Recently in Town Administrator Category
Karel was asked to explain about the fields for
in athletics. Donna Kuethe stated that more than just children are using the fields and the demand is increasing. The Selectmen were asked and Karel responded that there has been a review of the placement of playing fields and a future building at the Lions Club Property. Carter presented the plat, explaining that the design allows for the work to be done in phases and one is not contingent upon the other. He added that the design has 6 to 7 phases with a 10 to 15 year build-out plan. Initially, drainage will be installed for the whole property. Ed stated that he wished the plan had been presented earlier and his concern about going forth with this project. He also stated his dismay that the 2008 amount budgeted was in excess of what was actually spent. Carter explained that the discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears and was due to many factors. He added that a large percent will be used towards the tax rate in an effort to keep it low. ABC Chair, Jean Beadle stated that they have recommended completing a quarterly budget review in order identify if department’s are within their budgeted amount.
The above is from the 2/9/09 Board of Selectmen’s meeting minutes. Funny how things have changed a bit since then. What statistics are there to back up the statement made by former School Board Member/Chair, Laurie Whitley, that the ‘fields at the at the Academy and Central School are over utilized’? How is it possible to over ‘utilize’ a field? What does that mean? Too many people on the field at the same time? People lining up to use the fields? Over scheduling or conflicting schedules? How do any of the above warrant building another field?
I wonder if the statement that 67% of all students are involved in athletics’ is still true. Show me the numbers. No one has ever come forth with the numbers. It’s always statements such as ‘more than just the children are using the fields and the demand is increasing’, according to Recreation Director Donna Kuethe. What does that mean? How many? When? How often? What were they doing? What time of year?
Let’s look further into these minutes. Carter explained the design for the Lion’s Club property is‘to be done in phases and one is not contingent upon the other’. Really? ‘The design has 6 to 7 phases with a 10 to 15 year build out plan’. I wonder how that changed to a 3 phase plan to start by 4/1/10, with the drainage and clearing of trees for all 3 phases to begin immediately. Where was I when this was announced?
How many times has the Town Administrator been asked about ‘staff meetings’ and where the minutes were for those meetings this last year? The citizens of Moultonboro are not dumb. While many people don’t care or pay attention to the activities of the government of our town, which is typical across the country, many do. Many pay attention to and follow what goes on at all the board and committee meetings. So do I. But it is apparent that our Town Administrator has little regard for the ‘frequent flyers’ as he condescendingly refers to the folks that regularly attend BoS meetings.
I am appalled at the activities of our Town Administrator and the actions that he has taken in so many meetings held under the guise of staff meetings.
According to the minutes of 2/09/09, there were many concerns about proceeding ahead with the Lion’s Club project.
Ed stated that he wished the plan had been presented earlier and his
concern about going forth with this project. He also stated his dismay that the 2008 amount budgeted was in excess of what was actually spent. Carter explained that the discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears and was due to many factors. He added that a large percent will be used towards the tax rate in an effort to keep it low.
Where did Carter learn mathmatics. ‘The discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears’. I don’t get it. Numbers are what numbers are. We are talking dollars here, not some twisted statistics to prove something one way or the other. Or are we?
A few notes from 1/108 BoS meeting discussing the RSPC proposal for a community center:
He [Joel] feels that the project should be put off for a few years until the
state educational funding question is resolved. Joel suggested putting money in the
Gee, do you think? Why then are we less than a year later, proposing the same thing, only in a bigger hurry? What is going on here folks? Someone, somewhere is pushing harder and harder to get something going on the Lion’s Club property. But, why? Well, here’s a thought: once we get a ‘soccer field’ built, why not build something else? Like a Community Center? After all, there’s so much space there, right? How ‘bout 237 parking spaces for all the programs that will be conducted in that building? Human Services will be in there, too. Oh really? Since when? Who decided that and when? Was that in another staff meeting of which there are no minutes?
Goodness, folks, this is a bit too much for me to digest all at once. I’m overwhelmed by the magnitude of the arrogance that I am too ignorant to care as an ordinary citizen or an abutter to the Lion’s Club property to see that there are those with an agenda pushing forth to build something, anything on that land and as fast as possible.
I have personal reasons for not wanting anything built there, as an abutter, but the more that we see in writing and in conceptual ideas, and the more we hear of the history, the wetlands, wildlife, environmental concerns, the angrier I get.
I have nothing against a soccer field, but I believe it should be built in 1) a central location, which the Lion’s Club is not, 2) where the kids are, which the Lion’s Club is not, 3) not on a wetland, which the Lion’s Club is!! Has anyone consulted with the Town Planner on this project? Anyone at all?
Let’s take a closer look at the entire ‘concept’ here. Let’s suppose it was determined that there is a real need for an additional all purpose ball field. What would the criteria be for choosing a location? Here’s a few that come to my mind, and I will admit that I have no training in town planning or civil engineering:1)High, dry land; 2) Central location and close to existing parking; 3) the least expensive land in clearing or developing a field. So, do any of those fit the Lion’s Club property? Uh, no.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, kids used to walk, bike and run all over the place. In this day and age, they don’t. They are driven or bussed to and from school, activities, etc. The proposed ‘safe routes to school’ doesn’t work for me either. This is a plan that was developed as a way to convince people that the Lion’s Club property is the perfect place for a ball field. I can tell you from my own observations driving passed the school, the high volume of personal vehicles driven by parents to bring their kids to school. No one walks to school. My neighbors drive their kids, and they live less than a mile away.
In my opinion, there are so many fingers in the pie. It’s hard to find out how this entire ‘conceptual plan’ came into existence. Nowhere can I find meeting minutes that have discussed these plans before the public. From the 9/17/09 BoS meeting, Karel summarized the costs for the Town engineers design for the ‘Recreational fields at the Lion’s Club property’ at $54,740. Gee, nothing like spending a good portion of the $300,000 approved for the construction of a new field and the repair of Playground Drive field, to come up with plans that the Planning Board have found unacceptable and of poor quality, looking as if they were thrown together at the last minute.
Here we are at the end of March 2010, and plans were discussed since Sept 09, and poor quality plans referred to as ‘conceptual plans’ are the best the Town Administrator and Town engineer have come up with? Gee, folks. This only cost us $54k! Let’s send them back to the coloring books for another $1500!!
Where does this madness stop?
I would, however, like to give kudos the the Board of Selectmen and the new Chair for questioning these 'conceptual plans' and sending them back to come up with plans that: 1) make sense; (I don't care how many times!) 2) that will be put forth in a public hearing! Finally!! Someone might actually be listening to the town's people and especially the abutters!
Maybe there is hope after all!
Linda N. Punturieri
Abutter
"As you may know a proposal had been made to possibly use the landfill cap for a practice field to backup other facilities. This proposal would only have been viable for times the facility was not open to the general public and would have required extensive supervision to ensure none of the users ventured off the playing field area into the materials area(s). After a review of the matter with the SAU Athletic Director, he advised me that the site does not meet his needs and he cannot endorse it. Given its limited usefulness, under even the best of circumstances, the staff cannot recommend any further exploration of this and will continue to concentrate on the current proposals."
Town Administrator weekly report dated 11/23/2009
Funny how Carter added this to his weekly report two weeks after it was created. It was a member of the MCA that brought this question to the BoS on December 3rd 2009. it was not on the agenda. Can you explain Carter how you managed to anwser this question two weeks before it was asked?
Clairvoyance perhaps or just plain deviousness?
The MCA is pleased to publish this article, not to bemoan our selectmen, but rather to point out serious violations involving the Right to Know Law. This is an oft misunderstood and easily ignored law. However, when repeated articles are posted on our and other websites regarding the selectmen’s history of conducting business outside of the public’s presence, it is hard to tolerate continued defiance of the public’s right to know. We hate to see things go so far as a lawsuit, but unfortunately, change comes about when and only someone is willing to file such a suit.
It is our sincere hope that the selectmen will understand the error of their ways, and frankly those of our town manager, and conduct their business in public sessions. According to RSA 91, non public sessions are very specific about what can and cannot be discussed. We also suggest that our town officials learn and truly understand this law thoroughly. It is complex, but worth knowing.
www.citizen.com September 14, 2009
A Moultonborough resident's right-to-know lawsuit against the town, claiming selectmen met illegally in a nonpublic session on an unannounced date to discuss, plan and coordinate the process it would use to hire a new police chief, may have been stalled because of a failure to deliver copies of the legal documents to town officials.
Petitioner Paul Punterieri of 22 Nelson Road said last Wednesday that he called the Carroll County Sheriff's Office and discovered that the petition had never been delivered — or served — on the town. He was told the paperwork would be served in the next several days, most likely resulting in a new date for the hearing being set.
A scheduling notice in the court file notes that Punterieri "shall serve the petition upon the town" and that failure to do so may result in the action being discontinued without further notice.
Punterieri filed his petition in Carroll County Superior Court in Ossipee on Aug. 27 and a court hearing was scheduled for this Tuesday.
The suit names Selectmen Karel Crawford, chair, Ed Charest, Jim Gray, Joel Mudgett and Betsey Patten as respondents. It also names Town Administrator Carter Terenzini.
Terenzini said last Wednesday he has not been served with the suit and could not comment on anything regarding pending litigation.
Terenzini also declined to comment on whether the suit has stalled efforts to hire a new chief or the status of the search process.
Punterieri argues that any and all discussion of how Police Chief Scott Kinmond's successor would be named, if and how a search/screening committee would be formed, and who would be appointed should have occurred in public session.
Kinmond, the town's current chief who has served for 24 years, is retiring from that post and will become the town's road agent.
"The plaintiff is contesting that the decision to appoint a committee (or accept volunteers), the membership of that committee and the process leading up to the interviews violates RSA 91-A as they were never held in public session," the suit states.
In the suit, Punterieri argues that the town set precedent when it filled two key positions — the first-ever town planner and a town engineer — by hiring them in full public session. He maintains that a similar process should have been following for naming a new police chief.
Volunteers who have agreed to serve on a committee looking for a new chief, according to minutes of the committee's work, are Belknap County High Sheriff Craig Wiggin, Merrimack County High Sheriff Scott Hilliard, Auburn Chief of Police Ed Picard, Moultonborough citizen Peter Whelley, and Peterborough Town Administrator Pam Brenner.
We originally published the following article in January 2009 that discussed the differences between a Town Manager and a Town Administrator. We bring it up again as there are times when we wonder: do we have a Town Administrator that functions as a Town Manager?
It seems that as weeks go by the BoS rely more and more on the ‘Town Administrator’ to provide them with direction and even policy. He serves at the pleasure and direction of the BoS, but if the role is evolving to a Town Manager the law requires that the legislative body (you and I) approve that at town meeting. A “defacto” Town Manager avoids that requirement and that is just not right.
Just last week at the Board of Selectmen meeting, Betsey Patten offered her concern that the Master Plan Implementation Committee should be under the Land Use Office and not the Board of Selectmen. During a healthy discussion (for once!) amongst the selectmen, with some actual disagreement, our Town Administrator interrupted with a ‘If I may” and proceeded with a diatribe that misconstrued the facts. This clearly swayed some members of the select board to go forward with a vote, rather than to table it and seek further meetings with the Planning Board in order to make a much better and informed decision.
Think about this for a moment: the Master Plan was developed over many months with many volunteers and is a 10 year dynamic document. The Board of Selectmen (three of them anyway) took the Town Administrator’s comments at face value and rushed this decision through.
We see nothing wrong and everything right with the Board asking for more information, especially when it comes to the Master Plan.
Who’s running this town anyway?
Is Moultonboro moving toward a Town Manager?
In order to have a town manager, the voters must adopt the provisions of RSA Chapter 37 at an annual meeting. The question must be included on the warrant.
In the following minutes from the Selectmen budget workshop of 1/9/2009, it is being suggested that the “Town Administrator being delegated day to day line authority over the CEO (Code Enforcement Officer) and Director.” Carter Terenzini proposed in the 12/10/2008 workshop to create an Office of Development & Inspectional Services (ODIS). At that meeting the CEO expressed his strong feelings that the CEO be independent and report only to the Selectmen. We would agree. The Selectmen are after all elected officials and ultimately should have authority directly over this important function. A Town Administrator serves at the whim of the Selectmen and unlike a Town Manager has no statutory authority (RSA Chapter 37). Most importantly the voters of Moultonboro have not been heard.
We anticipate that the first official airing of the Moultonboro Board of Selectmen's meetings will be on Tuesday August 11, 2009 on Time Warner on the PEG channel at 7pm. The paperwork has been filled out. All the tee's have been crossed and the i's dotted. We believe we have all the ducks in a row and all the glitches worked out. We should be all set to go!! We are very excited and want everyone to pass the word around! Tune in and watch!!
We would like to extend a big thank you to our Town Administrator and Time Warner Cable for helping to put this together!
Now, we are not out to point fingers here, but only to highlight that there is a general lack of understanding of New Hampshire statutes. The recent “issues” with the formation of the Heritage Commission and the Capital Improvement Program Committee are two examples. The exclusion of the school district from the proposed “ordinance” for the CIPC is another.
The right to know laws are another area where we believe more education is essential. That is why the MCA hosting a Right to Know Seminar as a useful and helpful event for all citizens, whether in the private sector or in public office.
‘I urge every citizen, every school child, and every student of government to study the Right to Know Law’ Kelly Ayotte NH Attorney General.
Please come and find out for yourself! Mark your calendars: Monday August 10, 2009 at 7pm at the Moultonboro Library. There will be guest speakers: Ed Naile, from the Coalition of NH Taxpayers; Doug Lambert of Gilfordgrok; and Tom Tardif, former Mayor of Laconia.
This is not a political event, nor is it a partisan event. This is an educational opportunity open to everyone.
All are welcome!
Here’s something to question. At the July 2nd Board of Selectmen meeting, the board decided to agree with a member of the audience, and the new Heritage Commission, to not proceed with writing an ordinance, that once written, would be a legally binding document. They decided to table the issue. However, when the discussion turned to the Capital Improvement Program Committee, #7 on the agenda, the decision was made to discuss both the Heritage Commission and CIPC ordinances at a public hearing on July 30th. Which is it?
And why does our Town Administrator insist on bringing this issue back to the table to discuss? The Board already voted and made a decision. For once, we agree with their decision and feel that these committees need to go forth and prosper without interference! Let’s let them meet, unite and begin their journey as a committee.
