Friday, February 24, 2012

Why the Selectmen and School Board Want To Abolish the Budget Committee

AN ACT relative to amending warrant articles in towns that have adopted the official ballot referendum form of meeting.
SPONSORS: Rep. Pratt, Hills 7; Rep. Hikel, Hills 7
COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government
This bill prohibits an official ballot referendum town from amending at the deliberative session any warrant representing the operating budget if such town has established a municipal budget committee.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT relative to amending warrant articles in towns that have adopted the official ballot referendum form of meeting.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Budget Preparation. Amend RSA 32:5, V(b) to read as follows:
(b) If the article is amended at the first session of the meeting in an official ballot referendum municipality that has not established a municipal budget committee, the governing body [and the budget committee, if one exists,] may revise its recommendation on the amended version of the special warrant article and the revised recommendation shall appear on the ballot for the second session of the meeting provided, however, that the 10 percent limitation on expenditures provided for in RSA 32:18 shall be calculated based upon the initial recommendations of the budget committee;
2 Limitation of Appropriations. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 32:18 to read as follows:
32:18 Limitation of Appropriations. In an official ballot referendum municipality electing this subdivision, the recommendation of the budget committee made for the first session of the meeting shall be the amount appropriated. In any other municipality electing this subdivision, or any district wholly within a town electing this subdivision, the total amount appropriated at any annual meeting shall not exceed by more than 10 percent the total amount recommended by the budget committee for such meeting. [In official ballot referendum municipalities, the recommendation of the budget committee made for the first session of the meeting shall be used for determining the 10 percent limitation.] These totals shall include appropriations contained in special warrant articles. Money may be raised and appropriated for purposes included in the budget or in the warrant and not recommended by the budget committee, but not to an amount which would increase the total appropriations by more than the 10 percent allowed under this paragraph. The 10 percent increase allowable under this paragraph shall be computed on the total amount recommended by the budget committee less that part of any appropriation item which constitutes fixed charges. Fixed charges shall include appropriations for:
3 New Subparagraph; Use of the Official Ballot; Amendment of Warrant Articles. Amend RSA 40:13, IV by inserting after subparagraph (b) the following new subparagraph:
(c) In towns that have established a budget committee under RSA 32, no warrant article representing the operating budget of the town, a school district within the town, or a village district within the town, shall be amended.
4 Legislative Body Override of Limitation of Appropriations. Amend RSA 32:18-a, I to read as follows:
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any municipality electing this subdivision[,] or any district wholly within a town electing this subdivision, except an official ballot referendum municipality, if a bond request is not recommended in its entirety by the budget committee, the governing body of such municipality, after a majority vote by the governing body of the municipality in favor of the bond request at a duly posted meeting, shall place the bond request on the warrant.
5 At Special Meetings. Amend RSA 32:20 to read as follows:
32:20 At Special Meetings. So long as the provisions of this subdivision remain in force in any municipality, no appropriation shall be made at any special meeting for any purpose not approved by the budget committee, unless it is within the allowable 10 percent increase [if] of RSA 32:18 [has been adopted], except as provided in RSA 32:19 or 32:18-a.
6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.


Old Timer said...

I can remember when people looked up to the Selectmen and the School Board.

Anonymous said...

Did I miss something or the new rules passed didn't adddress warrant article submitted by petition. Just budget committee warrants

Anonymous said...

You're not even on the right page.

Anonymous said...

This is the right page to answer your questions.

tired of fools who don't read said...

And you are missing the point, that has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion either. Are people in this town so confused that they can not read and comprehend what the material is? This is about the reasons the BOS and School board members want to abolish the Budget committee, not about changing the wording of warrants submitted by petition.It's obvious they want complete control of the process and not have to answer to anyone,especially the taxpayers of Winchester. They want to be able to put up any figures they want and not have to explain to anyone or have anyone question what they are doing. We more than ever need to have a Budget committee willing to stand up for all of us and keep them inline. Wise up, read the damn subject before you rush to comment.

can't you read? said...

This is exactly why this town is the way it is , you people can't read, can't understand what you read and so quick to jump in with useless information not even related to what is being discussed. No wonder we still have the same crooked people in office and that they get away with the same crap every year. This is another reason we need to overhaul the school system here so this doesn't keep happening generation after generation. Too many folks have no clue.

Anonymous said...

Tired of fools & can't you read:
Anonymous at 4:58pm asked about petitioned warrant articles, I provided a link to help them at 6:19pm You decided to accuse me of being unable to read and of being confused at 6:36pm You then used info contained in the link I gave to post on the previous blog post at 6:45pm Maybe you should get down off your high horse and stop alienating people who might agree with you or are you confused because I am not a gadsden flag waving member of the FSP. Oops now this comment won't get posted.

more important fish to fry said...

You contributed to the erroneous comments regarding RSAs when in fact the topic of this blog was about HB 1376 and the fact that the BOS and SB are attempting to remove the last bastion standing in their way to ultimate power. Why can't people stay on subject so we can have meaningful discussions without getting sidetracked? I'm beginning to believe that this is a tactic dreamed up by those who will stoop to anything to discredit this blog and that all these sidetracking comments are the work of the very people this blog exposes for their questionable conduct. Stay on topic please and Informer, please start deleting comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand so that we may discuss things in an earnest manner.

thank you

the Winchester Informer said...

Keep in mind that all of you quoting from the NHLGC in regards to Petitioned Warrant Articles, that some, if not most, of the information on that site is not up to date;

New Hampshire Town and City
Article Index
Petitioned Warrant Articles

New Hampshire Town and City, February 2004

Anonymous said...

Excuse me informer I have a thought. When I read this blog it prompts several questions and since the main topic of the blog is the Town of Winchester I am concerned with the poster who wants to always stay on topic. I thought that the more information that was shared would be beneficial and create informed citizens and voters.

the Winchester Informer said...

By asking posters to stay on topic doesn't mean that you can not provide information outside of the Town of Winchester, it just implies that you stay on the topic being discussed.
Posting comments about the Police Dept, Planning Board or some other personal comment in a thread about the Board of Selectmen or the School Board is doing nothing more than distracting from the original intent of the subject opened for discussion.
Does this clear up things for you?

Anonymous said...

To make it simpler for those of you who do this constantly if the topic is apples, don't post about oranges, got it?

CAN SEE the forest through the trees said...

All these out of context comments are nothing more than an attempt by certain people affiliated with your town government to turn the discussion into an argument about who's posting what and not one on the matter at hand. Ignore them or to the people who run this blog, don't post them and then you can have a open and honest format for discussion.

Anonymous said...

There is no free discussion on this blog. If they dont like what you post they just dont post it. If you think this is a blog for open dialogue with ability to challenge what is being said by others, you are sadly mistaken. I bet Informer wont post this. Come on Informer, let the opponents of your position and let the honest conversation start. Or not... do you have the guts Informer?

the Winchester Informer said...

Every comment that is permissible gets published on this blog, period. The one's that don't get published are either blocked by our spam/word filter, contain questionable language or are so ridiculous that they do not warrant being published. If you don't like the way we do things on this blog and feel you have been snubbed, grab yourself a bus ticket and go whine someplace else. Quite frankly we are getting sick and tired of your tired old song .. " bet this won't get published ", well you're wrong again. We're allowing you to make an idiot of yourself once again. Where's your guts anonymous, seems you are quick to run your mouth; but too ashamed and/or to much of a coward to put your name to your comments.
Last word to you;
We have no position, no agenda other than the desire to report the truth with supporting facts and inform people in town who can't get to meetings, can't get down to Town Hall to pay for a censored and disingenuous copy of meeting minutes and to set the record straight on information that is highly suspect coming from our elected and appointed town officials. If you're so upset at how we do things here and what we put up for comment, then start your own blog, post your own subjects and put up with malcontents like yourself everyday.