WINCHESTER SCHOOL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 5, 2012

                       WINCHESTER SCHOOL BOARD MEETING


Board Members Present: J. Gile, T.Croteau, K. Whippie, C. Duquette, W. Hildreth
Administration Present: K. Dassau, P. Bigelow, C. Paulin, J. Lewis
The meeting was called to order by Chair, C. Duquette at 6:30 pm.

MINUTES:
W. Hildreth MOVED to approve the public minutes of the December 15, 2011 Board meeting; SECONDED by: K. Whippie adding on Page 2, second to the last paragraph, the words “was handled with” decorum…W. Hildreth advised she had asked about Kindergarten and Readiness classes; wants to split it up to make sure it works. She feels should move Readiness along to make it successful; VOTED: 5-0, MOTION PASSED.

After discussion, K. Whippie MOVED to amend the RSA in the 12/15/11 non-public minutes to RSA91-A:3 II(a) only; SECONDED by: T. Croteau, VOTED: 5-0, MOTION PASSED.

W. Hildreth MOVED to approve the non-public minutes of the December 15, 2011 Board meeting as amended; SECONDED by: K. Whippie, after discussion, VOTED: 5-0,
MOTION PASSED.

Warrant Articles:
The Board reviewed the Warrant Articles drafted by K. Dassau.
C. Duquette brought to the Board the possibility of eliminating the Budget Committee in the budget setting process for the school.
K. Dassau discussed the Budget Committee’s proposal of setting the budget at $8,000,000 with a 10% rule which will not allow more than an $800,000 increase and restricts the public from any further increase.

After discussion, C. Duquette MOVED to see if the Winchester School District will vote to rescind the adoption of RSA32:14 which will result in the elimination of the Budget Committee’s role in future School District business; SECONDED by: W. Hildreth, VOTED: 3-2, (T. Croteau, J. Gile – no), MOTION PASSED.
K. Dassau will send the proposed warrant to Matt Upton. When done, they will finalize it and the Board will vote on the warrant articles at the next meeting.
K. Dassau brought the RSA 32:16 that says the Budget Committee has 20 days to give the budget to the School Board or the School Board budget goes forward on its own.
Default Budget:
C. Paulin distributed budget forms for Board signatures.
K. Dassau advised the Default Budget is on line.
Final Reading of Policies BB, BEAB, DGD, GCO, GDS, IC, JEC:
W. Hildreth, MOVED to approve Policies BB, BEAB, DGD, GCO, GDS, IC, JEC; SECONDED by: J. Gile, after discussion, amended policy BEAB changing the word communications to communicate on page 6; VOTED: 5-0, MOTION PASSED.
FINANCIAL REPORT:

T. Croteau asked about last year’s deficit; who do we still owe?
K. Dassau explained there has been no one who has not been paid; they are using money from this year. It keeps rolling forward.
T. Croteau asked where do we stand as of today?
C. Paulin advised the numbers are accurate but in Oil, Keene tuition and Special Ed, don’t know what we might use. Also, there is transportation.
C. Paulin thinks all will balance out pretty well.
T. Croteau – Are the percentage of accounts where we should be?
C. Paulin – Yes, still some unknowns. Advised will be looking at each account so we will know, with some precision, where we will end up.
The Board asked questions on the budget, i.e., salaries and benefits.
K. Whippie feels a 51% encumbrance against the whole budget is pretty good.
W. Hildreth asked if there was a way to build a monthly chart showing students moving in and out, etc. so the Board can show it at the final stages of the budget.
Manifest:

W. Hildreth MOVED to approve the manifest in the amount of $2,087,474.33; SECONDED by: C. Duquette, VOTED: 5-0, MOTION PASSED.

PRINCIPAL’S REPORT:
The Board received J. Lewis’ report in their packets.
*NECAP scores will be coming out this month.
*Head Lice checks were postponed. Applewood will be doing them on the 11th.
*Received a check for almost $1,000 from box tops.
*Saturday detention. J. Lewis advised they did an analysis of high school kids; not a lot of kids
going. The highest number was five, the lowest was one. He feels it is something to consider.
The Board advised Saturday detention has been cancelled for next year.
After discussion, K. Whippie MOVED to eliminate Saturday detention and freeze spending in that line item of the budget effective 2/1/12; SECONDED by: W. Hildreth, VOTED: 5-0, MOTION PASSED.

SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT:
The Board received K. Dassau’s report in their packets.
*The Board and Budget Committee received a pie chart showing the different percentages of
budget increases.. K. Dassau will be working on the budget summary.
*Letter to Congressmen Bass is on the website.
*Superintendent Evaluation – K. Dassau will look for the form that both he and the Board can complete. He will do a self-evaluation and then a committee will be formed of two School Board members, one person from Administration and one teacher, by March 1st. The Board will evaluate it as a Superintendent/Director of Special Education dual position then they will meet in non-public to discuss. T. Croteau and J.Gile, the Board reps. will give forms to the other School Board members for their input.
J. Miller advised they will be putting on Kids First! Winchester Summit on January 28th; looking at transition pieces for Kindergarten-Readiness, Middle School to High school and High School to Life Skills; including panel discussions and work groups. There will be a flyer coming out and registration. It will be held from 8:30 to 12:00 with breakfast and lunch. They are planning for 30-100 people. J. Miller hopes the Board will participate. Information will be included in the next Board packet, on-line, in the school newsletter, newspapers, etc.
T. Croteau asked about the pie graph; is the number for Food Service accurate or is it low?
C. Paulin explained they will be looking at changes in meals and possibly holiday meals.

C. Duquette asked C. Paulin to give the low-down on the kitchen; what is being spent, etc.
T. Croteau thinks pizza every Friday is too much.
J. Lewis advised they are working on an alternative.

BOARD COMMITTEE/REP REPORTS:
T. Croteau hopes to attend the Delegate Assembly meeting next Saturday. He asked the Board what he will need to do.
C. Duquette advised he would represent the Winchester School Board and vote on their behalf.
K. Dassau knows attorneys with the NHSBA. Need to know that something on the IDEA will be done.

Community Relations:
There will be an open house at the Ashuelot Library from 6:00-8:00 pm.
CITIZENS’ COMMENTS:
None.
K. Dassau advised no RSA is required to discuss negotiations.

Negotiations:
C. Duquette and W. Hildreth presented the Support Staff Agreement. The Board approved the contract expenses up to $17,500.

K. Whippie MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 pm; SECONDED by: W. Hildreth,
VOTED: 5-0, MOTION PASSED.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Higgins
School Board Secretary

Budget battle resumes

By Christina Braccio Sentinel Staff 

WINCHESTER — Claiming the town’s budget committee isn’t fulfilling its duty, Winchester’s school board is taking an unusual step, saying it will submit a proposed budget for the coming school year.

Usually the budget committee is responsible for presenting a budget proposal to voters, but the school board says the committee’s $9.1 million budget cuts too severely and won’t meet the state legal requirement to adequately educate the town’s students. Board members also say the budget committee didn’t meet the deadline — today — for completing its budget review.
In its place, the school board proposes an $11.5 million budget. The current-year budget is $11,089,128.
“The budget committee never discussed the warrant articles, and they needed to have another public hearing to do so — but the deadline to submit a budget for the deliberative session is Jan. 30,” board Chairwoman Colleen Duquette said. “The chairman did schedule a meeting for Tuesday at 7 p.m. to revisit the school budget, but we believe it’s too late.”
However, Brian D. Moser, budget committee chairman, said the committee’s budget will be the one discussed at the Feb. 9 deliberative session.
“There may be some questions regarding the warrant articles, and they may not get a recommendation from the budget committee on those, but we still plan to post our budget,” Moser said. “The only way ours won’t go to the deliberative session is if the school board posts their budget first.”
Superintendent Kenneth R. Dassau said he and the board consulted with their attorney and are acting under state law, which says the school board should submit its budget if the budget committee fails to complete its review.
“They failed to follow the proper budget preparation procedures, so the school board’s budget will be the only one posted, and we will be deliberating on that budget,” Dassau said.
Last week, Dassau sent a letter to Brian Moser, stating the board plans to file suit against the committee for proposing a budget the board believes will provide an inadequate education to Winchester students.
“The committee wanted to make huge cuts to special education, which is illegal,” Dassau said.
The committee also proposed eliminating the business office, 14 teacher positions and seven special education teachers, Duquette said.
“The tax rate is very high, and I feel for residents — we’re taxpayers, too,” Duquette said. “The budget committee is under pressure to cut as much as possible, but in my opinion, I don’t think that they’re being realistic. This would just result in lawsuits and legal expenses that are not necessary.”
As of Sunday evening, Moser said he still has not received the letter, but he believes the budget committee is doing what is best for the town.
“I feel that the budget committee did their homework and came up with a reasonable proposal, but the school does not,” Moser said. “If a lawsuit is what they feel they have to do, then they’re going to do it.”
The school board plans to meet Thursday evening to officially decide whether to pursue legal action against the budget committee, according to Dassau.

Christina Braccio can be reached at 352-1234 extension 1436, or cbraccio@keenesentinel.com

Budget Committee Work Session Minutes 01/24/2012

Town of Winchester, NH

Budget Committee

January 24, 2012

Work Session

Members Present:  Bob Davis, Jack Marsh, Hubie Crowell (Vice Chairman), Ted Ryll, Harvey Sieran, Brian Moser (Chairman), Elisha Jackson, Ken Gardner (Selectmen Rep.), Rick Horton, Kathy Hebert, Kevan Whippie (School Board Rep.), Rikki Bolewski (Secretary)

Work Session called to order at 7:04pm

Brian explains the rules of the Work Session.

Rick makes a motion to approve the minutes from the January 17^th Work Session, Harvey seconds

Motion carries 10-0 with 1 abstention

- Rick makes a motion to change the School Budget to $10,500,000, Elisha seconds.

            -Brian explains that there cannot be a discussion about the School Budget as it isn’t on the posted agenda

            -Jack questions whether it would be possible to discuss old or new business after the conclusion of the Town business

-          Brian explains that the agenda specifically says no other business.

-          Jack makes a motion to schedule a meeting on Thursday, Rick seconds

-          Not everyone is available to meet Thursday.

-          Jack questions when is the last day that a meeting can be scheduled, Brian’s understanding is that the information has to be given to the Town Clerk no later than the last day of the month but he’s not sure whether that means by the end of the day on the 31^st or the beginning.

-          Jack withdraws his motion and changes it to having a meeting on Tuesday, January 31^st, Rick seconds.

-          There is question as to whether that is going to be in time to get the information to the Town Clerk

-          Brian will check into that and get back to the board as to when the Board will be able to meet again to go over the School Budget and Warrant Articles

Town Budget

Ken makes a motion to approve $3,189,994, (this number is taking out the Water and Sewer Budgets that have been put into Warrant Articles), Kathy seconds

-          Discussion regarding the budget

-          Jack questions what the grand total of the budget would be with the Warrant Articles included – it would be $3,750,562

-          Continued discussion regarding the Town budget and proposed cuts.

Motion fails 3-8

Rick makes a motion to approve $3,068,475, which takes sum of the original approved budgets, minus the Water and Sewer lines, anything the Board of Selectmen reduced, and putting the Regional Prosecutor back in, Ken seconds

-          Discussion regarding the Regional Prosecutor and whether or not the program has saved the town money.

-          Rick would entertain a Friendly Amendment to cut the Regional Prosecutor as well.

-          Brian makes a Friendly Amendment to reduce it another $42,000 by cutting out the Regional Prosecutor, Harvey seconds.

o   Rick accepts, Ken does not

Motion fails 5-6

Brian makes a motion to approve $2,946,475, which includes a $42,000 reduction of the Regional Prosecutor and $80,000 in Highway for tarring as they are already using $120,000 in Block Grant money for tarring and he thinks they don’t need more than that, Bob seconds.

-          Bob makes a Friendly Amendment to reduce another $40,000 to make it $2,906,475. There is discussion as to what kinds of cuts this entails

-          Kathy questions Ken how the cost of the Regional Prosecutor would relate to paying an officer overtime to spend the day prosecuting. Ken feels that this program does save the town money because they don’t have to pay an officer to spend the whole day in court

o   Continued discussion regarding Regional Prosecutor

-          Continued discussion as to what Bob is looking to cut as there is confusion as to what kinds of cuts he is looking to make

o   Bob’s amendment includes reductions of $27,520 in Land Use, $12,378 for the Animal Control Officer, zero out Public Works Coordinator of $1, and reduce Family Services Health Agency by $101, for a total of another $40,000

- Discussion regarding proposed cuts. Rick questions cutting the $80,000 for tarring, Brian responds that they have the $120 from the Block Grant that Dale had said he was going to use for tarring. It is discussed that the Block Grant could also be used for other things, such as salt and sand, and, ultimately, it’s up to the Selectmen on how that money is used, so even if the Highway Department states that they want to use the money on tarring, there may be other things that the Selectmen think that money could be better spent on, and therefore, if the $80,000 is removed, there would be no money for tarring.

Motion passes 6-4 with 1 abstention

Kathy thinks that the cuts made are irresponsible and that the Budget Committee in doing that has been irresponsible

It is stated that the amendment that Bob made was never voted on and needs to be in order to be approved

-          The amendment is called to a vote and carries 6-5

The motion of $2,906,475 is called to a vote and carries 6-4 with 1 abstention

With the Town Clerk in the building, clarification of when the last day for a meeting could be, there is still some question on that.

Rick makes a motion to approve $2,986,475 for the town budget, which goes back to Brian’s original motion minus $40,000 from the Highway Department for tarring instead of the $80,000 and puts back in the $40,000 from Bob’s amendment, Kevan seconds.

-          Rick goes over the cuts that this includes

-          Jack proposes an amendment to have it also include Bob’s $40,000 cuts to make it $2,946,475, Brian seconds

o   Motion on the amendment carries 10-1

Motion of a budget of $2,946,475 carries 9-2

Jack makes a motion for the Budget Committee to meet after the Deliberative Session and before voting to revote to recommend or not recommend any money Warrant Articles that may be changed at Deliberative Session as this was recommended that the Board does this by the LGC, Rick seconds

Discussion regarding this and when the Board would actually meet to do this.

Motion carries 11-0 and the Board will meet the Saturday, February 4^th, after Deliberative Session

Bob makes a motion to adjourn, Harvey seconds

Motion carries 11-0

Meeting adjourned at 8:05pm

N.H. gets a D- on teacher quality policies

By HOLLY RAMER / Associated Press

Posted: 01/25/2012 03:00:00 AM EST

Wednesday January 25, 2012 CONCORD, N.H. -- New Hampshire has made almost no progress in enacting policies that promote teacher quality in the last two years and continues to score poorly in a national report being released Wednesday.
The National Council on Teacher Quality is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that focuses on teacher policies at the federal, state and local level. Its report, called the State Policy Teacher Yearbook, grades states on their policies to ensure the quality of teachers entering the classroom, to retain the best and to get rid of the worst.
Many states saw a dramatic improvement in their grades this year compared to 2009, when the highest grade given was a C and Florida was the only state to receive it. New Hampshire’s overall grade of D-minus was unchanged, however. It received grades of D or D-minus in four categories -- the same grades it got in 2009 -- and in one category, improved from an F to a D.
In that area -- identifying effective teachers -- New Hampshire met the council’s goal of having a system capable of collecting evidence of teacher effectiveness. But unlike other states, it has no policy for including student achievement as a measure of teacher effectiveness and instead gives local school boards the power to set teach evaluation procedures.
In response to that and other criticisms, the state responded that it has a task force working on many of the recommendations cited by the report.
That task force is creating a framework for teacher evaluations that will include multiple measures of student achievement, the state said. New Hampshire ranked 26th compared to other states and met just three of the council’s 36 goals -- one related to its system to collect teacher and student data, one related to training for high school science teachers and one related alternate methods by which people can become teachers.
According to the report, some of the state’s other strengths include being on the right track in ensuring that elementary school teachers are prepared to begin teaching, giving school districts full authority for setting teachers’ salaries and prohibiting districts from enacting "last hired, first fired" layoff policies.
But the state was criticized on multiple fronts, such as not providing mentoring to all new teachers, significantly underfunding the pension system and failing to assure that teachers who receive poor evaluations will be eligible for firing if they fail to improve.

Mark Your Calenders, Support Your Neighbors !

Winchester has a fight on it's hands and you're all part of it. What you do or don't do will affect you and your neighbors for the next 12 months or more.  Your rights to have a say in how much taxes you will pay in the coming years and what services you may or may not get is your decision to make come next month.

The School Board has put a tremendous burden on many of us, especially our elderly and fixed income citizens and has acted unfairly in their attempt to bully our Budget Committee members with the threat of  a lawsuit to get what they want. Don't be fooled by this smoke and mirrors show, it isn't about our children, it's all about this new SAU and it's administration running amok.

If it's that not bad enough, our Board of Dimwits has added to the burden by submitting another dozen or so unnecessary spending warrants to take more money out of our pockets and put more homeowners in jeopardy of losing their homes and being out on the streets.

Enough is enough, it's time to rise up and rid ourselves of this plague of irresponsibility and indifference to the wants and needs of the citizens of Winchester and send these people a loud and clear message that we are not going to stand idly by and get steamrolled without a fight!

Join us and make your feelings known and help put an end to this madness.

Deliberative Sessions

 

For the Town will be

February 4th, 2012 at 9:00 A.M.

in the Town Hall,

For the School  will be

February 9, 2012 at 7:00 P.M.

in the Winchester School Gym

Winchester school board to sue panel

By Christina Braccio Sentinel Staff


WINCHESTER — After a turbulent start to budget season, Winchester’s school board and budget committee may land in court.
The board plans to sue the committee, saying the panel cut the budget to an inoperable amount, according to a letter from Superintendent Kenneth R. Dassau to committee Chairman Brian D. Moser.

However, the budget committee believes cutting the budget, and therefore cutting taxes, is what’s best for Winchester residents, Moser said.
The committee adopted a budget of $9,197,777 for the 2012-13 year — which is 20 percent lower than the school board’s recommended budget of $11,510,850.
Dassau said the loss of $2.3 million from the budget plan would leave the district unable to function. The committee proposed eliminating the district’s business office and business software, which would cause serious payroll and financial troubles, Dassau said. It also wants to cut 14 teaching positions at Winchester School.
The committee also proposed cutting nearly $1 million in funding for special education programs required by law, Dassau said.
“I spoke with our attorney, and cutting that is illegal,” he said. “They don’t have the authority to do that. They are violating state and federal laws, and opening up the district to lawsuits from parents with children who need those services.”
The budget plan now heads to voters, where during next month’s deliberative session, they can discuss and amend the committee’s budget proposal. According to law, residents can add only up to 10 percent to a budget committee’s recommendation. Even if that happened, the budget would still be 10 percent lower than the board’s recommendation, which would leave the district scrambling to provide services to students, Dassau said.
He said the board decided to file suit in the hopes that the budget will be increased to its recommendation.
Dassau said the school board has placed a warrant article on the March ballot to eliminate the budget committee. “This has to stop,” he said.
However, Moser said the budget committee is doing the best it can for Winchester residents.
“Cuts in the school will be hard on the kids, but if parents can’t pay their taxes, that will be just as hard on the kids,” Moser said.
The budget committee researched the district’s finances and consulted outside authorities, partly because of a lack of trust in the school board and mostly so the committee could make an informed recommendation, Moser said.
Moser said earlier this month that the budget committee was frustrated by a lack of information from the school board, and that because of this missing information did not set a budget figure in time for the public hearing.
As of this morning, Moser had yet to see Dassau’s letter stating the board will file suit.
“What they do, I have no control over,” he said. “But they are not happy. That much is clear.”

Superintendent Dassau Threatens Budget Committee

Superintendent Ken Dassau has sent a letter to the Budget Committee condemning their cuts to the School Budget and threatening legal action. He's upset that the Budget Committee has diligently done it's job of working for the taxpayers that elected them to office, cutting 2.3 million dollars from the School's bloated top heavy budget. It is evident by their report that working with an expert in the field, they went line item by line item and cut where they felt would least likely hurt the education of our students. Reading over Superintendent Dassau's  response to the committee's hard work, we find that he isn't being very truthful in his statements and encourage people to look at the numbers and decide for themselves . While doing so remember the report on education in the Keene Sentinel that reported our middle school teachers are a non-performing asset.  Test scores at Keene indicate that they are not adequately  doing their jobs  in  grades 6-8. 
Mr. Dassau also brings up the matter of the 10% rule and accuses the Budget Committee of deliberately using the rule to cut the School budget by 20%, he's wrong, they did no such thing. 

 We should be asking him just how much "extra" the School Board has been adding to their budget each year, 10%, 20% more? Why they don't return ALL of the surplus budget money to the town every year ?  Why they overspent their budget last year,  using the excuse, "it was unforeseeable", c'mon the Business manager should have known the cash position and encumbered the money!  These are after all intelligent people ... or are they?

 In our opinion, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

We question whether they will they do it again this year?   State law says it is illegal to put this overage in the budget to make up for the shortfall; exactly what they are trying to do.


Below is the Budget Committee's proposal:

and the Admin's response letter:

Should the Planning Board get sued ( again ) if it approves Pasquarelli's Club.

Once again the Planning Board has put itself in a position to return to court for violations, not only of it's own regulations and rules of procedure ( by the way, they have removed these from their by-laws though they are required by law to have them ); but State Statutes also. It is quite evident that several members of this board, including the chairman and land use assistant, haven't a clue as to what is and isn't allowed under the law and how to proceed in issues like this. The simple fact the majority have voted to accept Mr. Pasquarelli's application as complete is unlawful and once again shows just how dysfunctional this board has become under the direction of Margaret Sharra.
The following information was provided to the board at the last hearing and was ignored and the hearings will continue on this matter despite the facts. Even his attorney Silas Little didn't raise any objections to the following, knowing full well that this application for a private club is a farce, but he is after all getting paid to be there by someone.

Read the minutes drafted by Margaret Sharra, then read over these highlights of the State Statutes.

TITLE XIII
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
CHAPTER 175
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 175:1

    175:1 Definitions. – In this title:

XXI. "Club-social'' means a group of individuals, incorporated under the laws of this state and may be affiliated with any national fraternal organization approved by the commission, either of which shall have been in existence for at least one year before the club's application for license. The premises occupied by the club, whether owned or leased shall not have been operated for pecuniary gain for that one-year period. The club shall be for the use of members and their guests and the property and fixtures of the club shall belong to the members. The members shall have the right to vote in club affairs and run for office.


XXIII. "Cocktail lounge'' means a room operated for the purpose of serving liquor and beverages without the benefit of food. A cocktail lounge shall be equipped with a bar area for the display of stock and the preparation and refrigeration of product.

XLVII. "Live entertainment'' means at least one person employed with or without compensation to entertain guests or patrons on the premises of a licensed establishment and shall include, but not be limited to, musicians, disc jockeys, theater companies and other related performers. Mechanical music, automated recordings of any type, videos or films by themselves shall not be considered live entertainment. Audience participants shall not be considered live entertainment.

LIV-a. "Private club'' means an organization incorporated under the laws of this state, whose members are equal shareholders, whose assets belong to the members equally, and whose members have an equal vote in club affairs and a right to run for club offices. The licensed area of a private club shall be operated solely for the use of members and their accompanied guests, and shall be open for inspection by investigators of the commission and local law enforcement officials whenever operating.


178:22 On-Premises Cocktail Lounge Licenses. –

(2) 3A. (A) "Private group'' means an assembly of persons gathered for a designated social or business occasion, present by invitation or reservation and shall in no way be construed to mean the general public.

    (h) Veterans' Clubs, Private Clubs, and Social Clubs.

          (1) The commission may issue cocktail lounge licenses to private clubs. Each licensee shall make a sworn report to the commission for each month on or before the fifteenth of the following month, in such form as the commission may require, showing the income from liquor and beverages sold and the expenses properly chargeable to the business for the month.

(4) Clubs may allow private groups to bring in or sell their own liquor and beverages in approved rental facilities provided there is a complete separation between the club area and the rental area.

(7) No licensee corporation shall permit a person, either elected or appointed, to hold multiple corporate offices or permit an officer to hold the position of director.

(9) All clubs shall annually provide written documentation to the commission which shall include:
(B) Minutes of all membership meetings, meetings held by officers and directors, and any special meetings;
(C) Copies of all contracts entered into between the licensee corporation and any director, officer, or manager of the licensee corporation, as well as any provider of services to the club.

(10) For the purposes of subparagraph (h):
             (A) "Minutes'' means detailed written memoranda of a transaction, proceedings, or club operations.
(11) No director, officer, or employee of a licensee corporation shall engage in any undertaking that shall place the personal interests of a person ahead of the interests of the membership of the club.

The commission may issue a cocktail lounge license to any nonprofit performing arts facility which seats more than 50 persons. The commission shall determine by rule whether a facility is a nonprofit performing arts facility.

TITLE XXXI
TRADE AND COMMERCE
CHAPTER 354-A
STATE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 354-A:2
    354-A:2 Definitions. – In this chapter:

VI. "Employee'' does not include any individual employed by a parent, spouse or child, or any individual in the domestic service of any person.
VII. "Employer'' does not include any employer with fewer than 6 persons in its employ, an exclusively social club if such club, is not organized for private profit, as evidenced by declarations filed with the Internal Revenue Service or for those not recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, those organizations recognized by the New Hampshire secretary of state.
XIV. "Public accommodation'' shall not include any institution or club which is in its nature distinctly private.

Some of the Petition warrant Articles submitted for the ballot

Petition Warrant Articles for 2012 Ballot:

Petition Warrant Article __:  To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of $2,000.00 (two thousand dollars) to support the operation of the Boat Ramp at ForestLake.

·         Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 4-1

Is this a joke?  What's to support that requires $2000 a year? A very small dirt parking lot and a gravel ramp to a channel off the pond that's used by 1/2 dozen fisherman.

·          

Petition Warrant Article __:  To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) to be given to the Winchester Historical Society for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Sheridan House so that this museum may continue to preserve the history of Winchester for the benefit of the public.

·         Not recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3-2

What's wrong with this bunch that they vote against preserving history but don't care about spending thousands on things this town can do without?

·          

Petition Warrant Article __:  To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for the purpose of subsidizing youth recreation in the Town of Winchester to be paid to the E.L.M. Memorial Community Center on a contractual basis.

·         Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3-1, 1 abstention

·          

Why are we taxpayers asked to continue shelling out funds for the ELMM Center that has it's own trust fund set up to cover all expenses? Just where does all of this money go? Is it to cover the salaries of board members and staff and not for programs for the kids as we are led to believe year after year?

Petition Warrant Article __:  Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 40:14-b to delegate the determination of the default budget to the municipal budget committee which has been adopted under RSA 32:14?

·         Requires a 3/5 majority vote

·         Not recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-1

Of course they don't want this, it would stop them from continuing to add to the budget at their whim and fancy whenever they don't like what the budget committee recommends.·          

Petition Warrant Article __:  Shall the Town adopt, in accordance with RSA 31:39-a, a Town of Winchester Conflict of Interest Ordinance as follows?

TOWN OF WINCHESTER CONFLICT OF INTEREST ORDINANCE

1. Town employees and Town officials must avoid conflicts of interest. Town employees and Town officials shall not participate in deciding any matter in which they, or their spouses or any immediate family member, have a private interest, financial or otherwise, which may directly or indirectly affect or influence the impartiality of the performance of their duties, and are required to publicly disclose conflicts of interest of which they know or should know.
2. In addition to statutory incompatibility of offices as defined in RSA 669:7 and 669:8the following combinations of employment and/or appointed and/or elected positions may not be held by a single person at the same time:

a.       Any employment position in excess of 24 hours per week and any elected or appointed office.

b.      Selectman and chairman of the Planning Board.

c.       Chairman of the Board of Selectmen and Chairman of the Solid Waste District Advisory Committee.

d.      Chairman of the Board of Selectmen and Chairman of any other Board or Commission.

3. Failure to abide by the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute grounds for removal from office upon petition by any person to the Cheshire County Superior Court.

As required by RSA 31:39-a this ordinance exempts affected officers and employees who are in office or employed at the time the ordinance is adopted for a period not to exceed one year from the date of adoption.

·         Not recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0

This would prevent them from constantly filling these boards and committees with their cronies to control the outcomes of meetings. Take away their power to appoint the same people over and over again and we may finally get fair, legal common sense decisions and rulings that will keep the town out of court and stop the destruction of our town.

Petition Warrant Article __:  In accordance with RSA 231:62 “are you in favor of electing a Highway Superintendent for a three year term”. Any person running for this office must pass a back ground investigation and shall be paid 40 hours straight and 5 hours of over time each week.

·         Not recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0

·  Now ask yourself why the BOS would be against hiring a qualified person to do this job for a term limit of just 3 years and why they wouldn't require background checks for town employees in charge of thousands of dollars of budget monies?       

Petition Warrant Article __:  Shall use of the town ambulance(s), ambulance supplies and on-duty ambulance personnel be limited to emergency response and/or transport from Winchester to a medical or other healthcare facility, except in cases of mutual aid service.

·         Not recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0

·          

Petition Warrant Article __:  To see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $130,000 (one hundred thirty thousand dollars) for the purpose of acquiring Map 5 Lot 103-1, 99 Hawkins Rd., single family home on 3.3 acres. The Town of Winchester’s water storage is in a critical state. The current water storage tank was built in 1947. The priority is high for the Town of Winchester to erect a new water storage tank. The Winchester Conservation Commission has purchased 28 acres – Map 5 Lot 103, with elevation appropriate to erect a water storage tank on Meetinghouse Hill abutting the subject property – Map 5 Lot 103-1. By acquiring the Map 5 Lot 103-1 property, the Town of Winchester will facilitate their access to a new water storage tank on the Conservation Commission’s land on Meetinghouse Hill. Additionally, acquiring this property would allow the town to discontinue Hawkins Rd. as a town road, relieving the town of the burden of plowing and maintenance. Hawkins Rd. is a steep and windy road accessing just one house.

·         Not recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0

·         

Budget Committee Public Hearing Minutes 1-12-12

 

click your mouse on the pages to enlarge the print                  

Budget Committee Meeting Minutes January 3, 2012

 

click your mouse on the page you wish to read to enlarge the print