Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Town of Winchester, NH Budget Committee Meeting December 18, 2012

Members Present:  Kathy Hebert (Vice Chairman), Jacqui Beaman
(Chairman),Bill McGrath, Jack Marsh, Hubie Crowell, Ken Cole,
Harvey Sieran, BrianMoser, Elisha Jackson (School Board Rep.),
 Ken Gardner (Selectmen's Rep.)

Members Absent:  Sue LaPoint
Others Present:  Roberta Fraiser (Selectman)

-Jacqui makes a motion to approve the minutes from the
Dec. 11th meeting,
Bill seconds
-Motion carries 7-1 with 2 abstentions

-Jacqui makes a motion to approve the minutes of the Dec. 13th
meeting with the correction that it should be 4 full-time and 2 part
-time positions with the addition of a custodian in the building
maintenance section, Ken G. seconds
-Motion carries 6-1 with 3 abstentions

-16 Warrant Articles are discussed and voted on to recommend
or not recommend by the Budget Committee. The votes and
motions, along with the Warrant Articles, are attached.

-Discussion of 1st Warrant Article concerning third phase of up
grades to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 50% from the
Federal and State funds is for this year and cannot be guaranteed
for next year.

-Discussion of 2nd and 3rd Warrant Articles concerning Sewer
and Water Departments respectively. Questions arise as to what
happens if the Warrant Articles do not pass and they are not in the
 towns' operating budget. Questions as to whether, if the Budget
Committee does not recommend these Warrant Articles, does it
need to be put into the operating budget? Jack will look into this.

-Discussion of 4th Warrant Article concerning funding the
Transportation Enhancement sidewalk project. Concern over the
fact that money is added each year and seems like a never-ending
-Brian makes a motion to adjourn, Hubie seconds
-Motion fails 2-8

-Jacqui questions whether the board, as a majority, still wants the
lines involving the Red Cross, Big Brothers/Big Sisters and the
Brattleboro Drop-In, in the Health Agencies budget, to be zeroed out
as, if this is the case, Joan will need to send letters to these agencies
letting them know that it has been voted on not to help fund these

-Bill makes a motion to revisit the Warrant Article involving the
Water Department, Ken G. seconds
-Motion carries 7-3

  -Discussion regarding having it as a Warrant Article rather than
in the operating budget. Jack explains that having it as a Warrant Article,
it takes control away from the Budget Committee in determining their

  -Ken G. explains that it was always done as a Warrant Article in the
past  and had been put into the budget so that, if necessary, as the
budget is a  bottom line budget, monies can be moved aroundto help
fund if necessary, this is no longer needed. He also explains that their
budget doesn't affect taxes as it is funded by user fees so only those
who use it are paying for it.
  -A new vote is not called for; original vote stands

-Bill makes a motion to revisit Thayer Library, Ken C. seconds

-Motion carries 9-1

-Discussion regarding necessity of Library and looking forward in its
-A new vote is not called for; original vote stands

-Ken C. makes a motion to revisit Personnel Administration, Ken G.

-Motion carries 9-1

 -Ken C. questions the Land Use Administrator that was part-time and
was budgeted to be full-time for next year. He did some research and
saw that that position had become full-time this year. He questions
 how they were able to fit that extra cost in this year's budget and still
stay within the budget yet they are asking for more money to pay for
 that extra cost for next year.

  -Ken G. defers to Roberta who explains that there was a full-time
position that was budgeted for in the police department's budget that
they knew they weren't filling and, as the operating budget is a bottom
line budget, they used that money to fund the full-time position change.

-Ken C. Makes a motion to reduce the budget by $27,000
 (the additional costs of making this a full-time position)to $597,115,
Brian seconds
 -Motion fails 5-5

-Jacqui goes over the agenda for the next meeting
-Jack makes a motion to adjourn, Hubie seconds
-Motion carries 9-1

-Meeting adjourned at 9:30pm
Respectfully Submitted,

Rikki Bolewski, Secretary


more dubious dealings said...

Ever notice how anything and everything connected to Sharra is either done behind closed doors or usually results in a lawsuit? Why do these people we have put in charge keep rewarding her and giving her more money when time after time she has cost this town thousands in tax dollars?

Jackie resigned her position because of what transpired with Jetti and condoned by Roberts, her position remains open, the one that requires we pay t5he grant back if it isn't filled. So Sharra's new position is gonna cost us more money once again or we'll get nailed by the Feds for the grant money they gave the town to create the School Officer position. Way to go Roberta, make sure you take care of your friend and screw the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Robbing Paul to pay Peter reminds me of a quote by Gomer Pyle, Surpraas!~Surpraas! Surpraas! the selectmen have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

News Flash! The Winchester sheep Baa Baa Baa are being lead around by their noses, again! A trick right out of the John Stetser Hand Book. Taking money from the police dept federal grant money fund sounds like taking money from the Winchester Tannery Legal Fund budget to pave the town garage or robbing the Tanner Legal fund again to pay John Gomarlo for comp time. You people in this town are kill me, I am totally dumbfounded rolling on the floor with laughter, with your less than smart ( aka: stupidity). There the person goes again using that word again..... Stupid! Question; What do you want to do, hurt everyone in Winchester’s feeling? Doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different results, it is either insane of stupid!

This town with their low information voters, these voters must learn the hard way, elections have consequences. Right in your pocket.

Their goes the Winchester voters again spending themselves into a oblivion. Stupid is as Stupid does. There's that person again using the word again..... Stupid!

Anonymous said...

The position for Youth Officer is grant funded and required to be at the school at least 10 hours a week. This rarely happened and now there is no one hired. Wouldn't be surprised if it is reported to the state and the town will have back all the money. Are we surprised no one is applying. No!

Anonymous said...

Jackie was a good officer but the department hardly ever had her at the svhool. They should have to pay back the money because did not hold up their end of the bargain.

Ken Cole said...

The following are recent events that I feel will be of interest to readers of The Informer.

I had not looked at the minutes to the December 18th Budget Committee meeting until recently. The secretary has accurately described the action that I took relative to the funding of the Land Use Administrator.
At the meeting I didn't understand Ms Fraiser when she gave the BOS's reason for their action in creating the Land Use
Administrator position. In reading
the BC minutes it appears Ms. Fraiser is assuming the reduction in a police position will be permanent for at least a year. Our ability to reduce the number of police officers is restricted during the period of the federally
funded School Resource Officer Program and could result in having to pay back the grant money should we not maintain the force level. I'm unsure of the particulars.

It was quite an effort for me to learn how the Land Use Administrator
position was created as there was never any mention of it in the minutes of the BOS meetings. The June 13th minutes reference filling the position but no mention is made that it is a new full time position. The creation of the LUA and the job description appears to have been done during two closed (executive session) meetings, the minutes of which I have not reviewed. The secret nature of the process may have to do with whether the BOS wanted to
advertise for the new full time position. The part time position prior to June 13th was for the Land Use Assistant. It would seem that when a new position is created that a formal hiring procedure would be required along
with advertising, accepting applications and, of course, a job description.
I have read the job description and my understanding of it is that the
investigative work of zoning and health violations along with working to settle related disputes will now be done by the LUA. This would be in addition to the duties previously performed by the Land Use Assistant. I presume this to be an effort to clean up some of the unsightly properties in
town. I should point out that I have no doubt that the present LUA is fully capable of serving in this capacity and would provide a tempered remedy to land use violation disputes. My dispute is in the way it was done and whether the added yearly $27,000 expense is necessary.

Article 26 on the Town Warrant inserted by the Planning Board is of particular concern to me. This article removes the flood plain from the Table of Uses along with the restrictions for development within it at a time when it is apparent that floods and other severe weather events are becoming more frequent. This is another case in which substantial effort would be required to understand just what we are being asked to accept on the March Ballot. The proposed changes to the Ordinance relative to the flood plain are not evident even in a thorough reading of the material provided by the Planning Board. I will explain in more detail my opposition to Article 26 at a later date. As for the other articles inserted by the PB,
I'm sure they can wait another year. There was considerable time and money for legal advice spent on the changes to the Ordinance, an effort that some PB members felt was unnecessary, and even a make-work program. I tend to agree with them. I am therefore voting no on all articles inserted by the Planning Board

Ken Cole

ex route driver said...

Putting anything in a mailbox without postage is illegal and punishable by fine. Take one down to the local Post Office and show the Postmaster in charge and if it was an employee who did it they will most likely get canned. But remember, this is Winchester , don't expect much to happen.

PS: I used to deliver papers for the Sentinel and got reamed for putting papers in mailboxes on rainy days when folks didn't have a tube. Someone turned me in and I nearly lost my job over doing it.

did you expect legal? said...

You should know by now Ken, things are done differently in Winchester.

WOW said...

Let me get this straight, we took money from the PD to fund a full time position a year early. We may have to pay the feds back because we didn't follow the agreement, and then we go out and lease two cruisers when they were voted down.Thank you Ken, we need to know about how the selectmen hold the voters in such contempt.

Anonymous said...

The million dollar question now is after March when we possibly have 2selectmen step down to take other positions who do you think they will appoint till next March, and do you think this is why they kept asking the town admin to wait till the end of March to resign so we would not be able to vote for a
2562pnaisou3rd selectboard person this year?

Anonymous said...

February 27, 2013 at 10:24 AM
You are correct, I always wondered how the chief was getting away with this. She was never at the school and seemed like she was the only officer ever patrolling and doing any work.
For the chief i'm sure it was great having a officer the state was paying for doing all the work for him, but when this comes back and bites the taxpayers in the butt and we have to return the money he will be retired and soaking up the sun somewhere!
As far as the rumour about Sepe getting the Chiefs job you may not like it but It will be way better than if Roberts ends up as Chief.

Bob Davis said...

Joan Morel and Margaret Sharra have been continually scheming, especially cunning and underhandly attempts to get Margaret Sharra a full time position at the land use office, it is in the B. O. S. minutes November 2011. This full time position of Sharra was brought up at the budget committee meeting by member Bob Davis who warned the budget committee members of this scheming plan when Sharra and Gardner got real sarcastic about the fact and denied it while scolding Bob Davis budget committee member when questioned . It your going to blame someone blame Joan Morel your selectmen wanna-be. Bob was made to look stupid over the fact he trying to defend the tax payers rights and now you the tax payers owner Sharra! Good luck. Now who the stupid a$$.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we all need to choose wisely when we vote. Translated no more Teresa or JP. They cannot be trusted. You know we do have other officers that would make a good chief and I am not talking about Mr. Roberts.

It's time to use our brains and take a stand.

Anonymous said...

Ken Gardner is 100% wrong about the water and sewer. Check old town reports. They were always in the operating budget, but money cannot be legally moved between the primary operating budget, water budget and sewer budget. The water and sewer are enterprise funds with revenue coming from user fees. Never shall the funds be mixed!

I was on the budget committee many years ago with Ken G., and every year he wanted to raid the water fund to reduce taxation. Every year he was told that was completely illegal and could not be done. Slow learner, or arrogant scofflaw?

Like so many others in this town, because there is no penalty for town officers violating the laws (short of stealing from the till) they all disregard the law and do what THEY think is a "good idea."

Unless townspeople hold them accountable, they will do as they damn please.

whats the poop? said...

So how come Sharra is now up in the Selectman's office every day and on Shelly's computer instead of down in her office in the basement where she belongs? Don't tell me they have handed her the reigns to the town already?

Anonymous said...

I have a question. When a person at the deliberative session has been recognized and given the floor can that person filibuster that deliberative session to stop a vote?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't work in Winchester, The Moderator would shut you down, then Gardner would tell everyone that you're stupid and have no idea what you are talking about.Probably the Moderator would then remind everyone that when they see a town employee, don't forget to thank them for the great job they do.

Anonymous said...

I believe you can filibuster at any public forum. Once you get the floor I'll bet there is no rule you have to limit your time speaking. If your shut off you would have to be able to sue for your rights. Maybe having a real good lawyer to be there with you.

Anonymous said...

Be realistic, Stop a vote?. Sounds un-American to me. The moderator will give you reasonable time to speak then the vote will happen, The only thing that you will do is make the meeting longer and make some of your neighbors angry for wasting their time.
Spend your time getting more people to show up and participate although this is no guarantee that the vote will go your way.

Anonymous said...

Be realistic, Stop a vote?. Sounds un-American to me" blogger… you think what Rand Paul did on the Senate floor yesterday was un-American? Be real! He stopped a vote. Same thing different place, Dude. I think most neighbor would agree like a couple of years when Moderator Ken Harvey called to vote and it was clearly a no vote but called it affirmative. The only problem is can see is the neighbor that would get upset are the town cronies. I think if someone got up and started a Philibuster the whole deliberative then that would had to stop the meeting until the problem was resolved.

Anonymous said...

I am shocked at the lack of interest in people who rushed to run for the budget committee this year.. Last year there were about 7 or 8 Is it so disinterested now Bob Davis isn't running. Where is John P? The selectmen's stooge. It looks like Davis not running took all the excitement out that race. This year it's vote for 3 and only two are running. See Bob you should run next year to stir the good Winchester folks-up