SB2: January 2009 Archives
January 29, 2009
To the Editor:
On Jan. 14, we attended some hearings on proposed House bills that were sponsored by our State Representative Betsy Patten. Observing and participating in the hearings was certainly a learning experience and well worth the trip to
20 is very difficult to comprehend. A 1000 percent increase did not strike her as a bit over the top? But wait, there’s more. Oops, she did it again with HB71. This one will increase from $100,000 to $1,000,000 municipal bonds that would require a public hearing, another tenfold increase. For example, a bond of $950,000 would not require a public hearing. Outrageous, but at least she’s consistent. To me $950,000 is one fantastic pile of money. Rep. Patten introduced the house bill and said the $1,000,000 is a number she selected and it would be okay for the committee to drop it to $200,000 or what ever they wanted. See what I mean about consistency? Seems she puts out a very high numbermand hopes she gets at least something lower. Something is wrong with that method of proposing House Bills. We are hopeful both bills will be killed in committee.
On the last bill sponsored by Betsey Patten, HB114, she smartly threw in the towel and withdrew it.HB114 was an effort to weaken SB2 by eliminating the deliberative session. SB2 by the way is the way more than half the townspeople in
Jim Leiterman
Moultonboro
Editor, The Citizen: January 20, 2009
The Moultonborough Selectboard met 1-8-2009 and their published minutes under the section Legislative Update states Rep. Betsey Patten (Selectmen and also State Rep.) "added that she is proposing a bill to increase the number of voters required to request a secret ballot during the Town Meeting. Presently, only five registered voters must request a secret ballot and are not required to be present at Town Meeting. Her bill would set the number required based on the municipalities population. The (Moultonborough) Selectmen expressed their support of Betsey's proposed bill and asked Carter (Terenzini, Town Administrator) to draft a letter of support. Hollis Austin asked the purpose of the bill. She replied that presently only five people can request a secret ballot and not have to be present during the secret ballot, in an effort to make the Town Meeting unnecessarily lengthy."
The above portion in quotation marks is per the Moultonborough Selectboard minutes of 1-8-2009. However our video of that meeting stated 50 voters and that was neglected in the above minutes but the number 50 appears on HB72. Chapter 40 Government of Town Meeting, Section 40:4-a states "5 voters who are present may make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote or division vote that the vote be taken by secret written ballot." In essence, it says the five voters must be present and that contradicts a portion of what is stated in paragraph one.
I vigorously state that the voters that submitted petitions did not intentionally delay the voting as implied in paragraph one. Also Moultonboro Citizens Alliance did not submit all the petitions that were presented to the moderator prior to the start of that Town Meeting. Other citizens, who are not members of MCA or proponents of it, collected signatures and signed them as well as they wanted the secret ballots for expenditures over $100,000 which makes sense to me.
The information we received at the 1-8-2009 Selectboard meeting prompted us to attend those house hearings in
On the evening of 1-15-2009, some MCA members attended the Selectboard meeting and were verbally criticized because we did not discuss our differences with Rep. Patten before voicing our opinion in
Rep. Patten, you have it backwards! You submitted HB0072 in June 2008 you waited until 1-8-2009, at the legislative update portion of the selectmen meeting, to let Moultonborough know you had submitted that bill. In true transparency you should have notified local voters you intended to submit a bill on this subject and ask for public input. Or at least notify your constituents after you submitted HB72 in June 2008. Instead you waited less than one week before the hearing in
Rep. Patten, why should we contact you when you are not fulfilling your responsibility to inform and represent those that have put their trust in you?
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: January 24, 2009
The arrogance of some members of the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen never ceases to amaze me. I often feel guilty not having to pay for such incredible entertainment.
On Wednesday January 14th there were hearings in Concord regarding the very bad legislation that Rep. Betsey Patten put forth months ago but was not brought to light until a very few days before the hearings. I have written about that legislation in previous missives so I won't bore you here with redundancy… just understand that these bills were poorly thought out, poorly written and vengeful in the motivation behind them. Little or no thought was given to what anyone in the "law making business" ought to know; research and re-research before putting forth a bill… consider "unintended consequences". Rep. Patten was only thinking about the town in which she sits on the Select board.
But beyond that (and this is where it gets entertaining) Thursday January 15th (the very next day) was the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen's meeting. As there were folks there that had testified at the above mentioned hearings against the legislation, as well as Representative Patten, "Selectman" Patten decided it was a good time to call out and lecture those citizens that had exercised their right to be heard at the Concord hearings.
Wait a minute … let's see … she wrote these bills in June; she waited until less than a week from the hearings before she revealed any information about one of the bills, and forgot to mention anything about the other two. And she expects the citizenry that has a problem with this, speak to her in private, as a courtesy, rather than at a public hearing as is their right. I am sorry.
I have voted for Ms. Patten from the get go and, in the past found her tolerable and sufficient in
Last March 56% and 58% respectively voted for SB2 for the town and the school district in Moultonborough. While SB2 needs 60% to pass, it was enough to threaten the comfort zone of those in opposition of SB2. If over half of the voters want an issue to pass, wouldn't you think their Representative would find better ways to spend her time than trying her level best to derail it? This is not open and transparent government. Watching these shenanigans is entertaining, yes but not at the voters and taxpayers' expense.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
The MCA was there....
A hearing was held today @ 11:30am in
You will recall that HB0072 would increase by ten fold to 50 the amount of people required to sign a petition and also be present at Town Meeting to request a secret ballot. The rule that requires the current five persons necessary to request a secret ballot was put in place way back in 1971 and amended in 2006 to requiring them to be present.
Since this would effect Town Meetings throughout NH including SB2 Towns, the public including the MCA showed up to voice opposition.
There were so many speakers in opposition, the hearing ran longer than scheduled.
ALL SPEAKERS WERE OPPOSED. NOT A SINGLE SPEAKER SPOKE IN FAVOR OF HB0072!
Who spoke? Well, two citizens from Moultonboro, but many more from around the state who are adamantly opposed to this bill including:....
Editor, The Citizen January 6th, 2009
As a proponent for SB2, last year I wrote a missive comparing maple syrup production with town governance. At the risk of boring those folks that took time to read that effort, I will refer to it again to show that change, from time to time, is needed.
Town Meetings have had the same format in NH for more than 250 years. The second Tuesday in March, folks left their farms and shops and gathered around the center of town to hear their brethren discuss the needs and issues of the town, and years later the schools; all the while a vote was taken here and there, after much discussion. They made a day of it; bringing forth food for the mid-day and evening meals and sewing to keep the women busy (after all, back then the women did not have a say in the political events). It was as much a social event as anything. But serious work was done, nonetheless. Not much else happened in town on "Town Meeting Day" except the annual discussions, decisions and politicking of the town.
The day after Town Meeting was usually relegated to tapping the sugar maples for the other age old spring tradition: Sappin' Season. Over decades, the technology of wooden spigots and buckets gave way to metal spigots and buckets, and a tin lid to keep out the snow. In more recent years sap is collected with plastic tubing and boiling is done by gas or oil, not wood fired evaporators. Even the dates of the season have been adjusted for climate change. Has the sweet flavor of grade A light amber (or my personal "fav" grade A dark amber) changed? No. The methodology has changed. The timing has changed. Even the grading has been altered … but the result is the same wonderful product.
Town Meeting has not changed much. It takes a full day of being away from home, employment, or avocation in order to vote. The food brought forth is that of a food sale, and a few ladies still bring sewing as a pastime. But the result is not the same. Not everyone in the town is allowed to vote. We have, over the years, recognized that women and those young adults over 18 should share in the voting at the ballot. Ah, but town meeting has a different guideline in allowing or disallowing a person to exercise their right to vote. No matter what is going on in your life, you have to take the day and devote it to Town Meeting. Are you working, sick, out of town, at school or in the military? Well then, they don't want your vote. At least it would seem that way. The result is that the opinions discussed and voted on at Town Meeting represent only a small minority who are afforded the right to vote 'cause they are there. Clearly they do not represent the opinion of the entire town.
Two ancient
SB-2 will be on the ballot again this March in Moultonborough and Meredith. In both towns, last year SB-2 received well over a majority of votes in favor of it, but missed passage by a handful of votes because SB-2 needs 60% (a super majority). We need your vote to bring these two towns up to date with more than half of the population in NH that has already opted for SB-2 as their form of voting.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
The Citizen, Letter to the Editor January 14, 2009
This is an open letter to Rep. Betsey Patten.
I have just learned of a bill (HB-0072) that you authored requiring an increase by 1000% the number of voters at a town meeting needed to request a private vote on any particular article, making it virtually impossible for a secret ballot/private vote. How duplicitous of you to make this covert attempt to essentially steal the rights of town meeting attendees across NH to petition for a private vote. As a representative of Moultonborough both as selectman and as a member of the NH General Court you have betrayed those who have supported you to date. If ever there was a need to have the voting initiative SB2, it is now. You have made clear the reason why
At last town meeting (March '08) a group of voters legally and reasonably petitioned to have each spending article over $100,000 voted on by secret ballot. The issues at that town meeting were huge and the consequences potentially disastrous, considering the present economic trends. The Moderator and those of you on the dais were obviously very troubled, even offended, as it posed a delay in your schedule. Is democracy, under your rules, to be set aside for a more expedient method of having your way with the taxpayer? No, Representative Patten, it is not. This is bad legislation and I hope that your constituents in Moultonborough, Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro are made aware of the actions you have taken against their voting rights. Further, as a consequence of this one incident at Moultonborough town meeting, you are attempting to push through legislation that would affect voters all across the State of
The good folks of the State of
To the voters and taxpayers of Moultonborough, Why is it that voting in a booth throughout the day or by absentee ballot is OK for election of town and state officials and state mandated articles of the warrant, but not for spending issues?
We all know the truth is that town meetings are stacked with those most affected by spending articles. Anyone that wants to raise their hand against a particular article benefiting those affected sets themselves up for intimidation by their neighbors, customers, friends and, yes, even teachers of their kids. Intimidation is the name of the game. They speak so emotionally against SB2 because they fear the power of the secret ballot. They fear SB2 so much they attempted to change the entire governance of Moultonborough by suggesting a "
Taxpayers and voters alike contact your state representative (even if it is Ms. Patten) and tell them this is bad legislation. You can find these folks and how to contact them on the web at www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house. This bad legislation may be coming to a town near you.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
