NH's voting machine dealer discloses (again) more fraud-by-design in its product

The good news is, we in NH don't really need to worry about this latest disclosure of the fraud-friendly designs in the Diebold voting machines counting almost 90% of NH votes. The bad news is, we don't have to worry about it because the State of NH conducts virtually no oversight on these machines so their fraud-friendly "audit" logs are not a worry to us.

SOURCE: Wired.com

Diebold Admits Systemic Audit Log Failure; State Vows Inquiry

By Kim Zetter EmailMarch 17, 2009 | 6:29:04 PM

SACRAMENTO, California — Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) admitted in a state hearing Tuesday that the audit logs produced by its tabulation software miss significant events, including the act of someone deleting votes on election day.

The company acknowledged that the problem exists with every version of its tabulation software.

The revelation confirmed that a problem uncovered by Threat Level in January, and reiterated in a report released two weeks ago by the California secretary of state's office, has widespread implications for election jurisdictions around the country that use any version of the company's Global Election Management System (GEMS) software to tabulate votes. The GEMS software is used to tabulate votes cast on every Premier/Diebold touch-screen or optical-scan machine, and is used in more than 1,400 election districts in 31 states. Maryland and Georgia use Premier/Diebold systems exclusively, therefore the GEMS software counts every vote statewide.

"Today's hearing confirmed one of my worst fears," said Kim Alexander, founder and president of the non-profit California Voter Foundation. "The audit logs have been the top selling point for vendors hawking paperless voting systems. They and the jurisdictions that have used paperless voting machines have repeatedly pointed to the audit logs as the primary security mechanism and 'fail-safe' for any glitch that might occur on machines.

"To discover that the fail-safe itself is unreliable eliminates one of the key selling points for electronic voting security," Alexander said.

Following a public records request of GEMS logs, Threat Level previously reported that the Premier/Diebold logs did not indicate when election officials in Humboldt County, California, intentionally deleted more than two dozen batches of ballots from their system during the November general election.

The finding raised questions about the integrity of elections conducted with the system, but it was unknown at the time whether the problem with the audit log existed with other versions of the GEMS software used in other counties in California and across the country. Premier/Diebold didn't respond to phone calls seeking information at the time.

The secretary of state's report (.pdf) discussed the same problem with the logs but also did not indicate whether the problem existed with every version of the GEMS software.

A Premier/Diebold representative confirmed at the hearing that none of its logs records such events.

When asked by a member of the California secretary of state's staff if the company had done anything to address the problem, Justin Bales, general service manager for Premier/Diebold's western region said, "No, not yet."

Bales went on to say that the GEMS logs have been the same since the software was first created more than a decade ago.

"We never, again, intended for any malicious intent and not to log certain activities," Bales said. "It was just not in the initial program, but now we're taking a serious look at that."

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen called the audit logs "useless" and vowed to investigate the issue further. She told Threat Level after the hearing that an examination of audit logs in other voting systems was also merited in light of these revelations. "Clearly, we're going to have to look at this," Bowen said. "That's one of the obvious next steps."

The secretary of state's office was holding a hearing to discuss a report it released two weeks ago examining what occurred on a Premier/Diebold system in Humboldt County that "lost almost 200 ballots during the November presidential election. Premier/Diebold has stated that a programming flaw in version 1.18.19 of its GEMS software caused the ballots to be deleted but has said the problem was fixed in a later version of the software.

To investigate the issue, California officials turned to the GEMS audit logs to see what occurred in the system when the votes were deleted. But they quickly discovered that the logs could provide them with no clues about what went wrong.

"In terms of being able to track down the precise mechanism by which the problem had occurred in this election, critical information was simply never recorded," said Lowell Finley, deputy secretary of state for voting systems technology and policy, who testified at the hearing.

Finley said his staff was also shocked to find that two of the logs contained a "clear" button that allowed officials to delete them. Finley said this violated federal voting system standards, which require voting systems to maintain an indestructible archival record of all system activity related to the vote tally and, in particular, any activity involving unusual intervention by an election official.

The "clear" button was removed from a later version of the GEMS software, but Finley said three counties in California still used the 1.18.19 version containing the button, as do jurisdictions in Texas and Florida.

Bales explained that the "clear" button was installed in the software to aid a few counties that used the GEMS database as a template "for creating subsequent elections." The clear button was included to allow them to erase a log after copying the template.

"With the benefit of hindsight, we saw that as definitely not the best avenue to do," he said. "It was in there with no malicious intent."

Bowen's office is evaluating whether it will de-certify GEMS version 1.18.19. Bales said Premier/Diebold fully supported de-certifying this version in California. He did not address whether his company would make the same recommendation to other states using the software.

But even if that version is de-certified, voting activists who testified at the hearing said the systematic issue with the GEMS audit logs points to a fundamental problem that won't go away.

"I believe the quality of this product has proven to be highly questionable, and the voters are sick and tired of this kind of abuse of the vote count," said Gail Work, chair of the election integrity committee for the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee.

Software for the Premier/Diebold voting machines was first written more than a decade ago by a company named I-Mark, which was bought by a company named Global Election Systems. Diebold bought Global Election Systems in 2002 to launch its election division, Diebold Election Systems. In 2007, in the wake of bad publicity, Diebold changed the name of its election division to Premier Election Solutions.

The secretary of state's office was holding a hearing to discuss a report it released two weeks ago examining what occurred on a Premier/Diebold system in Humboldt County that "lost almost 200 ballots during the November presidential election. Premier/Diebold has stated that a programming flaw in version 1.18.19 of its GEMS software caused the ballots to be deleted but has said the problem was fixed in a later version of the software.
Bowen's office is evaluating whether it will de-certify GEMS version 1.18.19. Bales said Premier/Diebold fully supported de-certifying this version in California. He did not address whether his company would make the same recommendation to other states using the software.

Quite a coincidence that nearly 200 votes from our past Town Election were blank, isn't it?

How Do We Make Winchester A Better Place To Live?

There's been much talk about changing the ways in which Winchester is perceived by other towns and other schools, about improving the quality of education of our children and the quality of life for each and every citizen living in Winchester. Our children are failing simple aptitude tests and falling behind other students from surrounding towns. Our property tax rate is the forth highest in all the state, our school budget has climbed to over $10,000,000.00, people are losing their homes, struggling to keep up and yet our town officials turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the situation and continue to add spending to our town budget year after year. Just where is the fiscal responsibility we have entrusted them with? Managing public money is a matter of public trust and a charge that should not be taken lightly and yet, during these hard economic times, when the whole country is being affected, while other towns in New Hampshire are laying off, cutting back on spending and looking at ways to save money, we have Winchester; spending our tax dollars like there is no tomorrow. There is something drastically wrong with a body of elected officials who continue to ignore the plight of it's constituents and the situations affecting us all and continue to spend like drunken sailors on a Friday night leave. There is something drastically wrong with our educators when 60% of our high school juniors fail a common assessment test and are falling behind students from surrounding towns.
This web site has attempted to bring these problems to light, to educate our fellow citizens, to get others involved and most importantly to get people to go to the polls and vote for change. If we are to succeed in turning Winchester around, we need your help. We need your ideas and suggestions and commitment to make a difference and make Winchester a town we can all be proud of again. So what say you, what can and should we do to improve our town?

Final Vote on Warrant Articles and Budget

Town Official Election Results For Selectman - Three Year Term - Vote For Two Kenneth S. Gardner ... 326 votes Sherman Tedford ... 321 votes Bob Davis ... 278 votes Brian Moser ... 230 votes Ted Whippie .. 216 votes John Pasquarelli ... 154 votes Public Library Trustee - Three Year Term - Vote For Three Marcia Racine ... 500 votes Erin Robb ... 545 votes Stephanie ( Brodie ) Tommila ... 599 votes Thayer Library Trustee - Three Year Term - Vote For One Harriet Charland ... 613 votes Karen Gandy .. 66 votes Planning Board - Three Year Term - Vote For Two Princess Blodget ... 494 votes Clifford Struthers ... 544 Kim Gordon ... 101 votes Budget Committee - Three Year Term - Vote For Three Trevor Croteau .. 518 Margaret Curtis ... 351 votes Elisha Jackson ... 473 votes Edmund "Ted" Ryll ... 481 votes Trustee Of The Trust Fund - Three Year Term - Vote For One Harvey Sieran ... 218 votes Musterfield Cemetery Committee - Three Year Term - Vote For One Henry A. L. Parkhurst ... 702 votes Winchester School Board- Two Year Term - Vote For Two Colleen Duquette ... 320 votes Jennifer ( Gomarlo ) Gile ... 483 Kristine Carle ... 148 votes Denis Murphy ... 267 votes ARTICLE 2. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of up to Three Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,400,000.00) for the purpose of preparing plans and specifications, and for the reconstruction of the Winchester Wastewater Treatment Plant, that will qualify the Town for federal and state funds, such sum to be raised by serial bonds and notes, under and in compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (NHRSA 33:1 et seq as amended) and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes, to determine the interest rate thereon, and to take such actions as may be necessary to effect the issuance, negotiation, sale and delivery of such bonds or notes as shall be in the best interest of the Town of Winchester; and further to authorize the Board of Selectmen to apply for, accept, and expend grants, donations, and gifts, and to participate in the State Revolving Fund, established pursuant to RSA 486:14. To be enacted, this article requires a 3/5 vote. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 9-2 YES 575 NO 229 ARTICLE 3. Shall the Town of Winchester raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $3,555,071.00? Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $3,564,362.00, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town of Winchester or by law or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 10-1 YES 650 NO 151 ARTICLE 4. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $40,000.00 for the Town’s share of State road grant reconstruction costs for bridges and place it in the non-lapsing Capital Reserve Fund established at the March 2006 Town Meeting under Article 19 for that purpose? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0 YES 629 NO 177 ARTICLE 5. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $28,677.00 to be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund established under Article 16 at the 2006 Town Meeting for the purpose of performing the assessing update or revaluation of the real estate in the Town of Winchester scheduled for 2009-2010? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0 YES 485 NO 334 ARTICLE 6. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate $24,800.00 as the fourth of five lease-to-purchase payments for the 2007 International dump truck, plow, and sander package? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0 YES 549 NO 248 ARTICLE 7. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Account under the provisions of RSA 35:1 III for the purpose of future upgrades and/or purchase of the town’s computers and networking system, and to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in this fund with the Board of Selectmen being the agent of said fund? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 9-1, 1 abstention YES 427 NO 371 ARTICLE 8. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $15,000.00 for promoting commercial and industrial development in the Town, and name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend said funds? This is to be a non-lapsing account up to five years after the end of the fiscal year. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0 YES 441 NO 359 ARTICLE 9. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Police Cruiser Capital Reserve Fund established in 2006 at the Town Meeting under Article 14? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 10-1 YES 385 NO 422 ARTICLE 10. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $18,340.00 to payoff frozen sick time for Town employees as previously agreed? This employment policy of the Town has since been discontinued. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 10-1 YES 448 NO 365 ARTICLE 11. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $5,000.00 to hire a professional firm to prepare an impact fee schedule, which will allow impact fees to be collected from developers? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0 YES 478 NO 321 ARTICLE 12. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $6,000.00 to support the annual Pickle Festival? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0 YES 492 NO 320 ARTICLE 13. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate an amount not to exceed $18,000.00 to be deposited in the Evergreen Expendable General Care Trust Fund established by an affirmative vote by the 1998 Town Meeting as Article 11; the source of these funds to be withdrawn from the surplus generated by the perpetual care funds already established for the care and maintenance of lots within the Evergreen cemetery, and not from taxation. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0 YES 627 NO 174 ARTICLE 14. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of $50,000.00 for the purpose of subsidizing youth recreation in the Town to be paid to the E.L.M. Memorial Community Center on a contractual basis? Inserted by petition Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 9-2 YES 528 NO 294 ARTICLE 15. Are you in favor of raising and appropriating the sum of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) for the support of The Winchester Learning Center, provided that the Winchester Learning Center raises an equal or greater amount from other sources? Inserted by petition Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3-0, 2 abstentions Recommended by the Budget Committee 6-5 YES 306 NO 443 ARTICLE 16. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate up to $10,000.00 to reimburse the Conant Public Library Investment Account at Ocean Bank for the purchase a new boiler for the Conant Public Library? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 Recommended by the Budget Committee 9-2 YES 542 NO 290 ARTICLE 17. Shall the Town vote to discontinue the Class 6 portion of Fullam Pond Road? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 YES 562 NO 249 ARTICLE 18. Shall the Town vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 36-A:4-a, I(a) to authorize the conservation commission to expend funds to purchase interests in land outside the boundaries of our municipality, subject to the approval of the local governing body? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 YES 307 NO 486 ARTICLE 19. To see if the Town will adopt the provisions of RSA 466:30-a which make it unlawful for any dog to run at large, except when accompanied by the owner or custodian, and when used for hunting, herding, supervised competition and exhibition or training for such? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 YES 633 NO 193 ARTICLE 20. To see if the Town will vote to discontinue the Reassessment Capital Reserve Fund established by Warrant Article #21 at the May 1987 Town Meeting? These funds were expended in full June 1996. This is a clean-up Warrant Article per the Department of Revenue. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0 YES 622 NO 154 ARTICLE 21. “Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 72:37b, for an optional tax credit of $0.00 on residential property for the expanded local property tax relief for all residents who have been declared to be disabled under the U.S. Federal Social Security Act?” Inserted by petition YES 365 NO 366 ARTICLE 22. Pursuant to RSA 41:8-d, “Are you in favor of decreasing the board of selectmen to 3 members?” Inserted by petition YES 345 NO 461 ARTICLE 23. To see if the Town will vote to continue to operate under an appointed road agent? Inserted by petition YES 472 NO 303 ARTICLE 24. Shall the Town, in accordance with RSA 79-A:25, deposit in the conservation fund, 75 percent of the revenues per year, collected in Land Use Change taxes, and deposit the balance of all such revenues in the general fund for the purpose of reducing taxation? Inserted by petition YES 528 NO 246 ARTICLE 25. To see if the Town of Winchester will accept the road known as Ashten Rue in the subdivision known as Woodward Heights Subdivision, as a town road. Inserted by petition YES 419 NO 368 ARTICLE 26. We the town’s people of Winchester, New Hampshire choose to commend Gene Park, animal control officer, for his many years of dedicated service. Inserted by petition YES 581 NO 204 ARTICLE 27. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #1 as proposed by the Planning Board? To amend Article III, Q to read: Uncommon multiple uses of a property will require a special exception. YES 451 NO 291 ARTICLE 28. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #2 as proposed by the Planning Board? To amend Article III, T: Replace paragraph on signage with a new sign ordinance. YES 386 NO 327 ARTICLE 29. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #3 as proposed by the Planning Board? To amend Article III, J: Duplexes and multifamily housing, decrease minimum lot size requirements and density would be calculated by number of bedrooms and not units. YES 325 NO 414 ARTICLE 30. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #4 as proposed by the Planning Board? To amend Article III, K: Delete conversion and accessory apartments terms and consolidate the minimum housing requirements. (Homes are either single family, duplex or multifamily). YES 437 NO 285 ARTICLE 31. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #5 as proposed by the Planning Board? To amend Article XXII(Table of usage): Updates to A4, A5a, A5b, H1 & F5. YES 312 NO 324 ARTICLE 32. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #6 as proposed by the Planning Board? To amend Article XXI (Definitions): Delete A, accessory apartments & H, Conversion. YES 311 NO 328 ARTICLE 33. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #7 as proposed by the Planning Board? Adopt the Small Wind Energy Ordinance. YES 520 NO 210 ARTICLE 34. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #8 as proposed by the Planning Board? To amend Article III, U: Delete existing paragraph and replace with a new Steep Slopes Ordinance? YES 344 NO 336 ARTICLE 35. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #9 as submitted by the Board of Selectmen. To amend Article XXII,(Table of Usage) J3: Change J3 and add J4 & J5; To allow composting facilities by special exception in the agricultural & commercial districts, subject to multiple conditions and still prohibit facilities designed to incinerate or dispose of solid waste, unless owned by the town and continue to allow storage of waste generated on site pending removal, recycling or collected by volunteers. Recommended by the Planning Board YES 300 NO 524 ARTICLE 36. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #10 as submitted by petition? To amend by removing all the Planned Residential Development Ordinances? Not recommended by the Planning Board YES 131 NO 604 ARTICLE 37. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #11 as submitted by petition? To request the Planning & Zoning Board to uphold & enforce the Steep Slopes Ordinance? YES 374 NO 323 ARTICLE 38. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #12 as submitted by petition? To amend by removing all the Back Lot Ordinances. Not recommended by the Planning Board YES 169 NO 556 ARTICLE 39. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #13 as submitted by petition? To amend by prohibiting the installation of any new underground or fuel storage tanks in the downtown business district zone. Not recommended by the Planning Board YES 215 NO 556 ARTICLE 40. Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment #14 as submitted by petition? To amend with new language, item #3 under J, Industrial uses, to allow by special exception facilities designed to process, recycle, treat and transport solid waste, refuse and putrescible materials as defined by RSA’s only in the agricultural or highway commercial districts with restrictions. Not recommended by the Planning Board YES 135 NO 679

Is Democracy Dead in Winchester?

We will all find out tonight when the election results are announced. Voter turn out was as usual low and that's really discouraging when there were so many important spending warrants for both the school and town on the ballot. Will the town be infused with new people, new ideas and new views; or will we continue the old status quo for another year? It is a real shame with 2905 registered voters in town, less than half make the decisions that will affect each and every one of us for years to come. Those of you reading this that didn't vote, shame on you, for passing your responsibility onto those who did and for relying on us to make your choices for you. It's because of this apathy to your civic duty that your neighbors suffer the consequences as well as you when things that get passed cost more than we all can afford. We hope that isn't the case tonight when the votes are counted. In less than an hour we will all find out if it's a brand new day in town or just more of the same.

Triple T eyes Winchester, N.H., for compost plant

Saturday, March 7

BRATTLEBORO -- A local garbage removal company has its eye on Winchester, N.H., where it hopes to build a new composting facility.

But first, Triple T Trucking must get the OK from Winchester residents to put the project in front of the town's Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustments.

A pair of articles on the town's warrant for Town Meeting on Tuesday asks voters to amend zoning ordinances to allow Triple T to build its facility on 250 acres it owns on Route 119, just west of Winchester.

The composting operation would take up about 25 acres of the property.

"Most people would be in favor of some type of composting operation," said Ken Cole, a member of Winchester's Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment.

But, he said, people are rightfully concerned about what type of materials Triple T plans to bring to Winchester. Others in town, said Cole, are in favor of the project, which would bring industrial development and jobs to town.

Though there is no proposal before the town, said Cole, Triple T has been to Winchester at least five times to discuss the project with town agents.

The reason the ordinance needs to be changed, said Norm Mallory, the president of Triple T, is because the ordinance was written at a time when Winchester was mentioned as a location for a waste burning facility and a sludge handling operation.

"They wrote the ordinance 20 years ago to prevent any of that from happening," Malloy said

But what Triple T is proposing has no similarities to a burn or sludge facility, he said. "This is a green thing."

The composting materials will be mostly food waste from restaurants and shopping centers. There will be no animal carcasses and very few meat scraps, said Mallory.

Materials will be shipped from all over the tri-state area region to Winchester.

Currently, most of the composting materials Triple T collects goes to a facility in Greenfield, Mass., said Mallory. But a new facility needs to be built in the region because Greenfield is "maxed out at this point," he said.

States around the country are pushing municipalities to reduce their waste stream by 50 percent, said Mallory, and besides recycling, composting is one of the best ways to do that.

Mallory said the facility would have a minimal impact on the surrounding community.

"You're not going to smell anything," he said.

Waste will be mixed with sand, which will be mined on site, and then placed in bags for composting. In bags, the materials compost more quickly due to increased temperatures.

The compost is intended to be used by landscapers and homeowners, said Mallory, and is considered organic.

Town residents are also concerned about what the facility might mean for traffic traveling through Winchester. Mallory said the operation would see about 25 trucks a day.

Winchester has lost a lot of industry in the past three decades, including the Atlantic Paper Mills, Beaman Lumber, the Lawrence Tannery, the Paper Services Mill and a box mill.

If the composting facility receives approval, said Mallory, it could bring between five and 15 jobs to Winchester. It would also add to the tax rolls, and Winchester could collect a per-ton fee for compost leaving the site.

It could take anywhere from nine months to three years to get the facility approved and up and running, said Mallory.

Article 35 on the town warrant calls for a change that would allow composting facilities "by special exception in the agricultural and commercial districts, subject to multiple conditions and still prohibit facilities designed to incinerate or dispose of solid waste."

A change suggested by Article 40 would allow special exceptions for facilities "designed to process, recycle, treat and transport solid waste, refuse and putrescible materials."

"Certainly there is a measure of people not in favor of it," said Robert Gary, Winchester town administrator. "But there are some people who like that idea of having the possibility of a facility with strict restrictions."

Triple T's 250 acres was zoned industrial many years ago, said Cole, but nothing was ever done with the property.

"It's a good spot for it," said Cole. ( sure, he won't be bothered by the noise of 25 trucks going in and out, why should he care? )

Once again something is getting shoved down the throats of Winchester's citizens, supposedly for the good of the town ; however, like everything else, there are two sides to this story .. read on;

submitted by email ....

"…Waste will be mixed with sand, which will be mined on site…", there is what happens to the remaining property of his 250 acres. We are not only getting a trash facility; but a gravel pit as well. How long will it be before he begins selling sand and gravel materials as well to augment his trash business?
Our pristine forest is going to be destroyed! Does anyone realize that there are several wetlands on this property? And that two creeks go right through it to the Ashuelot River?

People need to realize that we are getting a "snow job" from Triple T. Our town needs to listen to some engineers and experts that are NOT in the pockets of the Waste Managers. Everyone right now is listening to one side of this issue!

They will be making money both ways - trash coming in and out. The town will not be making large profits off of this project (show me a dump that has a high property value) and the majority of the land will remain in "current use". According to the article he plans to use only 25 acres for the facility.

Also, keep in mind that this land was purchased knowing fully well that our town has strict zoning laws against such an operation.

Submitted by -
Kim Gordon 239-7263

We agree VOTE NO on Articles 35 and 40 .. or regret it later, when it's too late to chjange your mind.

Don't Trash Winchester

The following was submitted by email this morning ...

I am writing in response to Mr. Gaskill’s letter to editor entitled “Project is Green, Good for Winchester” published on Sunday, March 8. The letter is very long on how the project is “Green” and also on how it is good for Mr. Gaskill’s company Triple T Trucking, but contains nothing that makes me believe the project is good for Winchester. If the solid waste transfer station and compost facility is as benign and green as it is portrayed, why are they not doing it already in Brattleboro which is arguably one of the most environmentally conscious towns in the region?

The answer is simple – the solid waste industry is exactly as green as they are forced to be and no more. Many people do not realize that waste is a commodity that is traded on a daily basis in the same way as soybeans, coffee or orange juice. The haulers and processors are simply speculators, no different than the ones who gave us high gas prices last summer or the ones who caused the current banking crisis. At the end of the day, the bottom line is still the bottom line. Any regulatory controls that a facility is forced to meet come from the bottom line, reducing profit margins. If New Hampshire had the regulatory climate of Massachusetts (and in many ways, I am glad it does not), I daresay we would not be facing this issue because there would be no profit incentive to come here.

So, why Winchester? The argument that “we are a poor community and should be ready to embrace this “opportunity” because after all, what else are we going to do?” is so condescending it makes me ill. Hearing this argument from our elected officials shows a staggering degree of shortsightedness. I work for a large civil engineering firm in Massachusetts. In my career I have spent a good deal of time in and around landfills, transfer stations, composting and recycling facilities. Some are better kept than others, but I have yet to see one I would WANT near my home or in my community. In short, Winchester can and should find some other vehicle for economic development and does not need to prostitute herself out to the waste industry.

I urge you to vote “NO” on Tuesday on questions 35 and 40. Let someone else be part of THIS solution.

Ed Lake & The Thayer library ask you to please pass this around

received by email today ....



Dear Friends & Neighbors,

I am sending you this E-mail asking you to help us keep one of our valuable Trustee members on board Karen Gandy has served the Thayer Library and the towns of Winchester and Ashuelot well. Her role as Thayer Library Trustee for many years has brought a significant amount of hope to our board and an enormous amount of love to our children. This past December the Ashuelot Village and Children's Fund brought to life a long time tradition, “Santa in Ashuelot". Karen's special role as "Mrs. C." brought Christmas magic to over 65 children in Winchester and Ashuelot. Sadly, Karen did not make it to the town hall in time to sign up to re run for her position as Thayer Library Trustee. Library board members and The Ashuelot Village & Children’s Fund do not want to loose this valuable and contributing member.

Please write in Karen Gandy for Thayer library trustee. If you could also find the time to forward this to any of your friends and neighbors in Winchester & Ashuelot that will be voting it would be appreciated.

Again, please write in Karen Gandy for Thayer Library Trustee

Thank You,

Edward Lake

Thayer Librarian

Ashuelot Village & Children’s Fund Co-Founder

Questions please call 239 4099

Please remember to vote for Winchester and Ashuelot's children and families. To keep our community active and thriving, vote yes on articles #12 Pickle festival, #14 The ELMMCC and #15 The Learning center

NH Stimulus Wish List

We received the following in an email this morning ..



I would like to post an inquiry on the Winchester Informer- To get
a better understanding why The Town of Winchester is not a part
of the "NH Stimulus Wish List"? I located this at Keene Sentinel
Online It is so frustrating to see all the towns listed on this Wish
List and it certainly is astounding to see what these towns are
asking help with and the amount offunds they are requesting.
What about Winchester? Do any of our Selectmen even know about
this? Do they care to inquire? I may not be completely clear on the
"purpose" of this Wish list but it certainly looks like someone from
our Town Office should be inquiring on it and certainly hope we
didn't miss a great opportunity on funding for our town!

Thank you.
Wendy Hildreth



We're sure everyone would like to know why Winchester isn't on
that list asking for help on the many projects in town and on the
many spending articles that have been submitted by our elected
officials. Does make you wonder ..

..... and now for the rest of the story

In last night's Sentinel ( Mar. 4th ) there was a letter to the editor submitted by Planning Board chairman, Margaret Sharra, giving her personal opinion on several of the warrant articles on this year's ballot and implying that the board supported her views 100%. This is not true and to use her position as a chairperson, to offer credence to her stated views was wrong and misleading.

She wants everyone to vote "yes" on Article #2; stating that by upgrading our sewer plant now it will help bring in commercial and industrial growth to Winchester and help off-set our rising property taxes. While this sounds great on paper, the truth of the matter is, this town has wasted millions of dollars set aside for this plant over the years and now we're suppose to cough up more money. With the state cutting back aid to towns, there'll be no money to help pay for these improvements and tax payers will ultimately be forced to shoulder the expenses once again. While it is true that the plant does need to be upgraded, how can anyone state what the future may bring and by waiting until our economy is in better shape, when funds are more available, would not be a prudent measure to take. As for bringing in business to offset our taxes; just look at the record for the past 6 years; prime acreage along Route 10, which may have attracted large companies and commercial stores has been wasted on race tracks, junkyards and a concrete plant, not to mention the logging operations which have depleted our forests and made the entrances to our town along Route 10 and 119 an eyesore to any potential businesses, who may have once considered Winchester when seeking a place to build.

Article 8; she recommends a yes vote to spend another $15,000 in an attempt to advertise Winchester as a place for businesses to come; however with the 4th highest tax rate in the state, a defunct sewer plant and very little prime locations available is it any wonder why towns surrounding us, like Swanzey and Troy, are attracting all the business. Just throwing more good money after bad. Haven't they supposedly been doing this for years now, or have they just been spending that money already designated on something else?

Articles 27-34; authored by guess who, is nothing more than a change to regulations already on the books that help protect Winchester from over development and set rules for contractors and others to follow. Amending these regulations to make them more lax and doing away with our voted in Steep Slope Ordinance will leave the town open to just about anything proposed with no checks and balances to protect us. As it is now, the Planning and Zoning Boards hand out waivers of the current regulations, like candy at Halloween. Anyone can purchase any piece of property in town and simply cry "hardship" to get around our current regulations. Making them more lax is just plain foolishness. Are there other agendas at work here?

She then goes on to state, she has grave concerns over all of the petitioned articles submitted by citizens of Winchester, who are concerned with the past actions of our Planning and Zoning Boards and which are an attempt to strengthen and prohibit more destruction of our forests and wetlands and to hold these boards members to their sworn duties. One can only wonder the real reasons behind her attitude towards people who wish to hold her accountable. Once again she implies that the Planning Board, in unison, agrees with her views, which is not true and singles out Articles 36-40.

Article 36; she claims will set the town back 20 years and will allow contractors to build on every acre of land in town unfettered by rules or regulations; HOGWASH ! Removing Planned Residential Developments from the town's ZBA regulations and Subdivision regulations will make it harder for contractors to come into town' purchase an otherwise undevelopable piece of land and get around the current ( which she wants you to vote to change to make them more lax ) ZBA and Subdivision rules, by circumventing the density requirements of 1 house per 2 acres of land rule. PRD's are nothing more than a condensed subdivision, crammed onto a lot that normally would be restricted to guidelines already established and only maximizes the contractor's profits. It doesn't promote conservation as she states, as these lots are typically unbuildable without PRD regulations on the books, it really just promotes more destruction of our forests and wetlands and does nothing to preserve our rural character at all. For example, take a look at the lot beside Shamrock Realty on Route 10, or on the town line going out Route 119 towards Richmond, is that preserving our rural character?And as for complying with state laws mandating fair housing for all; nothing could be further from the truth, there is no mandate. If you're really concerned about preserving our rural character and stopping the destruction of more of scenic mountainsides and wetlands, vote a resounding yes on this article.

Article 37; submitted by more concerned citizens in town that the board has been ignoring it's own regulations, to which she claims " First and foremost, the planning boards and zoning boards of adjustment do uphold all ordinances of the town of Winchester", is once again, not true. Time and time again, over the protests of abutters and other concerned citizens of Winchester, both boards issue waivers of these regulations to contractors, allowing them to get around regulations and build projects they otherwise could not do if they were to be held to strict compliance. And as she so eloquently states, " A vote either way will not change anything"., Exactly the problem we should all be concerned with. Why have rules and regulations at all, if boards just continue to waive restrictions and guidelines to protect the town in favor of contractors seeking to maximize their profits. We recommend a yes vote to send a clear message that we expect them to follow their own regulations to the letter as written.

Article 38; once again she states this would be detrimental to our rural way of life; how is this possible? By voting yes, you'll be stopping contractors from coming back and expanding subdivisions and other developments that put added strain on our already over taxed infrastructure such as our police and fire dept's. Just how is this a "good use of our land".
Over the past several years only a couple of townspeople have approached the board and asked for permission to develop back lots they owned, time and time again, it has been contractors before the board looking to expand whenever they needed more cash.

Article 39; is very clear and there is nothing confusing or questionable in the wording or intent. We'd like to know how prohibiting underground storage tanks, whether they be for fuel or other chemicals, in downtown Winchester will create many problems. Such a blatant statement without explanation is what's confusing, not the intent of the petitioners.

Article 40; also leaves no doubt as to what the petitioners are asking. Are you in favor of allowing facilities to be built in town to transport, store and recycle and treat solid waste, refuse and putrescible materials? This petition was submitted to block a Vermont waste hauler from building a proposed compost facility in Winchester. If allowed, 20 trucks a day, hauling garbage from other towns in New Hampshire and from Massachusetts and Vermont will be traveling on our roads in and out of the plant. Under the guise of composting, this hauler will be bringing in meat waste, grease, oils and fats among other waste ( medical?) which is never used in composting. This will be simply nothing more than waste handling and will lead to rodent and other vermin ( not to mention maggots which turn into flies ) infestation and will bring in pathogens from all over, to our town. Voting yes on articles 35 and 40 will be overturning the safeguards written into our town by-laws 20 years ago to keep out-of-town trash and garbage out of Winchester. The petitioners intent was clear; vote no and uphold our current laws that are on the books.

Margaret Sharra's attempt to influence voters by providing incomplete and misleading information and only one side of the story ( exactly what she does when writing up the meeting minutes of the planning and zoning board ) using her position as chairman of the planning
board, clearly shows her own intent is not in the best interest of the voters and citizens of Winchester.

Who gets into school ?

The following was sent into the Keene Sentinel to be published in the Reader Opinion section:

Like other towns, Winchester must supply preschool for special education children. We do this at the school. Sometimes there is room for a few extra children.

As a school board member, I started to ask questions about this. Who gets in and how?

The chairwoman of the school board has not been willing to put this issue on the agenda for months. I wonder why? This works out to be about $6000.00 worth of free day care if you're one of the lucky ones picked.

How you're picked is not clear. All residents of Winchester should be told about this and have some chance at it.

It's your school budget and your money. Please help me correct this issue now.

Brian Moser
School Board member
Winchester

So why won't the board's chairperson even discuss this issue with other board members?
Would it have something to do with her job with the State of NH Foster Children Program and a possible conflict of interest with her being on the school board. How many special ed children has she placed in Winchester homes contributing to the rising costs of our school programs?