Farewell to Bob

“Nothing makes the earth seem so spacious as to have friends at a distance; they make the latitudes and longitudes.”
                                            ~ Henry David Thoreau

With that we send our well wishes to Robert "Bob" Gray & his family on their journey to Arizona. Thank you for blessing our Town with your efforts and hard work.
                                            You will be missed!

Sheridan House has appointed a new curator –

Diane Ghalib has been appointed the new curator to the Sheridan House in Ashuelot, effective October 28th. Diane has a Bachelor of Arts degree in anthropology from the University of New Mexico and a Master of Arts in physical anthropology from the University of Oklahoma. While in New Mexico, she worked at the Kant Musuem and the Gilerease Museum. For the past four years, Ms. Ghalib has been the volunteer curator of the historical collection at the Conant Library. She is also an author of children’s books.

The museum is open to the public free of charge Sundays from 2 to 4 pm and Wednesdays from 9 to 11:30 am. The museum will close for the season on October 27th and will reopen next May.

Civic Lesson 101 #4 --- Required reading for our Selectmen and all Town board members

Many of us have attended town meetings, from the Board of Selectmen, Planning and  Zoning Boards , to meetings of the various committees set up by our Board of Selectman and numerous times have come away shaking our heads mumbling, "If they only knew what they were talking about". How true, things may have turned out differently and lawsuits may have been avoided; but alas; in Winchester, there is one thing you can always count on, not much is ever done without controversy or questionable behavior. Perhaps our town official and others should read on:

 

 Local Regulation Of Ethical Behavior

What are “ethics?" It seems like a simple question, but ask several people and you are likely to get several different answers. When the question involves the ethical behavior of local government officials and employees, the answers might include things like:

Avoiding conflicts of interest.
Disclosing financial interests and other relationships.
Avoiding criminal behavior.
Keeping confidential information confidential.
Properly using authority and acting cooperatively.
Treating people fairly and equally.

The ethical behavior of all public officials and employees is of significant concern to everyone. Not only is it critical for officials and employees to act ethically, it is important to avoid even the appearance of unethical behavior. It is understandable, therefore, that towns and cities want to take appropriate steps to maintain the highest level of conduct. The question is, what can municipalities do, and how does the law already address issues of ethics?

Home Rule? Not Really.

Contrary to popular belief, New Hampshire is not a home rule state. Despite our political tradition of local control, New Hampshire’s Constitution does not grant any power directly to municipalities. Our municipalities only have authority to act if the state legislature gives it to them through a statute. “Towns only have such powers as are expressly granted to them by the legislature and such as are necessarily implied or incidental thereto." Girard v. Allenstown, 121 N.H. 268 (1981).
This means that when a town, local board or official wants to take a certain action, they must find a law that grants them that authority. It is not enough to conclude that there is no law prohibiting the action; silence in the law is usually a prohibition against that particular municipal action.
Given all of that, what may a municipality legally do to enforce ethical behavior among its employees and officials? Perhaps surprisingly, no single statute authorizes a town or city to adopt a broad “ethics ordinance" addressing every aspect of ethics, binding both employees and officials, and authorizing a local ethics board to remove an official from office. Instead, there are several different statutes that allow towns and cities to enact certain specific kinds of ordinances. There are also specific statutes that prohibit certain conflicts of interest, such as RSA 673:14, which prohibits land use board members from participating in matters when they have a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome or when they would be disqualified from sitting as a juror at a trial upon the same matter. Several other statutes make certain behavior by officials and/or employees illegal, and there are various circumstances in which a municipal board or a court may remove an official from office for violations of those statutes.

Local Conflicts of Interest Ordinances

 

A charge of conflict of interest often implies unethical behavior, yet it is not always easy to distinguish an actual conflict of interest from an unsubstantiated allegation. A conflict of interest arises “when a public officer votes on a matter in which he has a direct personal and pecuniary interest" which is “immediate, definite, and capable of demonstration; not remote, uncertain, contingent, and speculative…." Atherton v. City of Concord, 109 N.H. 164 (1968). As the Court in Atherton explained, “The reasons for this rule are obvious. A man cannot serve two masters at the same time, and the public interest must not be jeopardized by the acts of a public official who has a personal financial interest which is, or may be, in conflict with the public interest."
One of the challenges with conflicts of interest is that the existence of a conflict is, to a great extent, a question of degree to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Towns and cities may wish to adopt a conflicts of interest ordinance to provide more certainty. However, as with any exercise of municipal authority, a municipality can only enact a valid, enforceable ordinance if a law grants it the authority to do so. RSA 49-C:33, I(c) allows cities to include a conflict of interest provision in their charters. In addition, the legislative body of a city or town (town meeting, town council, city council or mayor and aldermen) may adopt a conflict of interest ordinance under RSA 31:39-a. An ordinance adopted under this statute may apply to both municipal officials and employees. Needless to say, a concise, carefully drafted ordinance can clarify what behavior is reasonably expected of people, whereas poor drafting can have the opposite effect.
In 2006 the legislature enacted RSA 21-G:21-:27, a code of ethics for the executive branch of state government, which can be a source of ideas for local legislation. A simple example is RSA 21-G:22, which clarifies the limit of the “personal and pecuniary interest" that must be avoided: “Executive branch officials shall not participate in any matter in which they, their spouse or dependents, have a private interest which may directly or indirectly affect or influence the performance of their duties." RSA 21-G:29-:30 creates an Executive Branch Ethics Committee, which is authorized to issue written advisory opinions upon request of officials in specific situations. These opinions, edited to maintain confidentiality, may be found at www.doj.nh.gov/ethics/.
Significantly, however, because municipalities may only take those actions authorized by statute, a conflicts of interest ordinance adopted under RSA 31:39-a may only address the issues listed in the statute and those that are necessarily implied or incidental to those issues. See Girard, 121 N.H. at 271. A local ordinance may address only the following subjects:
definitions of conflicts of interest;
regulation of conflicts of interest;
provisions requiring disclosure of financial interests for specified officers and employees;
establishment of incompatibility of office requirements stricter than those otherwise established by law; and
establishment of conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest will require removal from office.
Despite the clear limits of this statute, local ethics ordinances often include unauthorized provisions. For example, many ordinances authorize the creation of a local ethics board or committee with the authority to investigate complaints and to punish or remove employees and officials for violations. Legally, a local ethics committee could be established to offer non-binding advice to the selectmen or other officials regarding alleged ethics violations, but not to remove municipal officials. Although a town or city may establish the conditions under which a prohibited conflict of interest will require removal from office, RSA 31:39-a is quite clear in providing that only the superior court can remove an official under these provisions.
The termination of an employee, in contrast, does not usually require action by a court, but this is a step that should be taken after careful consideration and only by the governing body or designated official, not by an ethics committee. There may be other significant factors to consider before removing an employee, such as any procedural or other rights that the employee may have under law (such as a police or fire chief) or under a collective bargaining agreement or individual employment contract.
Another unauthorized provision that has found its way into local ordinances is a declaration that certain operations of an ethics committee are exempt from disclosure under RSA Chapter 91-A, New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law. Municipalities may not change the scope of RSA 91-A or declare that certain activities or records will not be available to the public. The ability to enter a nonpublic session during a public meeting must in each instance meet the specific conditions set forth in RSA 91-A:3. In addition, exemptions regarding the public availability of governmental records are construed narrowly and are often decided under RSA 91-A:5 on a case-by-case basis based on the facts and circumstances of each matter. The activities and records of an ethics committee must be considered individually under the same standards as all other municipal activities and records.
It is also common to find a local ethics committee charged with investigating ethical complaints about employees or officials. However, although a committee of this nature may be very helpful in addressing thorny conflicts of interest questions, the referral of certain matters to the committee could result in even greater exposure to liability for the municipality. For example, referral of an employment harassment claim to an ethics committee may result in a breach of confidentiality because the employer likely owes the employee certain confidentiality measures. Likewise, the referral of a matter regarding fraud or misappropriation of funds may result in a charge that the municipality has interfered with a criminal investigation. The key to the success of any such committee, therefore, will be the quality of its membership and an understanding of the legal limits of its authority. Members must be intelligent, respected members of the community who are willing and able to meet on relatively short notice, to provide timely, thoughtful responses, and to refer matters to legal counsel as appropriate.
To address issues outside the scope of an ordinance under RSA 31:39-a, any municipal board is free to adopt its own, non-binding set of guidelines to help members understand the ethical standards the board wishes to uphold. These policies are not binding, and no board (including the Board of Selectmen) has the authority to enact ethical guidelines to bind members of other boards. However, the exercise of creating a policy can be helpful, and educating new members about the standards to which all board members should aspire can provide much-needed guidance.
It is also important to distinguish between the regulation of municipal officials and the supervision of municipal employees. Since municipal employees are subject to the supervision of the department heads and/or the governing body, the governing body (like any other employer) may adopt personnel policies to govern employees. Personnel policies may address virtually every aspect of the employment relationship, including expectations regarding ethics and behavior, and the discipline and termination consequences of violating those expectations. Therefore, even if some of the provisions of a local “ethics" policy go beyond the permissible subjects in RSA 31:39-a and thus would not be enforceable against municipal officials, those requirements might be enforced against its employees if incorporated into the municipality’s personnel policies.

Other Legal Regulation of ‘Ethics’

Criminal Statutes
Many state laws prohibit certain unethical behavior by public officials and impose civil and/or criminal penalties. For example, the corrupt practices provisions of RSA Chapter 640 prohibit all state and local public officers or employees from engaging in bribery, improper influence, acceptance of gifts and improper compensation, and the purchase of public office. These and similar state laws are binding upon public officials without any need to enact a local ordinance.
Libel and Slander
Another check on unethical or improper behavior of local officials and employees is the tort (or civil wrong) of defamation, which includes both oral (slander) and written (libel) defamation. A “defamatory" statement tends to lower a person in the esteem of any substantial and respectable group, even if that group is quite a small minority. Touma v. St. Mary’s Bank, 142 N.H. 762, 766 (1998). It occurs when a person fails to exercise reasonable care in publishing (in print or by speaking) a false and defamatory statement of fact about someone to a third party without any valid privilege. Pierson v. Hubbard, 147 N.H. 760, 763 (2002). A statement of opinion is generally not actionable as defamation unless it is reasonably understood that the opinion is based upon defamatory facts. Duchesnaye v. Munro Enterprises, Inc., 125 N.H. 244, 249 (1984).
Defamatory statements might be privileged in certain situations. For example, statements made in the legislative process (such as during town meeting) or during judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. Other statements during quasi-judicial proceedings (such as planning board hearings) might be protected by a qualified privilege if they are published on a lawful occasion, in good faith, for a justifiable purpose, and with the belief, founded upon reasonable grounds, that the statement is true. Voelbel v. Bridgewater, 144 N.H. 599, 600 (1999); Pickering v. Frink, 123 N.H. 326, 329 (1983).
However, there is no specific privilege for municipal officials conducting town business, so they generally are not protected from liability for making any defamatory statements about other people during committee meetings. It is possible, therefore, for an official or employee to be sued by someone claiming that the official or employee has defamed them.
RSA Chapter 91-A, New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law
Frequently, charges of “unethical behavior" involve the allegedly improper handling of sensitive information. Many of these issues are already governed by RSA Chapter 91-A, which exists “to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people." RSA 91-A:1. Municipal boards, commissions and other “public bodies" are subject to this law, as are almost all records pertaining to municipal business.
With limited exceptions, meetings of all public bodies must be open to the public, with proper notice at least 24 hours before the meeting and publicly-available minutes within five business days afterward. RSA 91-A:2, II. A public body may only meet in a nonpublic session for the narrow list of reasons provided in RSA 91-A:3, II, and even minutes of a nonpublic session will become publicly available unless they are properly sealed. RSA 91-A:2-a clarifies the legal limits of communications among members of a public body outside a public meeting, whether in person, by electronic communication or by any other method. It is now much clearer that e-mail, instant messaging and other forms of communication that occur outside of the public eye (or ear) legally cannot be used to circumvent the spirit and purpose of the law. RSA 91-A:2-a.

Governmental records are similarly regulated under this statute. All governmental records must be made available to the public upon request for inspection and copying during regular business hours. RSA 91-A:4. The only categories of records that do not have to be disclosed are those listed in RSA 91-A:5. The New Hampshire Supreme Court construes these exceptions “restrictively," presuming that records should be disclosed to further the purpose of the law. Goode v. N.H. Office of Legislative Budget Assistant, 145 N.H. 451 (2000).
It is particularly important for all local officials and employees to understand the requirements and limitations of this law because there are serious consequences when it is violated. When someone’s access to public meetings or public records is wrongfully denied, the municipality may be required to pay that person’s attorney’s fees and costs. When a specific official or employee acts in bad faith in refusing to allow access, the court may require the individual official or employee to pay those attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, a court may invalidate any action taken by a public body in a meeting that violates the open meeting requirements of the law. Finally, if any municipal official discloses confidential information that he or she knows or should know is protected from disclosure under RSA 91-A, that official may be removed from office by a court for violating his or her oath of office.
Noninterference
In towns with a charter and in cities, the elected body (selectmen, town council, city council or mayor and aldermen) is also governed by a statute prohibiting interference with the actions of the chief executive officer:
“The elected body shall act in all matters as a body, and shall not seek individually to influence the official acts of the chief administrative officer, or any other official, or to direct or request, except in writing, the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office; or to interfere in any way with the performance by such officers of their duties. Any member [who does so], as determined through procedures established in the charter, shall forfeit his office." RSA 49-C:19 (city charters); RSA 49-D:4 (town charters).
In other words, no single member of a governing body in a municipality with a charter has the authority to direct or interfere with the official activities of the chief executive officer of the municipality or other officials. Furthermore, it should be noted that even in towns without a charter, the selectmen are only authorized to act as a board by majority vote. RSA 41:8. Although there is no statute authorizing removal of a selectman for improper interference, the old saying that “one selectman cannot do anything" is still valid. Only the board may act.

 

Civic Lesson 101 #3: Sealing of Nonpublic Session Meeting Minutes

Kimberly A. Hallquist, is a staff attorney with the New Hampshire Local Government Center's Legal Services and Government Affairs Department and wrote an excellent article in New Hampshire Town and City, September 2010

“A great deal of confusion exists over "sealed" meeting minutes, probably because the term "sealed" suggests that the meeting minutes are somehow literally sealed and unavailable for viewing-by anyone, forever. This is not the case.

Q. What does it mean "to seal" meeting minutes?

A. Sealing meeting minutes is the phrase used to describe the action of a board to withhold meeting minutes of a nonpublic session from public inspection. RSA 91-A:3, III allows a board to vote to withhold minutes when any of three circumstances exist: (1) when divulgence of the information would likely adversely affect the reputation of any person, other than a member of the board itself; (2) when release of the minutes would render the proposed action ineffective; or (3) the information relates to terrorism planning functions. The nonpublic session minutes may be withheld until, in the opinion of a majority of members, the circumstances described above no longer apply.

Q. Are all nonpublic session meeting minutes sealed?


A. Not automatically. In order to withhold nonpublic session meeting minutes from public inspection, the board must first take a vote to withhold them, or to seal them. The recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present is needed in order to seal the minutes. If the 2/3 vote is not obtained, or no vote is taken, then the minutes must be available within 72 hours, much sooner than the five business days for regular meeting minutes. RSA 91-A:2, II; RSA 91-A:3, III.

Q. Can the board vote to seal the minutes forever?

A. While some boards routinely do this, it is not a good practice since the law does not provide for this. Instead, nonpublic meeting minutes may be withheld only until such time as the conditions which lead to the sealing continue to exist. As discussed above, the law provides specific reasons why nonpublic session minutes may be withheld from public inspection. Arguably, the subject of the nonpublic session might be one that continues to be deserving of the protection that nondisclosure to the public affords it, and thus will be withheld for many years. However, the better practice is to vote to seal the minutes with no set time period and, instead, periodically review the sealed minutes to determine if they continue to meet the requirement for withholding from the public."

To learn more or to read more of Kim’s article – go to:

http://www.nhlgc.org/publications/item_detail.asp?TCArticleID=341

CIVIC LESSON 101 - #2

Right to Know Law


“Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussion and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people.” RSA 91-A:1.


The Right to Know Law affects every aspect of local government in our state. Every board, committee, commission and subcommittee in every town, city and village district in New Hampshire must comply with this law. As a result, every local official and employee should be aware of the law and what their responsibilities are regarding both public meetings and governmental records.

There is a lot of information below – so don’t wax over… We will highlight ones in particular that pertain to current situations within our own Town Government!

TITLE VI

PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

CHAPTER 91-A

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENTAL RECORDS AND MEETINGS

Section 91-A:4

91-A:4 Minutes and Records Available for Public Inspection. –

I. Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all public bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such public bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all governmental records in the possession, custody, or control of such public bodies or agencies, including minutes of meetings of the public bodies, and to copy and make memoranda or abstracts of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5. In this section, ""to copy'' means the reproduction of original records by whatever method, including but not limited to photography, photostatic copy, printing, or electronic or tape recording.

I-a. Records of any payment made to an employee of any public body or agency listed in RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(a)-(d), or to the employee's agent or designee, upon the resignation, discharge, or retirement of the employee, paid in addition to regular salary and accrued vacation, sick, or other leave, shall immediately be made available without alteration for public inspection. All records of payments shall be available for public inspection notwithstanding that the matter may have been considered or acted upon in nonpublic session pursuant to RSA 91-A:3.

II. After the completion of a meeting of a public body, every citizen, during the regular or business hours of such public body, and on the regular business premises of such public body, has the right to inspect all notes, materials, tapes, or other sources used for compiling the minutes of such meetings, and to make memoranda or abstracts or to copy such notes, materials, tapes, or sources inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.

III. Each public body or agency shall keep and maintain all governmental records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the governmental records pertaining to such public body or agency shall be kept in an office of the political subdivision in which such public body or agency is located or, in the case of a state agency, in an office designated by the secretary of state.

III-a. Governmental records created or maintained in electronic form shall be kept and maintained for the same retention or archival periods as their paper counterparts. Governmental records in electronic form kept and maintained beyond the applicable retention or archival period shall remain accessible and available in accordance with RSA 91-A:4, III. Methods that may be used to keep and maintain governmental records in electronic form may include, but are not limited to, copying to microfilm or paper or to durable electronic media using standard or common file formats.

III-b. A governmental record in electronic form shall no longer be subject to disclosure pursuant to this section after it has been initially and legally deleted. For purposes of this paragraph, a record in electronic form shall be considered to have been deleted only if it is no longer readily accessible to the public body or agency itself. The mere transfer of an electronic record to a readily accessible ""deleted items'' folder or similar location on a computer shall not constitute deletion of the record.

IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release. If a public body or agency is unable to make a governmental record available for immediate inspection and copying, it shall, within 5 business days of request, make such record available, deny the request in writing with reasons, or furnish written acknowledgment of the receipt of the request and a statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied. If a computer, photocopying machine, or other device maintained for use by a public body or agency is used by the public body or agency to copy the governmental record requested, the person requesting the copy may be charged the actual cost of providing the copy, which cost may be collected by the public body or agency. Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from paying fees otherwise established by law for obtaining copies of governmental records or documents, but if such fee is established for the copy, no additional costs or fees shall be charged.

V. In the same manner as set forth in RSA 91-A:4, IV, any public body or agency which maintains governmental records in electronic format may, in lieu of providing original records, copy governmental records requested to electronic media using standard or common file formats in a manner that does not reveal information which is confidential under this chapter or any other law. If copying to electronic media is not reasonably practicable, or if the person or entity requesting access requests a different method, the public body or agency may provide a printout of governmental records requested, or may use any other means reasonably calculated to comply with the request in light of the purpose of this chapter as expressed in RSA 91-A:1. Access to work papers, personnel data, and other confidential information under RSA 91-A:5, IV shall not be provided.

VI. Every agreement to settle a lawsuit against a governmental unit, threatened lawsuit, or other claim, entered into by any political subdivision or its insurer, shall be kept on file at the municipal clerk's office and made available for public inspection for a period of no less than 10 years from the date of settlement.

VII. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a public body or agency to compile, cross-reference, or assemble information into a form in which it is not already kept or reported by that body or agency.

Source. 1967, 251:1. 1983, 279:2. 1986, 83:5. 1997, 90:2, eff. Aug. 2, 1997. 2001, 223:2, eff. Jan. 1, 2002. 2004, 246:2, eff. Aug. 14, 2004. 2008, 303:4, eff. July 1, 2008. 2009, 299:1, eff. Sept. 29, 2009.

TITLE VI

PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

CHAPTER 91-A

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENTAL RECORDS AND MEETINGS

Section 91-A:9
91-A:9 Destruction of Certain Information Prohibited. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor who knowingly destroys any information with the purpose to prevent such information from being inspected or disclosed in response to a request under this chapter. If a request for inspection is denied on the grounds that the information is exempt under this chapter, the requested material shall be preserved for 90 days or while any lawsuit pursuant to RSA 91-A:7-8 is pending.

Source. 2002, 175:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2003.

This is only a small portion of information.  Many have asked whether it is legal for the Board of Selectman to go into a Non-Public Session EVERY week - because they do it every week.  It makes them appear as if they are hiding something.  The New Hampshire Local Government Center website can answer a lot of these questions.  Along with the State Government website for their list of RSAs. 

http://www.nhlgc.org/attachments/services/legal/RTK_FlowChart.pdf

http://doj.nh.gov/publications/documents/right_to_know.pdf

Asphalt and a Low efficiency wood burning Chip Plant

We've received a request to publish and forward the following email to all citizens of Winchester;

Winchester is being hit by two very dirty polluting businesses and our town officials seem to be welcoming them.

See below for a picture of an Asphalt plant which is proposed on route 10 near the Shamrock Realty and Toy Box auto place (just north-west of these), These plants emit toxic fumes which cause the nerves in the nose to be paralyzed, and causes brain cancer in children. The location proposed for this plant is on our Winchester aquifer, where we get our water supply.

In addition, a company called CPD has proposed putting in a low efficiency Wood burning chip plant which will emit toxins and particulate into the air at a rate of 111 pounds a year for a 29 MW plant in a plume of smoke and steam. It will likely drive the cost of cord wood up for wood stove users, and possibly put the local loggers out of business as the big companies with scissor truck tree removal compete against them. The proposed location for this particulate pollution plant is between Winchester and Ashuelot, approximately one to two miles from each, and its plume is in the fallout range of our local school, learning center, and elderly housing.

Massachusetts has banned these plants until they are more efficient, because they cause asthma and breathing problems, especially for the young and elderly.

The jobs offered by these two heavy industries is miniscule compared to the long term misery and health problems they will create.

Please attend Winchester Planning Board meetings and Zoning board meetings to find out how these proposed plants are progressing. Get the word out to your neighbors. The town has not informed the public enough.

These are serious concerns and we need to make sure the planning board and zoning board take them seriously and have independent experts give testimony, not experts paid by the companies themselves.

Revitalization/Economic Development Committee Minutes 8-16-10

Town of Winchester

Revitalization/Economic Development Committee

Minutes

8-16-10

Meeting opened: 10am.

Members present: Ted Whippie, Harvey Sieran, John Gomarlo (Chair), Mark Tigan, Gus Ruth, Margaret Sharra, and Jeannette Duhaime. Suzanne Boisvert, Steve Thompson, Ken Harvey & John Pasquarelli absent.

Public: Peg Tatro.

First order of business:  The committee reviews the minutes of 7-19-10 for approval. M. Tigan recommends two word changes to the minutes. M. Tigan moves to approve the minutes with the two changes, M. Sharra seconds, all in favor.

Second order of business: Peg Tatro, Welfare Director, came to discuss with the committee welfare recipients working for the assistance. J. Duhaime re-reviewed her findings from Peterborough. Peterborough credits the workers at $10 per hour for work they do for the town. The workers mow, work at recycling center, pick up trash, filing, paint, etc.

The group asks if all recipients must work or pay back welfare funds. State statutes and our local ordinance requires such. It is impossible to track when someone could pay the money back and then the enforcement of such. The group discusses these problems at length.

Peg Tatro informs the group that Keene used to have a work program but has since discontinued it when they no longer got cooperation from department heads.

M. Tigan asks Peg how many recipients could work. Peg estimates 50%-60%. She also estimates up to 50% claim disability.

Peg would be willing to do the work program again if there was good communication and cooperation with department heads and Selectmen.

Workers could not be picked or chosen, there would need to be job descriptions and standards to be met. A list of jobs would be obtained from various departments.

M. Tigan comments the work for welfare program achieves two goals; reducing the budget and removing the incentive for free money.

The group talks of investigating this program further. H. Sieran asks about workmen’s comp for these workers. M. Sharra suggests the committee solicit input from the Selectmen. If the Selectmen support investigating this program, then the group will go further in the research and recommendations. If the Selectmen are not interested then the committee shouldn’t spend any more time on it. The RED committee is just an advisory group to the Selectmen. J. Duhaime will check with a few more towns and Peg Tatro will obtain information from the LGC and the State Welfare Association on the work program.

Third order of business: John Gomarlo updates the committee on Cleanpower. J. Gomarlo has been informed the financing the company needed is in order. Cleanpower has an agreement with Gestamp to develop, finance and operate biomass energy plants. He explains the size of  Gestamp and their resources. Berlin, NH has approved a biomass facility in their city and Cleanpower is getting ready to build. The plant in Winchester would not be a 30megawatt facility, it would now be proposed as a 20 megawatt plant. The question before the Board of Selectmen is whether the approval process should go through local level or exclusively state control. Gus Ruth and Margaret Sharra recuse themselves from any discussion on this. M. Tigan feels this process may be very good for Winchester and asks the committee to send a letter of support of Cleanpower to the Selectmen. M. Tigan moves the RED committee strongly supports the biomass plant subject to using maximum sustainable forest practices, supports local control for the process and encourage the town to work with the PUC and the applicant for mutual beneficial regulations.

H. Sieran seconded, five yes and two abstain (M. Sharra and G. Ruth).

Fourth order of business: The committee is updating the business list for the town. M. Tigan recommends putting the list on the Town website so residents can send in updates. He also recommends focusing attention on the top 15 employers. M. Sharra will get with the Excutive Assistant to put the brochures on the website.

Fifth order of business: October 12^th is decided as the date for the “Business after hours” gathering. J. Duhaime moves for the gathering to be held at the Sheridan House and have Gary O’Neal host the food and beverages, M. Tigan seconds, all in favor.

Sixth order of business: Old business. Park update; the table is in place and there are 12 8x8 bricks still available for purchase. M. Tigan moves to plant 2 more arborvitae to block the dumpster view, J. Duhaime seconds, all in favor. Becky Beaman and M. Sharra will go to Gary Beaman’s Gravel pit and choose a stone to put the plaque on.

The committee talks briefly on the town gravel pit in regards to zoning. Should it be rezoned to commercial or can it be considered qualified for the commercial/industrial special use designation? M. Sharra will ask the PB for comment.

The next meeting will be September 20^th at 10am.

H. Siearn moves to adjourn, T. Whippie seconds, all in favor. 11:20am.

Minutes respectfully submitted:

Margaret Sharra, Land Use

Minutes approved by the committee on:

Minutes signed by:

John Gomarlo, Chair

BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING Wednesday September 22, 2010

MINUTES of the

BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING

Wednesday

September 22, 2010

Board Members Present:  Sherman Tedford, Chairman; Roberta Fraser; Gustave Ruth; Theresa Sepe; and Kenneth Gardner. Also present, Rick Meleski, Sewer Superintendent; Town Administrator; Bob Gray and Executive Assistant; Shelly A. Walker.  The meeting convenes at 7:00 PM.  

1^st Order of Business: Open Meeting and Acceptance of Minutes

Minutes of the September 15, 2010 meeting: Selectman Fraser makes a motion to accept the minutes.  Selectman Gardner seconds the motion.  Motion carries 4-0 with 1 abstention.

2^nd Order of Business: Other Business

An application for the Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Oriented Activities Maintenance Funds Grant has been submitted for approval. This grant would cover the Winchester Repeater Service Maintenance Contract for 7 years in the amount of  $2340 annually.  Selectman Gardner makes a motion to apply for the grant and have the Chairman sign the contract.  Selectman Fraser seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.

Previously, Rebecca Beaman came before the Board to request an extension of the excavation agreement between the Town and Gary Beaman. A new agreement had been drafted concerning the stockpile only, granting permission for it to remain on Town property for another year. The Chairman asked Rebecca Beaman to review the Agreement drafted by the Town, and after doing so he would invite discussion on this matter. The Chairman asked Rebecca Beaman if the Agreement with the Town on the stockpiles was satisfactory to her, and if she had signed it.  Rebecca Beaman stated that the Agreement was fine and would sign it. All the Board members and Rebecca Beaman signed the document.

A Water Connection Application was submitted for approval for Map 18 Lot 13-1. Selectman Fraser makes a motion to approve the application.  Selectman Ruth seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.

A Timber Tax Levy for Map 2 Lot 35-5 was been submitted for signatures. Selectman Fraser makes a motion to authorize and sign the levy.  Selectman Gardner seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.

Hoyle & Tanner will be receiving for bids on the Wheelock Brook Bridge project, and would like to receive and open the bids at their office. The Chairman feels that all bids should be received and opened by the Town of Winchester. Bob Gray will notify Hoyle and Tanner regarding this issue.

A Contract with James R. St. Jean Auctioneers to auction the 2010 tax deeded properties has been submitted for approval. Bob Gray states that the Selectmen need to set the reserve amount for Map 4 Lot 44-4-1, and the other 2 properties should be offered at absolute auction.  Selectman Tedford makes a motion to approve the contract, set the reserve amount at $22,000 for 179 Bolton Road, and directs the Town Administrator to sign the contract.  Selectman Gardner seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.

The Safe Routes to School Committee has sent a letter to the Board for support in applying for their grant to replace and maintain sidewalks from Route 10 to Parker Street.  After some discussion on the location of new sidewalks to be constructed, Bob Gray suggests having Margaret Sharra mark a tax map with all the proposed sidewalk changes for the Board.

A Raffle Permit for the Pickle Festival was submitted by the Ambulance Department.  Selectman Fraser makes a motion to approve the permit.  Selectman Sepe seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.

It has been brought to the attention of the Board that the Water Department and Tax Collector have their own PO Boxes. The Post Office Box rental for the Water Department box will expire on 5/31/11, and the rental for the Tax Collector will expire 10/31/10. There was some discussion on the responsibility of receiving tax and water bill payments with the Town Hall mail, and the volume of mail received at these Post Office boxes. Selectman Fraser strongly feels that the Post Office Box for the Tax Collector should be kept as it is the responsibility of the Clerk and Tax Collector alone to receive these payments, and not the Executive Assistant or Town Administrator.  Selectman Tedford makes a motion to eliminate the Water Department PO Box rental when it expires, and have the Water Department invoices sent to 1 Richmond Road.  Selectman Gardner seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to also eliminate the Tax Collector’s PO Box rental when it expires and have all tax bills sent to 1 Richmond Road. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion.  Motion failed 3-1 with 1 abstention.

The Board has been notified that the Water And Sewer Departments have savings accounts that are not used.  These accounts do not have deposits made to them or withdrawals on them. It was discussed that these accounts may have been used for Capital improvements before the Capital improvement accounts were created. The Chairman inquired as to how much was in each account.  Bob Gray states there was $46,474. in the Water Department savings, and $1,712. in the Sewer Department savings account. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to move the $1,712. from the Sewer savings account to the Sewer checking account, and to move the $46,474 from the Water Department savings account to the Capital Reserve account. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion.  The Chairman suggested amending the motion to include obtaining the bank statement

showing the break down. Selectman Gardener amends his motion, and Selectman Sepe seconds the amended motion. Motion carries 5-0.

Previously, the Board wanted to make a mutually beneficial agreement with Rebecca Beaman to have Hinsdale Sand and Gravel fill the depression located at Map 6 Lot 5, in exchange for materials of equal value of the labor this would require. After some discussion it was agreed that Rebecca would put together a proposal with more exact numbers and other options to correct the depression along the roadside. The Chairman asked Rebecca Beaman if she has come up with figures for the amount of material to fill in the depression at Map 6 Lot 5.  Rebecca would like to use 5,000 yards of sandy fill to fill in the depression and other low areas to bring the grade up 18 to 24 inches. In exchange for 15,000 yards of sandy fill to compensate for spreading the material, or Rebecca Beaman will give the Town 500 yards of crushed gravel and the Town can spread the material. Then in the spring the issue of the depression holding water will be examined again to see if more fill is needed to bring it up to grade.  The Chairman would like to have an Agreement drawn up to read: the material shall be spread by December 31, 2010, and Rebecca Beaman shall have access to 15,000 yards of sandy fill until September 22, 2011.

Selectman Fraser reminds everyone that the Pickle Festival is this Saturday the 25^th, and all Board members are invited to ride in the Parade.  Everyone riding in the Parade should meet at Kulick’s parking lot at 9 AM. The Pickle Festival will run from 10 AM to 9 PM. There will be Fireworks at the ELMM Center at 8:30.

3rd Order of Business: Open to the Floor (15 minutes)

Jason Cardinale came before the Board regarding a Cease and Desist Order from the Building Inspector. The Order was issued because there are two houses on his property, and his driveway isn’t up to code.  The building inspector will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the utilities for the mobile home are disconnected, and Mr. Cardinale gets a letter from the Fire Chief stating that a fire truck can safely access the new home.  Mr. Cardinale would gladly disconnect all the utilities from the mobile home before the Inspection, but still had the issue of the driveway.  Mr. Cardinale showed the Board a map of the existing driveway from over 60 years ago. Mr. Cardinale who is also on the Zoning Board is puzzled as to why he would need a letter from the Fire Chief if there was already a driveway present. If a driveway permit is needed it would be required during the process of obtaining a building permit. Mr. Cardinale has had 3 building permits for this property and the driveway was never an issue. Mr. Cardinale will make any necessary changes to his driveway that may be required.  The Board would like to see the Cease and Desist Order from the Building Inspector.  Mr. Cardinale goes out to his vehicle to retrieve it.

Ken Cole came before the Board and was concerned that the Town may have a liability issue if there is a house built with such a long driveway, and that this existing driveway may previously have been a road not a driveway. The Board informed Mr. Cole that there is already a house built and that the driveway has been on this lot since the 1940’s. There area dozen or more driveways similar to this in Town, and being on a Class V Road the Town has no liability. Mr. Cole also inquired about any possible restrictions for the use of the Gary Beaman Park. Mr. Cole is concerned with children using skateboards that may damage the bricks.  The Chairman noted that the only restriction is that there are no animals allowed.

A gentleman from the Grace Christian Fellowship would like permission to hook up a sprinkler for the new church.  The Chairman told him that the Board had previously approved this. The Board would allow the sprinkler to be connected and as long as the fee had been paid and someone from the Water Department was present when the contractor taps into the water main.

Mr. Cardinale shows the Cease and Desist Order to the Board.  Chairman Tedford makes a motion to remove the driveway restriction and order Leroy Austin to do the Certificate of Occupancy inspection. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion. After some discussion Chairman Tedford withdraws his motion. Selectman Fraser makes a motion to revoke the driveway restriction, remove the Cease and Desist Order and order the Building Inspector to do the Certificate of Occupancy inspection. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.

4th Order of Business: Office Documents

• A Permit to Display Fireworks has been submitted for the Winchester Pickle Festival. Selectman Tedford makes a motion to authorize the permit. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion.  Motion carries 3-1 with 1 abstention.
• A request to withdraw funds in the amount of $5,966.24 from the Capital Reserve Bridge Reconstruction Fund has been submitted. This is to pay Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc., for the Bridge project on Old Westport Road over Wheelock Brook. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to approve the withdrawal.  Selectman Ruth seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.
• An Internal Transfer of funds has been submitted in the amount of $223.12 to cover August office supplies and postage for Ambulance, Police, Land Use, Executive and Finance Departments. Selectman Fraser makes a motion to approve the transfer. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion.  Motion carries 5-0.
• A purchase requisition was submitted in the amount of  $6069.60 for repair work on one of the Highway trucks.
  
  

5^th Order of Business: Other Business

Rick Meleski the Sewer Superintendent came before the Board to update them on the I & I work done on Route 10 this week. He reported that all the pipes were clean, re-lined and there were no leaks or obstructions.

6th Order of Business: Non-Public Session under RSA 91-A: 3II (a)

Selectman Fraser makes a motion to enter non-public session under (a).  Selectman Sepe seconds the motion.  A role call vote is taken and all members vote “yes”, and the Board convenes in non-public session at 8:35 PM after a 5-minute break.  

7th Order of Business: Reconvene Public Session

The Board reconvenes in public session at 8:50 PM. The non-public minutes under (a) were not sealed.

8th Order of Business: Adjournment

Selectman Ruth makes a motion to adjourn.  Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it carries 5-0.  The meeting adjourns at

8:51 PM.

Respectfully recorded,

Shelly A. Walker

Executive Assistant

Missing NH Toddler .. Family needs our help

Two year old Richmond boy is missing;

Stephen Rowan Griffin is a 2-year-old boy and has been missing since Saturday afternoon.  He answers to "Rowan".

Rowan is 3ft. tall, and 40lbs.  He has brown hair and brown eyes.  Police say he was last seen wearing blue jeans, sneakers, and a gray sweatshirt with super heroes on the front. 

He was last seen in the area of 236 Route 32, Richmond.  It is believed he wandered off. 

CIVIC LESSON 101 - #1

We are going to start a weekly CIVIC LESSON 101 for our fellow citizens to understand the legal way in which our town government should be run. This will allow everyone to see for themselves, how blatant the violations are of our elected officials. How they continuously ignore these rules week after week.

We will begin this week with “Appealing A Decision” that a Land Use Board has made and the requirements that the officials need to follow for a fair and just hearing. This is something that our officials failed to follow this week during a JOINT HEARING of the ZBA & PB. We look forward to your feed back and if you have any questions, we will be happy to explain!

TITLE LXIV

PLANNING AND ZONING

CHAPTER 676

ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

General Provisions

Section 676:6

676:6 Effect of Appeal to Board. – The effect of an appeal to the board shall be to maintain the status quo. An appeal of the issuance of any permit or certificate shall be deemed to suspend such permit or certificate, and no construction, alteration, or change of use which is contingent upon it shall be commenced. An appeal of any order or other enforcement action shall stay all proceedings under the action appealed from unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the board of adjustment, after notice of appeal shall have been filed with such officer, that, by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would, in the officer's opinion, cause imminent peril to life, health, safety, property, or the environment. In such case, the proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order which may be granted by the board or by the superior court on notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken and cause shown.

676:7 Public Hearing; Notice. –

I. Prior to exercising its appeals powers, the board of adjustment shall hold a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be given as follows:

(a) The appellant and every abutter and holder of conservation, preservation, or agricultural preservation restrictions shall be notified of the hearing by certified mail stating the time and place of the hearing, and such notice shall be given not less than 5 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. The board shall hear all abutters and holders of conservation, preservation, or agricultural preservation restrictions desiring to submit testimony and all nonabutters who can demonstrate that they are affected directly by the proposal under consideration. The board may hear such other persons, as it deems appropriate.

(b) A public notice of the hearing shall be placed in a newspaper of general circulation in the area not less than 5 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

II. The public hearing shall be held within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of appeal.

III. Any party may appear in person or by the party's agent or attorney at the hearing of an appeal.

IV. The cost of notice, whether mailed, posted, or published, shall be paid in advance by the applicant. Failure to pay such costs shall constitute valid grounds for the board to terminate further consideration and to deny the appeal without public hearing.

Source. 1983, 447:1. 1985, 159:25. 1996, 226:1. 1997, 142:6, eff. Aug. 8, 1997.

NOTE:  The term "stay" is referring to STOP.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiv/676/676-mrg.htm

Just a Reminder For Those Interested

	Town of Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment Notice of Meeting 10-07-10 The Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment will be meeting on 10-07-10 at 7pm on the Main Floor of the Town Hall, 1 Richmond Road for the following: 1. The board will review the minutes of 9-02-10 for approval. 2. The board will review an application for a special exception submitted for Mitchell Sand & Gravel to construct a Hot Mix/Asphalt plant and if accepted will hold a joint hearing with the Planning Board on this application.

This will be a joint meeting of the Winchester Planning and Zoning Boards though it hasn't been posted as such on the town's own website or bulletin boards ( wonder why not? ) There was a notification posted in the Keene Sentinel about a week ago which ran for one night, guess the town is attempting to save money by only running it once and not posting it for all to see.

It is important that all those who have issues with this plant being allowed in our Aquifer District and the health concerns with the emissions that will be carried to our homes on the prevailing winds along with the noise and increased traffic, be present to voice your concerns to these boards and let them know that this is not a good thing for the citizens of Winchester. This business will provide no benefits for our town, it will create no jobs, it's not something our town needs and will not help our tax base. In fact it will pollute the air we breath with known toxic VOC's and HAP's, create health issues for people subjected to these chemicals, increase heavy truck traffic on our roads with more diesel pollutants being produced and spent into the air of nearby neighborhoods. There is also the very real concern that these toxic pollutants could find their way into our town's water supply and contaminate wells along the Ashuelot River. Taking a realistic look at this, the only ones to reap any benefits from this proposed asphalt plant are it's owners. Our own Code Enforcement Officer said "no" to this proposal, our own ZBA Regulations say it isn't allowed and the GroudWater Protection Act lists asphalt plants as known potential contamination sources.