Town Meeting: May 2008 Archives
The Citizen May 20th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: The selectmen just don't get it. At the May 15th selectmen's meeting they refused to read into the minutes a letter to them that was asked to be "read not summarized" in their usual manner. It was then barely summarized, after some rather condescending comments by the chair. It is a sad note when a taxpayer cannot have a note read into the minutes of a selectmen's meeting because it is in disagreement with them.
The letter that caused her disdain was one that challenged the issue of closing all town facilities for Town Meeting Day. On the surface, closing these facilities to allow all town employees to go to Town Meeting would seem a noble effort, at the very least. However, let's take a deeper look at this inane endeavor. If the town proceeds with this false nobility, as they have firmly stated, they will close all facilities "except emergency services". Well where does that leave those that would use the waste management facility? "Go another day" was their firm take. What if the working stiff only has that one day to go? Those non-citizen taxpayers that are forking over the lion's share of our taxes may have something to say when they are refused access to that facility before they want to return to their residences south of here.
How will they manage the "fairness to all employees" issues? Those that will be working are being paid… are those that are taking the forced day off being paid? If not is this to replace their regular day off; or do they just lose that day's pay? If they are getting the day off to go to Town Meeting, will there be a roll call of those employees to assure that this farce is successful? If they are getting paid and they are expected to go to the meeting could this be perceived as collusion for a supportive vote?
Let's jump to the private sector. How do we handle those would-be voters that work on Saturdays for businesses in the area? In this Orwellian World would we expect to see those employees get that day off by edict of the Moultonborough Fiefdom town fathers? Or should all businesses in town be ordered closed for that day? Rather strong you may say. Well the comment was made, seconded and reaffirmed (in a letter answering the protesting citizen) that "town meeting is a part of this town and everyone should be in attendance". We know what they think of those retirees that are enjoying the warmer climes in the south when Town Meeting is being called to order. "Those people that spend months away in the winter don't care what happens in Moultonborough". (Note to Moultonborough retirees: be sure to get your "permission slip" from the selectmen before you head south)
This is not about the good town employees who I think should be able to vote on all town issues. No, this is about all registered voters that should be allowed the same right. The selectmen can't have it both ways. Maintaining the "functionally obsolete" town meeting form of voting but disenfranchising all except town employees (and not all of them… remember "emergency services") is duplicitous, disingenuous and discriminatory. This "noble" effort is no more than a ploy to sidestep the real issue. SB2 is the only fair way to serve all voters and be nonprejudiced to those that are otherwise unable to comply with the demand of the selectmen that we "be in attendance".
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
The Laconia Daily Sun May 20th, 2008
Letter to the Editor
Many of us in Moultonborough are aware that the “minutes” posted by the Selectmen are not always an accurate reflection of what actually occurred at the meeting. When I read the “draft” minutes of the May 1st meeting there was no explanation of the reason for closing the town non-essential services on Town Meeting day other than “to allow everyone to participate”. As I stated in my letter, town employees are hardly "everyone", just a very small minority of the voters. I will say that I have no issue with any town employee, only compliments for the fine work they do. I merely disgree with the Selectmen's decision. As such, I wrote a letter for inclusion at the May 15th meeting and requested to have it read into the record. It was not. It was instead dismissed with the comment from Chair Karel Crawford that” I’m not going to take the time to read this”.
Knowing how past “summaries” have been mangled and skewed by Ms. Crawford ( the meetings after all are being taped by a citizen) the public at the very least has a right to hear letters in their entirety and the letter posted with the minutes on the town web site. This is 2008 with most everyone having internet access. The excuse that the information is available at the Town Offices is (to use a very old cliché), a cop out. A 10 year old could scan the correspondence and post it so everyone can read it. That would be real transparency.
Our Moultonborough Selectmen have proven that they don’t represent all the citizens of Moultonborough equally, only those that agree with them. Actions speak louder than words.
For the record my letter to the selectmen (all 130 words) follows:
This is a brief letter and I would ask that it be read not summarized.
As I read the meeting minutes from May 1st it seems the Selectmen voted to approve the following:
"it is recommended that all Town services, except for public safety, be closed for the day (Town Meeting) to allow everyone to participate".
I am not in favor of this. Many people only have Saturday to go to the recycling center or library. It hardly allows everyone to participate as you claim. The vast majority of voters are not municipal employees and many including myself, have to take a personal day off from work to attend. Many cannot. Can the board explain the rationale behind this decision? I would like a written response please.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
6 HOLLAND STREET
PO BOX 139
MOULTONBOROUGH, NH 03254
Selectmen’s Meeting May 15, 2008
DRAFT
MINUTES
Present: Selectmen: Karel A. Crawford, Edward J. Charest, James F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett, Betsey L. Patten; Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator; Hope K. Kokas, Office Secretary.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Karel called the meeting to Order at 6:30 P.M.
6:30 Non-Public, Personnel Matter: Joel Made the Motion for the Selectmen to go into Non-Public Session per RSA 91-A:3 (a). Jim Seconded the Motion. Karel called for a roll call: Jim – Aye; Betsey – Aye; Ed – Aye; Joel – Aye; Karel – Aye. The Selectmen went into Non-Public Session at 6:35 p.m.
Joel Made the Motion for the Selectmen to come out of Non-Public Session. Jim Seconded the Motion. Karel called for a roll call: Jim – Aye; Betsey – Aye; Ed – Aye; Joel – Aye; Karel – Aye. The Selectmen came out of Non-Public Session at 6:55.
Joel Made the Motion to Seal the Minutes....
