SB2: March 2008 Archives

www.Citizen.com 

March 26th, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: This is a reply to Mr. Tolman's 3/21/2008 letter that questioned my comment about voters feeling "comfortable to express their true feeling" in secret balloting. I have spoken with people that refrain or are reluctant to attend Town Meetings as they are hesitant to openly vote their true feeling because of possible retribution by fellow citizens that see their hand vote or hear their voice vote. That includes business people, parents, etc. I also know people that have attended Town Meetings and stopped voting after a few votes saying, what is the use? Sometimes people feel that way when voice votes seem to be disproportionately louder than the actual number of voters. A vulnerability with the present system is that non registered voters could join in on the voice vote and for that matter the hand vote, but with SB2 that is not an option.

Mr. Tolman made a number of statements and charges in his letter such as "We, as citizens, are not guaranteed or entitled to feeling 'comfortable' in the exercise of our democracy." He apparently finds this to be acceptable in the face of a loud and boisterous opposition and a moderator manning a bully pulpit. It seems to me that Mr. Tolman has no tolerance for true democracy where all votes count and the persons race, creed, loudness of voice or intimidating personality do not matter. Where I do not "have to look one's fellow citizen in the eyes while (voting). "

The answer to his question that " Every major legislative body in our country is held accountable for their individual votes in the public record; would we ask any less of ourselves at the most basic level of self-government?" is a resounding yes! I would ask Mr. Tolman, why do we vote in private for general elections? Why, when we turn in our ballots no one has the right to look it over? I'm not an elected or public official and my right to vote my conscience in private should not be infringed upon by anyone. That is true democracy.

On a more factual note, and for the benefit of the readers, with the SB2 form of government there is a Deliberative Session which is just like the Town Meeting; articles can be debated and amended. The major difference with SB2 is that there is a 30 day waiting period, before voting, that gives voters ample opportunity to read editorials, letters to the editor, talk with others to comprehend any changes made to any articles an yes, even look your fellow citizens in the eye. One then can come to a personal decision on how to vote with a secret ballot.

I believe that debate is a very good thing, but for voting I prefer the ballot box where my vote is between me and my conscience and not between me and my neighbor.

By the way Mr. Tolman, you made one statement that I totally agree with: "SB2, as enacted in our state right now, does not change the fact that we, as voters, have a responsibility to get out and attend an annual meeting where we can discuss and debate the articles before our town."

Vote for SB2

Jim Leiterman

Moultonborough

www.laconiadailysun.com

 

April 1st, 2008

 

To the editor, Laconia Daily Sun:

Two letters in Monday’s Sun need attention; two others speak well for themselves. The one I read fi rst, which Mr. Peter Miller wrote and no, I didn’t do a word count, speaks of fellow citizens as having forked tongues, dastardly ploys, making him pay, ramifications, turkey vultures whispering and circling road kill, as well as slurring neighboring towns people with GilfordGrok banners attached to rear ends and carpetbaggers meddling. I mean like WOW, and Mr. Kahn wants a time out. He also suggests that those for SB-2 are ‘small d democrats’ as opposed to what BIG D DEMOCRATS; I am neither, nor a Republican,party affiliation is not attached to an individuals right to cast a vote. Mr. Kahn’s states that SB-2 opponents want only to continue what has been. If that is true, then why are they suggesting a hybrid form of government? Mr. Miller states that we favor home rule and local control. Perhapshe doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘casting a ballot’. Both writers have something in common though, not reading the state statutes. The worst being Mr. Kahn as he states: “. . . or a group of petitioners die or move away by next February, ...” He is carrying forward a statement made in an earlier March 26th Sun article that the N.H. Secretary of States Offi ce advised the validity of signers residency be checked again in February 09 to determine if everyone (who signed the petition) were still living and living and registered in Meredith. This is the only title, chapter and section in the statutes which speak to petitioned articles. In it one will find no time limitations as the validity of signatories of a petitioned articles accepted by one or more selectman. The Town Clerks duties are to verify the validity of residency at that time. Nothing in the RSA speaks to the petition being able to be rejected because one or more persons died (unintentional or otherwise) or whether they left town willingly (or otherwise). Perhaps in some other state, nation, or time, but not in this state at this time, does a citizen of the state need to be afraid of being driven out of town, coarsened or worse for having signed a petition article to be included on a ballot.I held from speaking to this subject earlier, but Mr. Kahn has raised the volume beyond what our dear Mr. Miller has with his diatribe and supercitizen persona. Anyone can go on line to the states website and read it for themselves — 24/7. And by the way, it is not the Secretary of States function to interpret the state statutes, that function resides with the state’s Attorney General. The Attorney General’s office could only e suggest an inference from, the checking of the validity of residency at the polling place before an individual may cast a ballot, as the requirement of checking a second time in February. To that we may all read and be assured doesn’t stand as if it did many, many N. H. citizens in the last 200 plus years would have declined signing a petition for fear of not seeing the following year’s Spring. Here’s the law: New Hampshire Statutes TITLE III: TOWNS, CITIES, VILLAGE DISTRICTS, AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES; CHAPTER 39: TIME FOR HOLDINGTOWN MEETINGS AND WARNING THEREOF: Section 39:3 Articles. —Upon the written application of 25 or more registered voters or 2-percent of the registered voters in town, whichever is less, although in no event shall fewer than 10 registered voters be sufficient, presented to the selectmen or one of them not later than the fifth Tuesday before the day prescribed for an annual meeting, the selectmen shall insert in their warrant for such meeting the petitioned article with only such minor textual changes as may be required. For the purposes of this section, the number of registered voters in a town shall be the number of voters registered prior to the last state general election. The right to have an article inserted in the warrant conferred by this section shall not be invalidated by the provisions of

RSA 32.

G. W. Brooks

Meredith

BY MICHAEL KITCH

www./laconiadailysun.com

Laconia Sun March 26^th, 2008

 

MEREDITH — In a preemptive strike apparently designed to forestall a possible restructuring of town government, advocates of SB-2 this week submittedmpetitions to again put the issue to voters in both the town and school district inMarch 2009. On Monday, Richard Juve delivered a petition for the 2009 town ballot with 32 signatories and another for the school district ballot with 42 signatories to Town Clerk Kerry Parker.

 

The move may legally stop any attempt by local officials to develop a new, hybrid form of government for at least a year. Juve made his move less than two weeks after SB-2 came within a whisker of success at the polls, falling only 3-percent shy of the three-fi fths supermajority required for adoption in both the town and school elections. In balloting for the town, the majority in favor of SB-2 was 57.5-percent, with 616 in favor and 456 against. In the school district election, 57.1-percent of Meredith voters — 599 to 450 — endorsed SB-2 only to be outvoted by their counterparts in Center Harbor and Sandwich. Yesterday, Juve said that last Friday an anonymouscaller warned him that town officials and the selectmen were planning to initiate the process of adopting a charter, which could preempt a renewed effort to adopt SB-2. “He told me,” Juve said, “’you’d better hustle because if they get it together, you’re dead.” “It was like the gun went off for the final lap,” he continued, “and the other guys were right on our heels. A desperate sprint.” Juve said that he and his wife Ruth collected signatures over the weekend and delivered the petitions on Monday.

 

In response to the strong showing of SB-2 the Board of Selectmen has begun to ponder exploring the optional forms of town government authorized by the so-called “home rule” statute (RSA 49-B), several of which, including the most appealing, incorporate the official ballot (SB-2). The process of chartering a new form of government requires voting to convene a charter commission, electing a charter commission, drafting a charter and voting on a charter itself and would stretch over two municipal election cycles. But, by submitting his petition for SB 2, Juve may have stopped that process in its tracks. The law governingthe adoption of SB-2 (RSA 40:14) reads reads in part “in the event that an alternative method for the adoption of offi cial ballot voting exists under the laws of this state, then once the requirements are met for inclusion of the question on the warrant for annual meeting of whether to adopt this subdivision, neither the governing body nor the legislative body shall commence action to adopt offi cial ballot voting through such alternative method until a final vote is taken on the warrant article.” In other words, once a petition for SB-2 qualifi es for the warrant, its fate must be decided before the question of convening a charter commission can be put to the voters.

 

At the same time, Juve may have beat the selectmen to the punch. RSA 40:14 also provides that “if procedures have been initiated to adopt official ballot voting under an alternative law of this state, then neither the governing body nor the legislative body shall commence action to adopt this subdivision until such alternative procedures are exhausted.”Parker said that she has been advised by the New Hampshire Secretary of State to verify the signatures as soon as possible and again in February, before the article is placed on the ballot. “We need to make sure everyone who signed is still living and living and registered in Meredith,” she said, adding that she never expected to receive a petitioned article a full year before town meeting.

 

www.citizen.com                                       March 22, 2008

Editor, TheCitizen: I am writing in response to Kim Dubuque's letter to the editor on March 20. She stated that in all the years that she has been attending the town meetings in Moultonboro, the use of petitions for paper ballots were 'used on very rare occasions'. This year's meeting had 8 petitions for secret ballots that 'were signed by 5 to 10 people. This turned what is usually a timely process into a marathon.' She went further to state that this turned her civic duty into 'a lengthy and arduous affair for no apparent reason.'

Well Kim, I'm sorry that you found the right of the people to vote in secrecy such a burden. The law allows for secret ballots when 5 registered voters present at the town meeting sign a petition and request it for any article item. That is precisely what happened on Saturday. It was not the intent of those that signed the petitions (I signed two of them) to 'disrupt what is usually a timely and smoothly flowing process' or as some would say a vocal rubber stamp. What the requests for secret ballot clearly indicate, is that not all people prefer their vote to be known by any or everyone else. Some people are easily intimidated by others and may feel swayed or pressured into voting in a particular way.

This year's agenda had some very contentious issues at hand, as was evidenced by the heated discussion that occurred. Point in fact: there was a very vocal group that petitioned article 9 (funding for an architectural and engineering study for the Community Center) with 300 signatures. The reality is that less than 200 signatures were valid and only 198 voted for this article during town meeting. Hmmm... I would remind the writer that SB2 while not achieving a super majority, was a clear majority winner (56%) so obviously many people want a secret ballot. There was a recent editorial in the Citizen that stated this very fact. It's not the tax that is too much, it's the spending!!! This is one of the reasons that article 9 was voted down.

We need to focus on our needs not our wants. And if that means that we take extra time to vote in a secret ballot, then so be it! Some people have been ridiculed by some of our selectmen for not having the 'courage' to speak out at the town meetings. I don't think that is fair or proper to say such things. If I am going to be publicly ridiculed then I wouldn't want to speak out. In fact, I wouldn't want to go to the meeting. Then guess what? My vote wouldn't count. But by utilizing the right to petition for a secret ballot, those who have felt intimidated or ridiculed would have their vote counted. This year, every vote counted.

I can assure you that many people, including myself, did in fact do their research and made a 'sound decision'. I can also assure you that you have not heard the end of SB2!

Linda Punturieri

Moultonboro

www.citizen.com                                     March 21, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: Now that we have passed the Moultonborough '08 elections and town meeting, I would like to congratulate the incumbents for their apparent victory and the three write-in candidates for running a stunning effort in three short weeks. To have captured nearly a third of the votes for a write-in campaign makes a statement. The selectmen write-in candidates each garnered 60% of the incumbent Ed Charest and 50% of Chairman Karel Crawford.

But the important number coming from this year's voting was the 56% (town) and 58% (school) of the voters that are asking for the fair voting process of SB2 in Moultonborough. This contest has proven that more than half of the residents of our otherwise quiet little hamlet want to have a fair process of voting. If there was a failure in the campaign, it was that we proponents of SB2 did not fully educate the electorate to (1) understand the simplicity of this voting initiative and (2) dispel the fear-mongering misinformation spewed forth by those that may be giving a fraction of their control back to the electorate by allowing them to vote.

I want to thank all those voters that supported the write-in efforts as well as all those that came out and voted for SB2. Without your efforts and votes we would not be where we are today. You have spoken and clearly, you would like to be able to vote on town issues. By your willingness to learn about SB2 and make the effort to come out to vote, you have shown people like this humble scribe that it is all worthwhile. I salute you and ask that you do the same next year and bring along a couple of friends that offer like-minded thinking.

Selectman Ed Charest made the comment at a selectmen's meeting a few weeks back that the proponents of SB2 "had tried last year ('07) and failed" (40% of the needed 60%) and so we "were wasting the time and expense of the town by trying it all over again". Well, Ed, now that more than half of the town has spoken, we owe it to the majority to try it in '09. It will be on the ballot again.

The large turnout at the town meeting this year, being on a Saturday for the first time, shows this observer that people want to vote if it is available to them. Unfortunately, even though Saturday offers more access, it still leaves those that are out of town or home bound as disenfranchised voters. When the moderator asked for a show of hands of those first timers to town meeting, there were several that went up. This is further indication of the need for SB2.

With a careful study of the numbers from the voting booth (and those allowed absentee ballots) on March 11, all the officials in the elective positions in town should take note that they have had a well-placed "shot across their bow", or at the very least a strong message. And I will dare say that SB2 will be part of the landscape soon. Get used to it and start looking at the reality of it. We should all look at the advantages that it offers and work with the local papers to preprint a synopsis of the ballot with yes/no check boxes as an aid to educate the voters from the deliberative session results.

My guess is that the selectmen, moderator, and the other SB2 opponents in Moultonborough will very quickly be trying to muddy the waters with an effort to establish "another form of government" with a "Charter Commission", as Meredith has already begun researching. This is reinventing the wheel. The voters didn't say we want a charter commission… we want SB2. It is simple; it allows all to vote; it is complete and it is proven. More than half of the population of New Hampshire lives with SB2, while Charter Commissions are few and far between.

Rick Heath

Moultonborough

www.citizen.com                     March 21, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: In Meredith approximately 4% of the voters control $33 million of the town's finances.

In attendance at Meredith's Annual Town Meeting to vote for the 9,000-foot addition to the fire station were 385 voters who voted 285 for and 73 against. 7.5% of the voters showed up to vote for the $2.5m fire station addition. That was at the start of the meeting at 7 p.m. and at 8 p.m. a vote was called for after an hour-long color screen presentation on the need for the expenditure and the future need for a full-time fire department. Get ready for some financial contingency planning on this one. Another hour was consumed by a screen presentation on purchasing Page Pond. No color screen presentation with slides explaining the abbreviated, one-page $13m budget was made by the Selectmen at 11 p.m. If we had 200 voters left at 11:30 p.m. to vote on the $13m budget, we were lucky. Two ladies sitting next to me got up and walked out prior to the long diatribe by the police and public employees. One lady said to me, "I don't want to get into this conflict." And it turned into a dispute-ridden atmosphere.

Barely 4.2% of the voters approved the $13m Town Budget, which was about the percentage of voters that approved the $20m school budget. Only 250 voters determined the Town's Budget. There are 4,754 registered voters.

So we have approximately 4% of the voters controlling the town's finances of $33m.

www.citizen.com

Editor, The Citizen: Previously the Recreational Strategic Planning Team presented a list, claimed to be 300 signatures, attached to the petition to the Moultonborough Selectmen, requesting a $375,000 warrant article (article 9) for architectural, engineering fees, etc. for the possible construction of a "Community/Senior Center" on the Lions Property.

As reported by Hollis Austin, in his 3/13/2008 letter to the editor, the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance checked and found there were only 264 signatures and when you delete five that signed twice, numerous unregistered, illegible or missing signatures, etc., the total was under 200.

Now let's see what happened at the Town Meeting on March 15th. An amendment to lower the dollar amount, of article 9, was defeated by a hand vote of 137 for and 148 against. Then the original article 9 was put up for secret ballot and it was defeated by a vote of 198 for but 256 against. The illusionary 300 signers were nowhere to be found as only 198 voted for article 9.

When the secret ballot was employed, apparently many voters felt comfortable to express their true feeling and voted article 9 down. With SB2 all articles including expenditure articles are voted in the ballot booth and voters are guided by their personal opinion and their conscience.

These same so called 300 signers influenced some of the selectmen to change their vote to 4 to 1 to recommend article 9. It was an illusion and that is something for us all to guard against.

Now I call on the citizenry to refer to and follow the suggestions of the Municipal Needs Committee report entitled Municipal Needs Committee 12 Point Recommendations on RSPT Proposal which is available on the MCA website www.moultonborocitizensalliance.org and it's in category titled Municipal Needs Committee. It's a logical 12 point plan to get answers to questions and proceed to work with other departments to achieve citizen's needs.

Jim Leiterman

Moultonborough

I am writing to thank the Citizen Alliance for all the information and posts regarding the recent elections in Moultonborough. I would also like to congratulate the Alliance for requesting for a recount of the SB2 questions in the form of a manual count. The hand count process is the most reliable way to tabulate ballot votes.

Electronic counting is subject to error.

The vote counting machines in New Hampshire have already been the focus of citizen efforts to point out the shortcomings of these machines. Please click on the YouTube video link below. It is quite shocking to see how a vote tabulating machine can dramatically alter election results. After watching the entire five minute video, I am sure you will agree with me that the hand count is the most reliable and trustworthy way to count ballots.

I want to be clear that I believe our local elections are run with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity but even so vote tabulation machines have and can make gross mistakes. I would also like to thank the Town election officials for their efforts in advance.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs&feature=related

 

James R Castleberry

www.meredithnhnews.com

March 20, 2008 To the Editor: Last Saturday's Moultonboro Town Meeting was a display of democracy at its finest. The participation of more than 500 voting residents was positive and informative. Amendments to articles were put forward, discussed and in the majority of cases ended up as the original article was written. I just can't imagine how that could ever happen in SB-2 deliberative session. I have been going to Town Meetings for over a half a century and can't for the life of me understand why some would like to do away with this form of government that has worked so well for so many years especially in our town and town's of our size and larger. I have been opposed to SB-2 from the start and am even more opposed to it now after witnessing Saturday's session of democracy in its purest form. My congratulations to Mel Borrin for moderating this meeting with dignity and professionalism. Jordan S. Prouty Moultonboro

www.citizen.com

Editor, The Citizen: I am delighted to see the defeat of Article #9 ($375,000 to fund and an architectural and engineering study for a Community /Recreation Center) in Moultonboro's Town Meeting on Saturday March 15th. This sends a clear message that it is not a 'small vocal few' that objected to community/recreation/senior center on such a grand scale.

Few oppose a center of some sort. Unfortunately, there are those that would have us believe that there is a demanding and pressing need to build a massive center, one with more ball fields for our little town with a population of 4000, on the scale of one for a major university! It was a huge turnout at the ballot election on Tuesday March 11th with nearly 1300 people coming out to vote. SB2 was defeated by a very small percentage. So small that a recount will be done for both the school and town.

There were 570 people at the town meeting on Saturday, another huge turnout. That is nearly 800 less than were able to make it to vote in the election. What a shame to disenfranchise so many taxpayers. We were able to stay until after Article 9 was voted on, but had to leave. Later, we met a town employee at one of our town facilities who was very interested in how the town meeting was going. Like many other people, this individual had to work that day and could not vote. My mother is 80 years old, but she would not miss her opportunity to vote in the election at the public safety building. She was not able to attend such a lengthy town meeting as she has difficulty walking long distances and didn't want to sit that long. She also has a hearing disability that prevents her from being able to understand all that is being said. It's a shame too, as she was very interested in knowing what went on the very minute we came home. She too was pleased to learn that Article 9 was defeated. She would like a senior center but has no desire whatsoever to be in the same building as teenagers or small children.

If we had SB2 in place those 800 disenfranchised taxpayers would have had a chance to have their vote count on all the issues, including the school budget. Taxation without representation is tyranny!

Linda N. Punturieri

Moultonboro

www.citizen.com

Editor, The Citizen: Peter Miller needs a realty check. (Letter to the Ed. 3/13) In most circumstances where "majority rules," there is never the claim of divisiveness. However, he as much as blames the extreme personality conflicts in neighboring Gilford on SB2. Please, Mr. Miller, don't try to reinvent the wheel in the next ten months on something that is unproven. SB2 offers an answer to every issue that you express. I would suggest that you finally recognize some of the problems with the present form of government; the obsolescent town meeting.

www.citizens.com        printed 3-6-2008

Chance to lower taxes

Editor, The Citizen: The Moultonborough Selectmen have stated that our town budget for this coming year is only 1% higher than last year. Nice work but the town of Sandwich is 6% lower than last year. There is no reason why Moultonborough's taxes couldn't be lowered by sensible spending. If this town stops spending on certain capital expenditures this year, our town tax portion would be lowered by about 18%.

There are four big ticket items. Article 9 is for $375,000 for the Recreation Complex. Article 10 is $100,000 to be put in reserve for this Recreation Complex. Article 12 is 392,000 for this town's portion to rebuild Ossipee Park Road. Article 15 ,which includes $400,000 for an unidentified Municiple Building. Article 15 should be amended at Town Meeting to reduce it by $400,000.

This $1,267,000 deduction in these Capital Expenditures in our Town Budget will reduce our taxes by 18%, not too shabby.

Let the townspeople show up Saturday, March 15, 2008, at 9:00 A.M. to vote on sensible spending. At the same time lower the Town portion of our taxes by 18%. Show up and make your concerns over our out of control spending be heard. Let your voice be heard by your vote .

Al Hume

Moultonborough

This letter was submitted via www.citizen.com.

Printed 2/7/2008

Editor, The Citizen:

I am writing to express my concern about the recent petitioned warrant article to appropriate funds for a "proposed" community center. The appropriation as I understand it is for $375,000 for architectural, engineering, and other related fees for the construction of a community/senior center with fields and other outdoor improvements on the Lion's Club property. This represents ( per the petition I assume) 8% of the construction costs anticipated for this ( non) project.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought that the issue of even having a community center in Moultonborough was not yet decided. Are we now saying that it's okay to spend another $375,000 (on top of the $400,000 or so already spent to purchase the Lions Club property) on a project that doesn't yet exist and hasn't yet been voted on by the public?

I appreciate that 300 people put forth this petition as is their right, I just don't agree with it. I also don't agree with Lisa St. Amand, asking "why that doesn't supersede a small number that says they don't want it when that's what the larger body wants?" That is precisely why many of us in Moultonborough support SB2. 300 people signing a petition might be a majority at a town meeting, but it does not make a majority in terms of a ballot box. This is a perfect example of why SB2 is needed here. Despite the opposition of the Selectmen, the petitioners' still want to spend our money on a project that has not been put forth to the public to vote on up or down. And they want to spend still more money by setting up a capital reserve fund. The public at large has the right to know how and why we ( Moultonborough) came to own the Lions Club property and how it came to be that this is the only site that is being considered for a community center or for that matter, how it was decided we even need a community/senior center.

What I would like to see happen is SB2 implemented in Moultonborough, the Master Plan completed, then further study regarding the needs and scope for a community center which will then dictate the best site for this project. Then a proposed community center project could be voted on by the public in the privacy of a ballot box. That is logical, fair and truly representative of all of Moultonborough and of a democracy.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough

March 8, 2008

 

SB2 and the transformation back to majority rule.

 

The New England Town meeting was born from the Calvinistic notion of ecclesiology. The Wikipedia definition of ecclesiology is that it comes from the Greek ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), which entered Latin as ecclesia, which originally simply meant a gathering or a meeting. The Mayflower Compact established the ecclesia of New England under a Majoritarianism form of government, which defined that a majority  of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society as a whole. This concept is known as majority rule.

 

The early Congregational Church also gave us the notion of Town. The New England town is the essential unit of local government here in New Hampshire and in all the New England States. The institution of Town does not have a direct counterpart in most other places in the USA. Most towns in Massachusetts, NH and Maine were chartered by the Colonial Assemblies based on having a Congregational Meeting House and an appointment of a minister by the Congregational Church. Most of these Town Charters instituted the same sort of Majoritarianism government style of the Mayflower Compact.

It is especially significant to point out that there was no idea of separation of Church and State and quite to the contrary the meeting and Town government were adjuncts of the Calvin styled Congregational Church.

 

The current Town Government and Town Meeting are a direct historical hand down of our Congregational ancestry here in New England that pre-dates the American Revolution and the notions of constitutional democracy. The rules are now more inclusionary in that we now accept women and men that are not members of the Congregational Church, but for the most part the meetings are conducted in largely the same manner as they have been for 300 years.

Along with the inherited desired effects of “majority rule” also came the “dark-side” of the ecclesia and the power of the majority. Alexander Tocqueville, an early French commenter on the American experience put it best in his commentaries on the American Democracy:

“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-f‚, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.”

 

Simply put expressing your opinion can subject you to persecution, humiliation, and exile.

www.meredithnhnews.com                                  March 6, 2008

To the Editor: Three high quality people have answered the challenge! Moultonboro Moderator Mel Borrin presented a challenge of sorts, while at the same time condemning those that vote "behind the voting booth curtain," that those who truly care about their town should run for office. We have heard similar words of admonishment from the two incumbent selectmen. Their take is (or has been since the filing dead line has closed for town offices) that "we don't need SB2…you elect us and we represent you" is how the chairman puts it, I believe. Well when it comes to the flip flop that they pulled off this month with respect to the Recreation Center issue, this observer, for one, cannot rely on them to "represent me" anymore.

www.citizen.com                                    March 6, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: I would like to echo the words of a very expressive letter I recently read from Mr. Anthony Alibrio of Moultonborough. This effort for SB2 is not just in Moultonborough. Obviously those of us in Moultonborough want this voting initiative for our own hamlet among the hills. However, as the question of caring for one's place of residence while enjoying the warmer climes in retirement has come to the front from comments made by the Selectmen's Chair Karel Crawford it is now necessary to transcend town lines a bit. Assuming that Ms. Crawford will, at some point in time, retire from her political and vocational duties and perhaps desire to stay in a place that offers warm outdoor activity in the winter, or cool ocean breezes year round for longer than what we call "vacation"; should we then challenge her loyalty for the Lakes Region and the roots she has established here? Perhaps we should put her in that class she has attempted to establish by her callous and unfeeling comments; "you can't tell me a person who spends six months away really cares what goes on here." (Selectmen's hearing on SB2)

www.citizen.com                                                 March 6, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: The boys at my weekly breakfast outing wanted to know what the real advantages of SB-2 were. I told them I was the luckiest guy in the world because I lived in Meredith where the food is good, dining out excellent, and whether you own a vacation home or condominium you own a piece of paradise. However, even in this spectacular New England town, there is one irresistible opportunity to make our town government better by voting Yes for the SB-2 initiative. The timing is right to show support for the long struggle for democratic voting.

by Sarah Schmidt sschmidt@salmonpress.com
March 06, 2008 MOULTONBORO — In the wake of several charged meetings, three men have stepped forward to announce their intention to run as write-in candidates for the previously uncontested races of selectmen and moderator – Jim Castleberry, Al Hume, and Gary Torressen. Castleberry is running for the office of moderator, held by current Moderator Mel Borrin, and Hume and Torressen run for the two selectmen's seats held by Chairman Karel Crawford and Ed Charest. After recent selectmen's meetings and public hearings for the school and town, Castleberry, Hume, and Torressen said they were disturbed by the tone and actions of the current officials and now seek their seats. "I was very concerned that the tone and accusations leveled at the citizenry were not moderate," said Castleberry. "The tone of discourse has gotten ugly, and it pits citizen against citizen."

www.meredithnhnews.com               March 06, 2008

We don't have too many endorsements to make this year, because of so few uncontested races, but we'll weigh in with our opinion where we can, especially on the topic of experience. Meredith Meredith's got a difficult choice to make in its selectmen race; both Chuck Palm and Jim Waldron would make excellent selectmen, and fine additions to the board. Both have served in town government, and both have the experience, the know-how, and the understanding of the region to be highly-contributing members of the Meredith Board of Selectmen. In the end, though, it's Palm's departmental experience that convinces us to give him our vote. Still, whoever wins on March 11, Meredith can rest easy knowing that a good man will join the board. Sandwich In the race between Leo Dwyer and Randy Hilman for the Board of Selectmen, we're going to have to give Hilman our vote. It's no secret that to understand Sandwich, you have to really live in it, and gather some history on it, just to begin scratching the surface. With some substantial budgetary decisions coming up in the near future, experience and understanding of Sandwich's deepest wants and needs is a necessity, and the person who can best speak to that, we feel, is Hilman. We'd like to add that, whoever wins the election, we'd like to see Sandwich's roads fixed. Rural atmosphere is one thing, tire realignment is quite another. Moultonboro Three candidates have stepped forward as write-ins in order to challenge Moderator Mel Borrin and Selectmen Karel Crawford and Ed Charest in their formerly uncontested campaigns - Castleberry for moderator, and Al Hume and Gary Torressen for selectmen. Though we like to see a contested race instead of an uncontested one, we're going to have to go with the incumbents this time. The decision to campaign should be proactive, not reactionary.

www.citizen.com                                                   March 5, 2008

Editor, The Citizen:

The commentary from Michael Lancor highlights the critical need in Moultonborough for real change. He mentioned a number of facts and provided information to support his position opposing SB2 for Moultonborough. Many in our town are aware that he is the Superintendent of the Moultonborough School District (whose school board has decided to take a public position opposing SB2 in Moultonborough) . Many are also aware that he is the President of the Moultonborough Lions Club, a focal point in the very spirited debate on the future use of that property as a Community Recreation Center. Not mentioning those positions in his letter is somewhat disingenuous. He is certainly entitled to his own personal opinion, but look at the stark contrast to the Superintendent and School Board of the Inter-Lake's school district. They decided correctly not to take a position on SB2 saying it is a political not an educational issue. Bravo to them! How disappointing to not have the same sort of statesmanship and leadership here in Moultonborough. What a lesson for his students that would have been, one that puts the public interest ahead of personal. One cannot help but be drawn to the conclusion that in his various capacities he has a vested interest in keeping SB2 out of Moultonborough and promoting the funding of a very expensive Community Center.

In his letter he referenced The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. Mr. Lancor's statements such as the "Center warns us" is meant to give the reader the impression that the Center is opposed to SB2 when in fact they do not take any position and are vigorously bipartisan. "The Center will publicly refute any assertion, whether implicit or explicit, that it has endorsed a policy proposal of any campaign" and in respect to SB2 "The Center takes no position on the issue" as emphatically stated on their website.

He states in the last paragraph that ( in Town Meetings) "voters are guaranteed to vote on budgets as prepared by the Select board and School Board without concern about proposed budgets being controlled by small unelected coalitions during deliberative sessions". Wow. Well, as a member of the "small unelected coalition" ( better known to everyone else as taxpaying citizens of Moultonborough who vote), I am shocked.

I would have preferred to see school officials and board members keep their personal biases out of the public discourse as Inter-Lakes did and focus on doing their jobs.

Does Mr. Lancor believe that there isn't a small group of people already in control of our town and that they do not want to lose that control?

Lastly, here is a real fact from the NH Center for Public Policy not mentioned in his letter. Of the 69 SB2 School Districts in NH, none have rescinded SB2. Not a single one.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough

www.citizen.com                           March 5, 2008

Editor, The Citizen:

I find it very ironic that at the same Moultonborough Selectmen's Meeting where the Selectmen were stating the reasons why the Town should not vote for SB2 they were planning to close the Town Dump & Library so that the employees could attend the Town Meeting. If Moultonborough were an SB2 town this would not be necessary. They could vote at any time from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

How convenient that the Town can close facilities for Town Meeting. What other businesses can afford to close so that their employees can attend the Meeting?

The non-resident taxpayer may want to use these facilities on the morning of March 15. What service does his tax dollar get him?

In closing let me mention that I am a year round resident of Moultonborough. Otherwise according to the town officials my opinion wouldn't matter.

Jim Morrison

Moultonborough