ARTICLE 25:  This relegates the creation of the default budget to the budget committee.  The creation of the default budget is not the sole purview of the Selectmen but can be relegated to EITHER the Selectmen or the Budget Committee per RSA 32:14.  The Petitioners would like to give this choice to the voters.  The Petitioners feel that it should be the budget committee in order that a LOWER default budget might be devised so that more choice is presented to the voters.  VOTE YES

ARTICLE 26:  This is the long awaited TAX CAP.  This is the first year that town’s have been able to vote on a tax cap in New Hampshire.  This tax cap is for 0% which means that the amount that the town took from the taxpayers last year will be the same for each year the tax cap is in force.  This is NOT ‘toothless’ as implied by Town Administrator Dunn.  The language of the article is prescribed by RSA32-5;b and if passed is binding on the town governing body or Budget Committee, without recourse, regardless of who prepares the budget. VOTE YES

ARTICLE 27:  Pushing out the town elections until May.  Our 2011 town election voter turnout was less than 900 voters.  We also have a very low turnout at Deliberative Session.  This is because in part it’s COLD in February and March and people stay home.  In addition we have many many snowbirds.  Some of them do vote absentee but they cannot participate in Deliberative Session if they are in Florida.   The Selectmen claim that if we do this the town will struggle due to the difference in the fiscal year versus the calendar year.  Hogwash, RSA 32:13 has a prescribed method for this situation and many towns operate this way.  Let’s give democracy a bigger role here in Gilford and push out the date a bit to reach out to more voters. VOTE YES

ARTICLE 28:  Voter approval for Non Union Contracts.  Well what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If the union contracts get vetted why can’t the non union contracts get vetted?  To date the town claims it has only ONE non union contract and that is the Town Administrator.  The Selectmen claim that this would prevent employment of contracted employees until the town votes.  Not true, many towns have no contracts for many employees indeed many of Gilford’s employees have no employment contracts.  The Selectmen can chose to hire the person without a contract until it is approved by voters.  Vetting these contracts is an important part of the improved transparency that the petitioners are seeking. VOTE YES

ARTICLE 29: Changes to the personnel policies and procedures manual.  This was a tough one to put together.  Buried on the town web site is the Gilford Employee Personnel and Policies manual.  The Petitioners feel that the private sector and the public sector are no longer on parity.  Private sector income is down, benefits costs have shifted to employees and retirement accounts have been hit due to fluctuations in the stock market.  However the public sector has been largely immune to this.  So the private sector gets stuck paying for both!  To summarize, these changes are:  Increasing the amount of Health and Dental benefits paid for by the employees by 10%.  Today the taxpayers pay 94% of the Health and 84% of the Dental.  Making raises every two years versus every year and lowering the amount of those increases.  In addition when a person reaches the top of their pay scale they just don’t keep getting raises.  In the private sector a job category is worth a certain pay and you don’t keep increasing salary because of longevity.  Also eliminating the 2% town provided contribution to a second retirement plan.  Petitioners believe one taxpayer provided retirement plan is enough.   All of the other benefits: life insurance, long term disability, short term disability, vacation time, sick time, health club stipend, training costs, contributions to the State Retirement plan (as prescribed by law) and payment for not participating in benefits packages all remain untouched. VOTE YES

In summary the goal is to lower Gilford’s tax rate, increase voter participation and improve local government transparency.

For Liberty,  

Barbara Aichinger

Fact # 9 — There are no town employees who own two homes on Governor’s Island with a total assessed value in excess of $2.6-million.

And I laid into his absurd claim on "Fact" #8 that only the Public Sector has had to do more with less.  As a blogger, a member of the Gilford Budget Committee, and a Gilford taxpayer, I could not let either go unchallenged (added emphasis now):

To Town Administrator Dunn and Selectmen Benevides, Hayes, and O'Brien,

To say that my ire was raised as I read your letter, Mr. Dunn, is an understatement.  A citizen has the perfect right to address their concerns of their Town's labor costs in a public forum as Ms. Aichinger has done.  In fact, it is one that I share.  Yes, factually, your Letter is correct, but it misses the mark in three very important areas.

None of your points address the relatively high unit labor cost that Gilford has overall compared to comparable towns (as my Salary Study showed a few years ago).   Again, while your noting that several positions no longer exist on the Town payroll, they have done nothing to address this fundamental and structural problem.  The cost of globalization has now reached the public sector - it is past time to recognize that simply cutting positions is the way to keep labor costs in line with what is happening with those that actually pay those high salaries - the taxpayers of Gilford.  Continued on to its illogical end, we could end up with one very highly paid employee that would yield a still "lower labor cost than last year" but the necessary work would not be accomplished.

Which brings me to my second point.  Your "Fact #8" is completely wrong ("Unlike the private sector") - The private sector has dropped jobs far faster than the public sector, and because of the misdirected "Stimulus" monies that propped up Government spending, for a far longer period of time.  I believe you have missed the chart outlining how much more productive the private sector has had to become - economic output has all but regained its previous recession levels but with millions of fewer workers.  It has found a way to continue the same level of output, and more, with fewer hands to actually do the work because it HAD to - either they meet the constraints placed upon them by the Marketplace or they go went of business.  You have a choice, Mr. Dunn - either more people at a lower cost to do the work or fewer number at higher costs - you have chosen the latter.  Which, at some point, will become more and more untenable just as it became in the private sector.

The worst, however, is that you used your position to publicly humiliate a private citizen by using the property holdings of Ms. Aichinger as a club - how DARE you!  Yes, assessments are public information but you have used that information to belittle someone that pays your salary (and, to keep in the same vein - BOTH of your retirement programs) and attempted to publicly discredit someone who is simply trying to advocate for taxpayers.  Did the Selectmen approve a contract clause that permits that kind of activity?  You already tried to do this with your comment of "no town employee owns two homes on Governor's Island" in a lame attempt to play the Class Card - you have now done so again.  That is NOT what I expect from Gilford's Town Administrator - which is how you signed your Letter (and not as a private citizen).

I am demanding a public apology to Ms. Aichinger for your lowbrow and low class tactic.  Failing that, I will not run for the School Board as originally planned but run for re-election for the Budget Committee instead and urge Ms. Aichinger to run for the Budget Committee as well.  Then we can both "talk some facts" during the next budget cycle - I bet that would overjoy you.

Skip Murphy

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

It seems that Leo Sanfacon, a spending liberal who (in my previous run-ins with him) is only concerned with "the quality of life" (and not always the cost thereof) contacted the Town Administrator who relayed a message:

Today I received a phone call from Leo Sanfacon.  He is requesting the Selectmen take steps to make sure the Budget Committee meetings are broadcast on cable TV.  During this conversation I suggested that he submit his request directly to the Budget Committee because the Board of Selectmen and Budget Committee are independently elected bodies and neither has any legal authority over the other.  He said if the Selectmen do not do something he will go to the newspapers.  He then indicated he would like a call-back from Chairman O’Brien to ensure that his message was delivered.

Heh!  It seems that the kerfuffle from last week's brush up between a few of the members of the Committee over conflict of interest finally reached the space between his ears, and I bet that he is some upSET over some of what happened as the dustup hit the papers ("oh, the ignominy of it all, we just don't behave that way in this town....").

You know, I really do wish that he goes to the newspapers - and show himself to be of the classification "moroon".  You know...

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 1:

Part 2:

27:28 - 28:22 Ah yes, Dale Dormody lights the match concerning the topic that Mark Correy brought up during the public commenting period (Part 1, the lawsuit against the school Board) , Kevin Roy tries to bring a bucket of gas, and Dave Horvath correctly schools him properly (what came to mind was that old "round" I learned in fifth grade - "There's a hole in Kevin's bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in his bucket, dear Liza, a hole",

Part 3:

Certainly the place is seemingly abuzz with Derek Tomlinson's resignation from the School Board.  At first, his letter was not made public (even as it was read, in part, at a public meeting of the Board), and then faced with RTK requests, it seems like they have released a heavily redacted version of it to the press (but it is not posted on their website). 

From the Citizen, I thought these lines from the article, taken from Tomlinson's letter, were very strange:

“I wish the Board and District well as they navigate the future. I still have a daughter in the school that I will be watching over very closely.

So, what is going on that Derek seemingly warning the School District so as to say "you have better not mess with my daughter"? No, politics should never devolve to someone's kids, but it has happened before and it is a parent's worst nightmare.  I have had folks come up to me and whisper things only to then beg me not to say a word; the one reason why many people in town do not speak up in fear of what that line suggests - retribution.

We've got the ongoing controversy of the Board overriding the will of the townfolk by hiring a new Superintendent, Dr. Billings (principle of the Elementary School) taking off after being passed over, some murmmerings of legal action that might be taking place with other folks being involved, and now a resignation.

No, I have no firm knowledge or even a guess as to why a now former School Board member would warn the remaining members (or the employees of the School District) to stay away from his daughter.

It certainly is of concern to him - it should be of concern to us all.

As I have blogged before, I am an elected official in my NH hamlet - the Budget Committee (SB2).  Now as a former biz analyst, I like data - a LOTS of it.  Now, the last couple of years, I've looked at what was presented: each department with each of its own line items (e.g., electric, phone, salary, benefits, inventories, et al).  And then at the end, I re-aggregated all the like items together (all electric, all salaries,...) and was none too happy.

Well, this year, I've made a bunch of data requests to both the Town and School District for long term trending data on these same items; stuff that i bet no one has ever asked for before.  After all, if only presented with a couple or three years of data, it is all but impossible to say if there is a cost trend, and if there is, is it advantageous for taxpayers or against them?  And the RSAs clearly state that the Budget Committee is allowed to do so.  Period.

Well, it has come to my attention that the Selectmen and the Town Administrator have decided that they have the ability to add their own restrictions:

Selectmen have notified the chairman the town’s Budget Committee that requests for detailed fiscal information may be getting out of hand, and they feel requests for in-depth budget analysis be supported by a vote of the committee.

In a letter to Budget Committee Chairman Dick Hickok selectmen said committee members have a certain role to fulfill and a protocol will be set up to request information after a member of the committee was asking questions that might have exceeded his responsibility.

The letter to Hickok was send after a request made by Budget Committee member Skip Murphy. In the letter dated July 13, the town states the concern of possible other requests, similar to what was made by Murphy, could be forthcoming from each and every other member of the committee, which could hold up town resources from a time perspective.

...“With this in mind, the selectmen are concerned that this particular request may not truly reflect the ‘pertinent information’ needs of the Budget Committee as a whole, absent a vote taken at a duly public meeting that reflects a majority decision along those lines,” states the letter.

The town is requesting that a formal vote is to be taken if a member of the committee requests information on RSAs, regulations, unfunded mandates, financial consequences stemming from donating, 10-year trending data, hourly cost of service or other specific information.

“In addition, please be advised that we are troubled by the voluminous nature of the information being requested that will require research and the preparation of reports that are not currently available, especially given the dubious value of this information when you consider the level of line item detail that is typically provided with the budgets along with the numerous opportunities Budget Committee members will have to directly question department managers,” the letter states.

But like the salary studies I did my first year on the BudComm (that reverberated around our larger community and effected a number of fiscal structural changes in our town), I'm betting this data will do the same. 

And I'm betting they know it too.   Problem is for the Selectmen, the Town Administrator, and the lawyer that is most likely advising them, they have a huge problem...the RSAs do not have the Selectmen in the driver's seat, they have the Budget Committee. If you read them (after the jump), there is NOTHING in the RSAs that allow the Selectment (or the School Board) the ability to direct how the Budget Committee does its job, makes it requests, or how it votes.

And since it is the Budget Committee that is judging the two respective budgets, nor should they.  And the Chair of the Budget Committee has made the formal request.

The relevant RSAs: RSA 32:16, RSA 32"17, and RSA 32:22: RSA 32:16, 32:17 and 32:22

32:16 Duties and Authority of the Budget Committee. – In any town which has adopted the provisions of this subdivision, the budget committee shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

I. To prepare the budget as provided in RSA 32:5, and if authorized under RSA 40:14-b, a default budget under RSA 40:13, IX(b) for submission to each annual or special meeting of the voters of the municipality, and, if the municipality is a town, the budgets of any school district or village district wholly within the town, unless the warrant for such meeting does not propose any appropriation.

II. To confer with the governing body or bodies and with other officers, department heads and other officials, relative to estimated costs, revenues anticipated, and services performed to the extent deemed necessary by the budget committee. It shall be the duty of all such officers and other persons to furnish such pertinent information to the budget committee.

" to the extent deemed necessary by the budget committee"  spells out exactly which body determines what information is necessary and in what format.

32:17 Duties of Governing Body and Other Officials. – The governing bodies of municipalities adopting this subdivision, or of districts which are wholly within towns adopting this subdivision, shall review the statements submitted to them under RSA 32:4 and shall submit their own recommendations to the budget committee, together with all information necessary for the preparation of the annual budget, including each purpose for which an appropriation is sought and each item of anticipated revenue, at such time as the budget committee shall fix. In the case of a special meeting calling for the appropriation of money, the governing body shall submit such information not later than 5 days prior to the required public hearing. Department heads and other officers shall submit their departmental statements of estimated expenditures and receipts to the budget committee, if requested.

32:22 Review of Expenditures. – Upon request by the budget committee, the governing body of the town or district, or the town manager or other administrative official, shall forthwith submit to the budget committee a comparative statement of all appropriations and all expenditures by them made in such detail as the budget committee may require. The budget committee shall meet periodically to review such statements. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to mean that the budget committee, or any member of the committee, shall have any authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of other officials over current town or district expenditures, except as provided in RSA 32:23.

I have bolded the part I believe to be relevant.  It is not up to the Town or School officials to determine what is relevant - that is totally up to us, the members of the Budget Committee.  Indeed, if you notice, I have bolded the word "shall".  This is a command - "you will do this and you cannot ignore this or deny this".  It is not subject to time, effort, or amount of work or detail.  It is a final declaration by the House, Senate, and Governor of the State of NH of which my hamlet is but a single subdivision.  The word shall should and must be obeyed.

I sent the following to the Chair of the Budget Committee:

As far as a protocol is concerned, since you as Chair have forwarded the request, that is all that should be needed.  It is irrelevant to either the School Board or the Selectmen as to the inner workings (i.e., votes or discussions or any other processes) of the Budget Committee from where such data requests arise.  Reasonableness is a word that does not appear in the RSA; while it may have been used in discussions, it is the law that has the final word.  Indeed, it clearly states "in such detail as the budget committee may require"; in this matter, it is the Budget Committee that makes the decisions and no other.

I am asking that the data requests, now having formally passed along by the Budget Committee Chair, be honored by both the School District and the Municipal authorities.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

I was re-elected as Vice-Chair, 5-4, over Dale.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Four local districts - Gilford, Kearsarge Regional, Newfound Area and Winnisquam Regional - landed on the list for the first time. All of those districts missed the bar in reading for the second year in a row, while Winnisquam and Gilford also fell short of the state standard in math for the second year in a row.

For all of the "academese" thrown around, and what could be described as "we're looking into this, we're looking into that...", it is the results that count (which is one reason why, it seems, these standardized tests are so hated by teachers).  Period.  And for those that wish to complain otherwise? 

Well, in the VERY words of Joe Wernig:

Well put, Joe!

CCCC