crock!  While he *might* have once or twice voted for something that might have reduced spending, I cannot, for the life of me, remember (and given that it is Dale, I should have!). 

Frankly, he has been in opposition the entire time on the BudComm to the true fiscal conservatives on the BudComm since arriving - and those would include myself, Doug Lambert, Sue Green, Terry Stewart for starters.

And Gus, when he was the rep from the Selectboard.

Hi Skip,

I just wanted to set the record straight after reading the Grok today.

In the final version of the M.O.U. pertaining to plowing, the “Emergency Lane” declaration was specifically deleted at the request of Chairman Benavides.  This was also announced at the public hearing.

Thought you might like to know……

Scott

Consider it corrected and done.

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

GilfordGrok is happy to announce its recommendations / endorsements.  Please note that we have only mentioned those positions that are being contested by more than one person:

Selectman	Gus Benevides
Moderator	Sandra McGonagle
Trustee of Public Library	Steven Geer
Budget Committee	Dale “Chan” Eddy
	Philip “Pat” LaBonte
	Dave Horvath
Supervisor of the Checklist	Mary Villaume
School Board	Don Pangburn
	Conrad Hanf

 

Some quick takes:

• While I have had a few issues with some of Gus's votes (e.g., the most recent one over plowing the Gilford Community Church parking lot - declaring it a "Fire Emergency lane" was the wrong thing to do, I do see Gus as the more conservative member of the Selectboard at this time.  I believe that he did the right thing, along with Connie Grant, in firing Evans Juris; as a result, we have a far better person in that role (heh! - one that DOES know how to turn on a laptop!).  Gus has had the taxpayers' in mind as new policies have been rolled out that will save the taxpayers money far into the future, such as replacing the COLA with merit raises and having employees increasing their share of their healthcare costs (just as we in the private sector are having to do). He also was instrumental in starting the process to have the Town's expenses put out on the website for all of the townfolk to see.  Please vote for Gus!
  

• This was a bit harder, but our take for Moderator is for Sandra.  She has served in many capacities, she knows the issues, and she knows the "players" and the townfolk.  Further, we believe that she is a better fit overall for the community.  Heh!  She also, from years of practice, has the skill set that can prove to be helpful for when the Deliberative Session may turn out to have folks similar in temperment to those she oversaw for years...Please vote for Sandra!

• I believe that the Budcomm has done a good job over the last few years; I no longer do the "cringe dance with the semi-annual envelope" when the Town sends out tax bills.  However, that oversight cannot go lax.  I am not convinced that better times are around the corner as national policies are racking up stratospheric debts and less than an anemic job outlook, those in control in Concord are continuing their beat down on small businesses and adding new fees and taxes in desperation to keep their 30% higher budget expenditures from causing them more political grief.  And the County isn't helping lately either.  Thus, it is our thought that Chan, Pat, and Dave will be best at maintaining a lid on budget increases. While I don't know Pat personally, I have spoken to more than a few folks that do - he comes highly recommended.  While Chan may not be AS conservative as I, he belongs on the BudComm.  And knowing Dave as I do, and having read his many Letters to the Editor over the past few years, I know that he will put the taxpayers first.  Please vote for Chan, Pat, and Dave!

• I have had my spats Derek while he was the School Board rep when I was first elected - especially over the inclusion of Football into the budget AFTER we were all reminded that the original sponsors had promised that taxpayers would never have to pay for that program.  I believe that his emphasis to push programs forward, regardless of the cost, needs to be countered.  I also believe in term limits - time for voters to implement such and that is one reason for endorsing Conrad.  On the other hand, I have known Don for a while now, having listened to his "back to basic" messages at several TEA Party meetings.  While they were on the topic of Government, I also agree with his campaign tag line: "Basics First".  I have often reported on the NECAP scores here; until our students (and a vast majority of them!) have mastered the fundamentals, the District should not be moving to new methodologies.  Frankly, Derek's comment during the Q&A period about "new math" was ingenious - certainly most would agree that the current methods have not worked lately and the test scores show that.  Back to Basics?  Indeed!  Please vote for Conrad and Don!

I will have more to say concerning Dale Dormody and Margo Weeks tomorrow and why I have made the decisions above.

With respect to the School Board Warrants: Coming Real Soon!

With respect to the Town Warrants (non-Zoning issue ones): Coming Real Soon!

My name is Don Pangburn and I am running for the Gilford School Board. I have 3 children currently in the Gilford public schools and am alarmed at the available statistics that speak to the current state of our educational system.

Four months after taking office, President Abraham Lincoln wrote about the purpose of government. He said that the foremost purpose of government is “to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” Although referencing the principles upon which our nation was founded, he also described the spirit that must animate people today, if we are to give every child in America the chance to rise and succeed in life.

Ronald Reagan once observed that: “If you believe your local school district is better qualified to run your schools than is the federal government you’d better get ready to do battle. … [The proposed education department would] create a bureaucracy of gigantic size to oversee thousands and thousands of public schools now administered by local school districts.”

Since the inception of the department of education, on October 17, 1979, under President Carter, the spending per student has quadrupled, but consider the results:

In a math bee of 24,000 thirteen year old students from America, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Spain, Ireland and Canada, all chosen at random, the same 63 question exam was given in their native language. When testing was complete, the American kids placed last, with South Korea winning the contest. Prior to the testing the children were asked to answer a yes or no question: Am I good at math?  Two-thirds of American kids answered yes and only one quarter of the South Korean kids expressed confidence in their skills. The argument could be made that these results and self-assessments correlate with the attitude of the educational establishment. Those in charge of educating our children are overly confident—even arrogant—about their enlightened modern methods and theories but the results don’t lend support to their self-assessment.

Another example is the third International Mathematics and Science study, a worldwide competition among 21 nations. America’s twelfth graders performed well below the international average, and in math finished in 19th place, outperforming only students from Cyprus and South Africa.

Even more disturbing statistics show that two out of every three 17 year-olds did not know the meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation.  Only half even recognized Patrick Henry’s challenge, “give me liberty or give me death”, and even fewer knew of the Marshall Plan that saved Europe, the War of 1812 or Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”.

In 1998 the Massachusetts Department of Education introduced a new exam for the licensing of would be teachers, most of whom had received a bachelor of education degree shortly before. Of the 1800 who took the test, 59% flunked.

On the local level things are not much better. Quoting the NECAP test scores in Gilford Grade 11 for the last 3 Calendar years the results are pathetic. From best to worst:

All these statistics paint a very grim picture but beg the question: if we are so inept at educating our children, how have we been able to maintain dominance in the world of high tech? Unfortunately the answer is that we rely on the foreign students who regularly beat us in world competition.

While our public schools leave most youngsters behind, the nation still has the finest technical institutions, such as MIT, Cal Tech, Carnegie Mellon and others, which attract the brightest minds from around the globe. Only a tiny segment of our students make it to these elite schools, with foreign students taking up the slack.  Of the roughly 13,000 PhD’s awarded every year in physics, computer science, mathematics, chemistry and engineering, 45% go to non-American citizens. In the vital high tech fields of computer science and engineering their number is above 50%.

So what to do?

• Raising the bar on the providers rather than lowering it on the recipients would create measurable results.
  
• Eliminating the tenure system and replacing it with a meritocracy wherein teachers would hold their positions or advance, and receive compensation based the academic success of their students.
  

Effecting this kind of change against the entrenched establishment will be a daunting task, but if our children are really the priority, we can return our educational establishments to their past greatness and elevate our own future generations to be the brightest and best throughout the world.

The consequences of doing nothing will cripple the future generation’s ability to solve the multitude of problems heaped upon them by the errors of past—and present—generations.

We have lost sight of the fact that the educational system has three parts: the provider, the participant and the people who fund it. Ronald Reagan summed it like this:

“Personally, I believe in academic freedom but oppose limiting it to any one segment of academia. The teacher who interprets it as covering only the teacher’s right to teach is ignoring the student’s academic freedom and the right of parents to have some say as to what their children are learning. Then there is the academic freedom of those who finance the whole operation and have some beliefs about the kind of schooling they wish to make available with their contributions — all these are entitled to some share of academic freedom.”  (Letter to the editor of PEGASUS, Eureka, Illinois, March 31, 1971).

Respectfully submitted,

Donald H Pangburn

School Board Candidate

I spoke to Dale "Chan" Eddy tonight by phone: his plan was to have been there but a family emergency called him to Tilton and was unable to make it back to Gilford in time.

This also has Joe being escorted out of the meeting by Steve Colchord as well...

I agree with the statement that I heard "we'll all miss him when he's gone".  Wishes for good health for this 80 year old (and the 'Grok does wonder what WOULD happen if he got elected as Moderator)...

 The simple fact that Gus enjoys the support of many of our town’s employees is a testament to the management that Gus has been instrumental in creating. Gus has worked hard to earn the trust of the voters and I believe the voters of Gilford should reward him with another term as their Selectmen.

Please join me in voting for Gus Benavides for Gilford Selectmen on Tuesday March 9, 2010. 

Mark Corry initially slipped up and actually opposed the Lacrosse Warrant Article. He even tracked me down to tell me that he was not supporting the Lacrosse Warrant Article based on their budget proposal. It wasn’t long before he was told to correct his error. He publically explained his changed vote this way; “people emailed me”. Obviously, the man has no principles or spine because his reasons for not supporting the Lacrosse Warrant Article didn’t change but he voted for it anyway. There is NO question that his vote is completely owned by a special interest group. Even if you support a newly added Lacrosse budget expense, do you really want a puppet elected official with special interest hands in his back on every decision? You can rest assure that it doesn’t matter what he tells you about an issue, he will vote the way “They” tell him to. Coincidentally, Mr. Corry is also a member of the Meadows Committee, appointed by the School Board. It’s no secret that the School Board isn’t happy with the Conservation Commission’s efforts to make sure that any development in the Meadows is environmentally sound. Mr. Corry sought to use his position on the Budget Committee to cut any funds for that effort. It would be perfectly acceptable for him to try to cut money that his constituents “tell him” is not wisely spent. He goes wrong when the Conservation Commission made it abundantly clear to him that NONE of their budget goes toward the Meadows project and then he decides to votes against their entire budget anyway! In fact, the Commission’s budget requests were cut to the previous year’s level in an effort to keep the overall budget low. Mr. Corry voted against the Conservation Commission’s budget in what can only be described as a retaliation vote. In my opinion, politician’s like Mr. Corry who abuses their elected position for retaliation votes do not deserve our vote. 

Dale Dormody also ran as a “Fiscal Conservative” three years ago to get elected. During his campaign he promised not to participate in votes concerning his wife’s salary because she is the Director of the Gilford Library. Knowing he didn’t legally have to refrain from voting on ANY budget issues, he ignored that promise just as soon as he was elected. In fact, one of his very first actions was to lobby the Budget Committee to restore a $40,000 request from the library that was denied by the Selectmen. He was unsuccessful in that attempt but gladly voted for the 13% increase to the Library budget that year which contains his wife’s salary. He then successfully pulled out all the stops to request a revote to recommend a Warrant Article that would send the proceeds from the sale of the Potter Hill property to the Library. The following year he pointed the boney finger at the Library sub Committee and accused them of not doing their jobs in assessing the Library budget. Though Mr. Dormody didn’t even attend the meeting, he took issue with the sub committee’s failure to recommend another 13% increase in the Library budget. Do you see a pattern? 

Dormody and Corry are running for Budget Committee positions that have real consequences. Whether budgets are high or low, in good times or bad, these two have the voting records to prove that they never met a spending proposal they didn’t like! In fact, they are going out of the way to promote new spending items. Their voting records prove they have some specific agendas. We need some new faces that aren’t personally connected to budget items. Please join me in voting for the other three candidates on the ballot for Budget Committee.

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

SECOND SESSION

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

ARTICLE 8: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to repeal involuntary mergers of contiguous non-conforming lots in common ownership and allow lots involuntarily merged by the municipality to be unmerged and considered lots of record subject to all other aspects of the Town’s Zoning Ordinances by deleting language from Section 9.1, adding new language to Section 9.1 and deleting Section 9.1.1 in its entirety? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

I seconded this motion when it became apparent that no one on the dias was going to do so. 

This petition was put forth by Barbara Aichinger who is in the middle of such a "taking by administrative fiat" by the town.  Just as with the attempted "Nix Knockout of the Ames Farm" amendment is effectively using the force of Government in the taking of the value of Private Property (a Right under the Constitution, one of the bedrock philosophical pillars of this representative Republic), so is the action of the Town on its own decision.

In these cases, I believe the right thing to do is to have the input of the landowner whose Private Property value may be affected be part of that decision making process.  Although the Town should have the ability to approach the landowner concerning the matter, the ultimate decision should be that of the landowner.

After all, it is not the Town's land nor should it solely be the Town's decision to make (or even the "majority" part of the decision).

I URGE you to vote YES on Article 8

I would not want to be in the same situation, of having the Town determine how my personal property.  If it would cost more in tax monies, so be it.  Even if the size or makeup of the lot would be such that it would have to remain undeveloped, so bit it.  The decision would be mine - or, yours.

Barbara Aichinger (who has started  www.NHPropertyRights.com) sent along a couple of documents - see after the jump.

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

...

ARTICLE 3: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 6.20, which requires provision of a water supply suitable for fire protection purposes for all new Multi-Family developments, Planned Unit developments, Cluster Housing projects, and Manufactured Housing Parks, and for all Single-Family subdivisions of six (6) lots or more, to allow only use of municipal water supplies, cisterns, or sprinkler systems to satisfy this requirement, and to no longer allow surface water supplies to satisfy this requirement unless they are natural water bodies and approved for such use by the Fire Department, and to make other related changes? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

...

ARTICLE 11: Are you in favor of adopting a revised Fire Prevention Code as proposed by the Gilford Fire Engineers and recommended by the Gilford Planning Board, whereby the current Fire Prevention Code will be repealed and the revised Fire Prevention Code will reference more recent editions of National Fire Protection Association codes as adopted and amended within the State Fire Code; and furthermore, to add provisions for the creation of a Town of Gilford Fire Code Handbook, requirements for the installation of fire alarm systems, revisions to the system of fines for false alarms, establishment of standards for non-residential sprinkler suppression systems, provisions for access to fire alarm systems and establishes general fire safety requirements along with a system of permits, fees and penalties? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

Both of these articles speak to a revamping of fire / safety codes here in Town. When they are read quickly, the first impression is "sure, who can be against more safety"?  Who can be against the idea of more fire alarms, more tools against the loss of life?

Well, my first reaction over the last few years has grown to almost always to:

• And the cost / benefit to this proposal?
• Is this a case of incrementally relinquishing of our freedom?
  

Now, I'm not a planning maven nor a fire expert.  However, I did ask Mr. Ayers the question as to the cost of Article 3 to future development:

approximately $50,000 for a such a cistern.

Thus, for a housing development of just 5 homes, it is an additional cost of $10K / per.  This, just on a simple basis, effectively eliminates the standard family home at around $250,000 cost and may have the unintended (intended?) push to slant future development to much bigger homes - effectively shoving Gilford towards a future where our sons and daughters of median incomes might not be able to build for themselves in the town in which they now reside.  It also will effectively raise the cost of "Work Force" housing as well.

Or force a clamor for an extension of the town water system in order to build. Or, this could shut down development altogether - which might suit some in town just dandy.

I also ask folks to reread what was written in the Jan. 14 version of the Gilford Steamer (Pg. A2) where Chief Hays was interviewed about this change in the fire code:

Although the overall document has not significantly changed, fire alarm system codes have been updated, as well as a section dealing with outside cooking devices and gas grills. Hayes added that some sections have been rewritten solely for clarification purposes before being resubmitted this year.

“It prohibits the use on any exterior deck on a multifamily dwelling (such as a condominium). You can’t have a gas grill on a deck anymore,” said Hayes.

Any multi-family dwellings, new or substantially renovated units, either/ or consisting of four units or three stories or more, will now require sprinkler systems, regardless of the height or width of the building, said Hayes. Although an increased risk of fires are probable in multiunit dwellings with outside kitchen appliances, Hayes said part of the fire code prevention change has to do with the department’s abilities as well.

“It is really a matter of the size and capability of our fire department. It puts all occupants at risk. It is larger than what we are capable of looking at, and gives us a better chance to control the fire,” said Hayes.

I had to reread this a couple of times; each time I came up with the same conclusion.  Even though I like Chief Hayes (and thank him for his years of service to the Town and wish him an excellent retirement), I am aghast at the assumption:

Because the Fire Department cannot handle a given situation because of a lacking on its part, we must make the act of simply cooking hot dogs, hamburgers, steaks, and the like, illegal. With that statement, my take away is that because the Fire Department is unable to assure the safety of a home's residents, the use of the Property Owner of his or her cooking a meal is denied?

Doesn't this totally shift the responsibility from the homeowner for an adverse outcome to the State (give me a moment for waxing a bit philosophical here)?  Isn't this restricting the freedom of an individual to do what is otherwise legal activity?  This is not Boston where there are streets upon streets of three-deckers effectively rubbing siding on siding here, where an ignition could literally take out a block of houses or more.

A more philosophical question: Does the Chief believe like many Statists, that the responsibility for the safety of its citizens resides solely with the State and not with individual responsibility of its citizens?

And do we wish to cede more control over our lives to Government and limit freedom? Cooking the family's steak on the deck may sound like a rather puny dispute, but when does it stop?  

I may sound like I am going stark raving mad, and there are certainly those that already believe that, but I ask you to think this through - do not revert to what sounds good at the moment but instead, consider the basic philosophical tenets of our society at its founding (that is, if you can truly remember or if you received that education in the beginning) - who is really responsible for you?

I urge you to vote NO on both Articles 3 and 11.