Monday, October 15, 2012

Tensions in Winchester


Tensions in Winchester


Regarding Larry Hill’s letter (Sentinel, Oct. 7):

Ever notice how people accuse others of what they themselves are doing? A smart person told me it’s a tool used to control what people believe and it’s called “projection.”


With his nasty attacks on others in Winchester, Larry Hill is projecting.

Just who is disrupting the work of the planning board and demanding that people resign? Who is hurting the reputation of Winchester? Who has the agenda? Who is doing the slandering? Who wants to change the rules so he can have his own way? Who is encouraging another law suit? Who is attacking just two of the four people who voted in a way he didn’t like?

What’s really, really funny about his tirades is that he abstained from voting.

Why did he abstain? Does that serve his “oath,” the board or the town? Was he trying to serve two masters and escape accountability? Can he claim the moral high ground in objecting to anyone’s vote when he didn’t vote at all?

His vote could have wiped out the one he calls biased. If he’s afraid to vote, or playing sneaky games, he should resign.

Hill screams bias (fueling a court challenge) because one member has a friend whose husband is an interested party. Friendships aren’t bias or conflict of interest. If they were, no one could ever vote in a board in a small town where everybody knows everybody.

If he really opposes conflicts of interest maybe he should support a conflict of interest ordinance.

Year after year voters put in a petitioned article to define conflicts of interest, but the good ol’ boys network makes sure it’s wiped out at deliberative sessions. They don’t even suggest changes. They just torpedo the whole thing.

Hill lied about the budget committee losing in court, too.

The selectmen’s attorney picked the budget committee’s attorney. He went along with the new committee and caved in to the selectmen.
The original budget committee, me included, never had a chance to defend itself.

The selectmen didn’t win a legal case. They acted like dictators to rig a deal outside of court, without any testimony or defense.

BOB DAVIS
893 Old Westport Road
Winchester

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Public Hearing Ocotber 24th, 2012

Town of Winchester
Board of Selectmen
Notice of Public Hearing

For those of you who don't subscribe to the Sentinel or get down to the Town hall regularly:

Notice is hereby given the the Town of Winchester Board of Selectmen will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 24th, 2012 at 7:00PM in the Winchester Town hall for the ongoing Town of Winchester Sidewalk project in the NHDOT Transportation Enhancement Program. A representative from the engineering firm Hoyle, Tanner & Associates will be in attendance to present the project and answer questions. 
All interested parties are encouraged to attend and participate.
 
Questions may be addressed to the Winchester Town hall, Office of the Selectmen, 1 Richmond Road, Winchester, NH ( 03470)  (603)239-4951

This is Margaret Sharra's expensive brainstorm to add more costs to our already overburdening tax bills.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Don’t use religion in politics

Don’t use religion in politics
At our last board meeting, Larry Hill gave me a friendly greeting of “hello” and then, an hour later, read a malicious letter requesting that I resign from the planning board. You stated that you had been reading from the Book of James and felt compelled to write to the board. My immediate thought was, perhaps you should read Matthew 5:39 — as I have for the past four years.
Wielding religion in a local government meeting shows a lack of understanding of our secular laws.
The current and past chairmen have ruled our board like dictators and you jumped right on board with this barbaric behavior. I am constantly amazed at how you and other board members are convinced that if you think it, it must be a fact.
All board members were elected because of their different professional backgrounds and experiences. We are not cookie cutter replicas of the individuals you seem to hold in the highest esteem (those who don’t believe in transparency, honesty or integrity).
My college professor has a clever saying that applies to the use of religion as a weapon, “You don’t win any points in heaven.”
KIM GORDON
P.O. Box 25
Ashuelot

Motion was loud, clear, but silence was deafening

Motion was loud, clear, but silence was deafening
What does an oath mean?
When I was elected to the Winchester Planning Board, I took an oath to serve the residents to the best of my ability. As did all others who serve on respective board. I’m finding it very difficult to work with a group who are of the same mind.
During the Winchester Planning Board meeting of Sept. 17, I asked two board members and one alternate to voluntarily resign due to their conduct such as concealing their involvement with parties who may have an interest in a matter before the board, unwarranted attacks on board members and a town employee assigned to the board, slanderous remarks and innuendos meant to belittle other board members, absolute slander and lies to discredit members who refuse to involve themselves in their agenda to control the town.
I am told by credible sources that their conduct on other boards and committees is consistent with their conduct on the planning board. The conduct of one member, who is on the budget committee, resulted in a suit by the town against the committee to approve funding for operating capital, the town won and the budget committee lost.
The real losers were the residents of Winchester who will find the cost of both attorneys ($10,000) added to their tax bills.
This type of bullying for personal gain or agenda must stop. What industrial or commercial developer would want to consider Winchester when the town turmoil is revealed? How much more would Winchester have benefited had these energies been devoted to striving together for the goal of growing Winchester in a productive and tax reducing manner? How much damage has been done? Who knows how many tax yielding projects have we lost due to our conduct?
When I asked for the voluntary resignations of Jennifer Bellan, Kim Gordon and Brian Moser, I posed the request as a motion if another member wished to register a second. The silence was deafening. What does an oath mean?
LARRY HILL
107 South Parrish Road
Winchester

Court battles take toll

Legal costs add up against town budgets

 By Garrett Brnger Sentinel Staff
 
WINCHESTER — Small-town politics can come with a big price tag.
The town of Winchester has spent a considerable amount of time and money in recent years dealing with legal cases — 2.1 percent of last year’s operating expenses. While one nearby town has spent more and another much less on legal expenses, Winchester is unique due to the variety of its cases.


Winchester spent $63,038 in fiscal 2012 on legal expenses — the majority of it on court battles. Between fiscal 2009 and 2011, it spent $50,190, $39,436 and $34,866, respectively.

Town Administrator Joan C. Morel estimates only about $8,000 of the 2012 sum was spent on costs unrelated to court cases, such as appraisals or legal advice.

This year looks to be no different. The town’s legal expenses are up to $12,419 since its fiscal year began in July. The budgeted amount approved by voters is $25,000 for the entire year.

In the 2011 calendar year, Swanzey spent $15,390 in legal expenses. The town has almost 2,900 more residents than Winchester and its budget this year of $7.2 million is almost twice that of Winchester’s. Since January, Swanzey has spent $9,723 on legal costs.
However, Swanzey Town Administrator Shane O’Keefe said the expenses are “entirely unpredictable” and occur incidentally.

Richmond is an example of that. In 2006, Winchester’s neighbor to the east spent $7,565 on legal expenses out of a a budgeted $4,900. Five years later in 2011, the town spent $70,398 — more than nine times that amount. In 2010, it spent $50,761.

A handful of cases each year cause the majority of the expenses, said Richmond Town Administrator Roberta A. Fraser, who is also chairwoman of the Winchester Selectmen.

Though Fraser did not have a bottom-line number for Richmond’s court battles from 2007 to 2011 with the St. Benedict’s Center, she said it’s “safe to say the number is in the tens of thousands.”

A reassessment fight with Public Service Co. of New Hampshire in 2011 and ’12 cost the town $45,740, not including the $11,781 settlement. It also contributed to both the preceding year’s sum and the $24,044 Richmond has spent on legal costs since January.

The difference between Richmond and Winchester is the number of cases, Fraser said. While Fraser estimates Richmond has about a half-dozen cases a year, Winchester, which has a population about four times as large, has 17 cases on its 2012 legal calendar.

Winchester does have a strong record in court. Neither Morel nor the town’s attorney, Bart L. Mayer, could remember a case in which the town did not prevail. But Morel says they all cost money.
“We do ask for legal fees; we haven’t been granted any,” Morel said.
Some cases in Winchester are filed by the town to enforce zoning codes and ordinances such as trash-filled yards, but this year the town is the defendant in a majority of cases.

Defendant or plaintiff, the cases in Winchester and Richmond often have some common features, Fraser said.

Winchester resident Terrance P. Qualters has been involved in nine cases against the town since 1981, said a clerk at the Cheshire County Superior Court.
The town has taken several properties from Qualters due to back taxes, and has taken him to court to remove him from the properties. However, Qualters has fought the town on each step because he believes the town government is corrupt.
“I don’t like this town (government) of Winchester one single bit,” Qualters said.

The town is such a popular adversary, it has even faced itself. This year the town almost had $419,000 in spending disallowed because selectmen filed suit against the budget committee.

Although the case was settled through a consent decree, it still required the town to pay for two lawyers.
In some cases, the town gets blamed no matter what happens. For example, both the applicant and opponents of a proposed Dunkin’ Donuts in Winchester have brought the town to court over the same project.

When the Winchester Zoning Board granted S.S. Baker Realty a zoning variance in 2008 for a proposed combination convenience store, gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts, local grocery store Kulick’s Inc. appealed the decision. The case reached the N.H. Supreme Court, which upheld the board’s decision in September 2010.

The town is back in court over the same project now, but against S.S. Baker, which is appealing the Winchester Planning Board’s rejection of the project.

Kulick’s owner, Stanley S. Plifka Jr. is not surprised by the volume of legal action the town sees.
Winchester is filled with cliques and personalities who clash, Plifka said, and “with the decisions the town makes, they’re lucky they don’t get sued more than that.”

That extends to officials in town government. In March 2011, planning board member Kim N. Gordon filed an affidavit in a case against the town alleging then-board Chairwoman Margaret Sharra had acted inappropriately during an asphalt plant application.

As a result, selectmen considered removing Gordon from the board but ultimately did not. Gordon filed a right-to-know suit against the town afterward, alleging she should have been allowed to attend a non-public meeting in which selectmen considered a letter from its legal counsel.

Gordon was unsuccessful in both the right-to-know request and her attempt to get the town to pay her legal fees from the selectmen’s deliberations.

Sharra, who is now the town land use administrator, said the appeal process for land use cases can be frustrating but does not begrudge people who use it. She just wants them to think twice about filing suit against the town.