An Open Letter to Triple T / N&M Properties,

Date: May 30, 2009

RE: Response to Triple T / N&M Properties Route 119 Composting Proposal

An Open Letter to Triple T / N&M Properties,

Thank you for clarifying your true intentions on turning the Rt. 119 Property into a Compost Facility and not an Industrial Park. The Voters suspected as much. Please remember the Voters of Winchester overwhelmingly said no to you the first time.

I carefully read the responses from Triple T in the local papers and the Winchester Informer Website to those who oppose the Compost Facility. Thank you for letting us know you will be campaigning for a Zoning change. I can only speak for myself but I believe you will find my feelings below are indicative of most Winchester and Ashuelot residents.

You may go on a campaign to educate us – but we are quite capable of educating ourselves and have many qualified sources of information. We have used them and will use them.

You cannot address the amount or kind of truck traffic and it would be unfair of you to imply you can or know how little impact it would have. You are businessmen and I suspect you would want the facility to earn top dollar and work at maximum capacity. That means one of 2 options – more trucks or larger trucks and over time possibly a larger facility using the other acreage that would again increase the truck traffic. Meanwhile – you live elsewhere.

You cannot change the fact that should this kind of truck traffic be generated it will become a daily part of the tapestry of our town life.

You cannot address the impact on our community, in property value decline or on the desirability of the community as a place to live, and why should you care once the Compost Facility is making you money?

You cannot address the fact that if we grant an exemption for you – others would want the same consideration.

You cannot address the fact that a Compost Facility will generate very little Tax Income or Employment Opportunity for the Town of Winchester. You are in fact the ones who would benefit from this – not us.

If you want to use the property and have the Voters support then I suggest you might try the following:

* Use the property in accordance for what it is zoned for.
* Bring a business that makes a substantial financial contribution to the community.
* Bring a business that brings beauty to our community.
* Bring a business that brings employment opportunity to our community.



I am sorry for you in this respect – that better due diligence was not done by you before purchasing the property for the purpose of a Compost Facility. However, that is not the problem or fault of the Voters in Winchester.

You should know before you invest any more money in the goal of a Compost Facility that you have succeeded in galvanizing this community against such a facility. Voters from every political persuasion are coming together to re-affirm their opposition and go on campaign of their own. Right Wingers, Left Wingers and all those in between. Based on that, I somehow think you would be better served pursuing another option. We voted, we will vote and we will take note of Elected Officials who may be tempted to try and circumvent our will.

Before proceeding any further you need to ask yourself this question, if I may borrow from JFK, “Ask not what Winchester can do for you – Ask what you can do for Winchester.” Then we both have a place to begin. I wish you the best in that.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this Resident Tax Payer,

William A. Phillips - Ashuelot, New Hampshire - wajphil2@myfairpoint.net

Letter to the Editor of the Brattleboro Reformer

We received the following request to republish this letter to the editor of the Reformer.

Hello- If you would please post Norman's letter to the Brattleboro Reformer on your web site. Thank you- Peter Gaskill

Editor of the Reformer:

I would like to take a moment and clear up some information presented in a letter in Tuesdays May 26 Reformer in regards to my proposed compost and solid waste transfer station in Winchester.

While it is true we need a zoning change for this project the property is zoned Agricultural and Industrial. These classifications in Winchester zoning allow such uses as: Institutional residents, Retail Business/ Consumer services, Office, Open air retail Industry, and sand and gravel pits.

The project is proposed on a 25 acres site that is within a 106 acre tract. The proposed operation is separated from the highway and neighboring properties by a wooded buffer area. The access is on route 119, outside the Village of Ashuelot and where the State has upgraded the highway for heavier traffic a little more then a half mile from the Ashuelot Covered Bridge. Presently I operate a solid waste transfer station less then a mile from downtown Brattleboro. This transfer station has operated over 14 years without a complaint.

The location of this property is what has drawn us to it. It is a short distance to the intersections of routes 119, 10 and 78. All routes that would be utilized not just route 119. The truck sizes are not all tractor trailers, but many smaller single and double axle straight trucks.

What I am proposing is a business model looking towards the future. Yes, green is the buzzword, but the economics and the science make it work. I encourage anybody who is interested to contact my office by phone (802)254-5388 or e-mail peter@tripletrubbishremoval.com . I am more then glad to meet with concerned/ interested people to address concerns and mis-conceptions.

I am a Vermont resident it is true. I care about Aushoulot more then you may believe. My wife Mary was raised in a little house in Aushoulot Village, and on the wall in my home is a painting of the Ashuelot covered bridge.

Norman Mallory
N&M Winchester Properties
Brattleboro, VT

June 1st Winchester Planning Board Meeting - Please Come

Dear Fellow Winchester Citizen,

This Monday – June 1^st there will be a Public Meeting with the Planning Board as regards a proposed Industrial Park on Route 119 between Ashuelot and Winchester.

This is the same property and owner that wanted to put a compost facility in the location in question. The town voted on allowing that this past March and defeated it.

At this past Planning Board Meeting the Board was told by Stevens and Associates, who represent the property owner, that they would revisit the Compost Facility Proposal at a later date but for now are trying to establish approvals for an Industrial Park.

I would like to ask anyone getting this email to read the attached letter and be present at the Planning Board Meeting on Monday June 1^st at the Winchester Town Hall. It will start at 7pm.

Because this will impact the quality of life we have in Winchester I think it is in the best interest of us all if we hear for ourselves what is being proposed and the various viewpoints around it.

I personally am against such a proposal.

Thanks very much. Please pass this on to anyone you know in Winchester.

Strength, honor and blessing,

Bill Phillips – Ashuelot, New Hampshire

Winchester Industrial park proposal mulled

Board begins review of plan

By Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff

Published: Tuesday, May 19, 2009

WINCHESTER — After failing to get voter approval for a compost facility, a Brattleboro company says it’s pursuing an industrial park on Route 119 — but residents remain skeptical and ready to oppose the project.

Nearly three dozen residents attended a meeting Monday night to hear the Winchester Planning Board accept an application from N & M Winchester Properties for a business park across from Ashuelot Road.

Following the meeting, residents said they’ll be back, ready to oppose the plans at a public hearing June 1.

Plans call for a road and five building sites on 3 acres of the 106-acre parcel, but the applicants made it no secret they’d like to put a composting facility there instead.

The property owners — who also own Triple T Trucking, a Brattleboro trash hauling company — approached selectmen last year about building the composting facility, but the town’s regulations do not allow it.

Selectmen put two versions of zoning amendments on the ballot in March to allow composting. Voters rejected both.

Robert Stevens, president of the Brattleboro design firm that drew up the plans, indicated the company would lobby for the changes again next spring.

“Our client’s first intent for the site was composting, but that would take a change in the ordinance,” Stevens said. “It’s up to the voters to decide.”

Several residents talked outside town hall following the meeting and said the voters had already spoken.

“No means no,” said resident Paul Kovacs. “I think the voters decided clearly in March.”

The proposed zoning changes were the subject of much debate at the official-ballot first session and in letters to the editor leading up to the vote.

One would have allowed compost facilities by special exception in the agricultural and commercial districts after two reviews. It was voted down 524-300.

The other would have established a looser regulation, allowing the facilities without a special exception, only in the agricultural or highway commercial districts. It was rejected 679-135.

Though the official application presented Monday is for a road and building sites for an industrial park, it has been met with skepticism by town residents.

“They are persistent with putting their dump in Winchester,” Sharron Laurie of Ashuelot wrote in a recent letter to the editor. “This time they are coming in under the guise of a ‘commercial/industrial park.’ ”

Following Monday’s meeting, residents agreed, calling the plans fishy and saying the application looks like a ruse for the company to continue pursuing a compost facility.

“They’re going to put the road in there, and then they’ll say, ‘see, the only thing that fits is a compost site,’ ” Kovacs said.

On Monday, the planning board determined the project could have regional impact because of light and noise pollution or traffic once the buildings are up and tenants move in. An earlier report posted online at sentinelsource.com incorrectly stated the project was approved.

The town will notify the towns of Hinsdale and Northfield, Mass., and the Southwestern Regional Planning Commission.

The commission will review the plans with the board to en sure they comply with town ordinances.

The board also voted to hire an independent engineer to review the plans, at the applicant’s expense.

Peter Gaskil, general manager of Triple T Trucking, said this morning the composting site is still Plan A, but “if we can’t make one thing occur, then another thing will.”

He did not know what types of businesses would be pursued as tenants for the park, but said they would be “businesses that meet the zoning ordinances of the town.”

u The Winchester Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the plans June 1 at 7 p.m. at the Winchester Town Hall.

Sarah Palermo can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or spalermo@keenesentinel.com

An Open Letter to the Selectmen and Zoning Board of Winchester, NH,

Earlier this year a proposal was voted on by the Town of Winchester regarding the establishing of a Recycling / Compost Facility on Route 119 by N&M Properties of Brattleboro, VT. This proposal was voted down by a resounding margin as we all know. It is my understanding that inspite of the margin of defeat and the legitimate concerns of the people of Winchester a new attempt is being made to proceed with a similar plan under a different name. The same people who voted no the first time are very aware of what is happening and we have not changed our minds.

I was at the Planning Board Meeting on May 18, 2009 where one of the Stevens & Associates made clear that it is the intention of their client to revisit the Composting option for the Rt 119 property. I want you to know I am not in favor of changing ANY Zoning Regulations to accommodate this facility. Please let me explain my personal reasons for not wanting to allow this project. Many of my neighbors share these reasons.

I moved to Ashuelot because of its quiet and relatively remote location. I have invested many hours and dollars in restoring a lovely New England home on Rt 119.

The proposal to build a Recycle/Compost Facility, now being called an “Industrial Park” would ruin the tranquility we now enjoy with the addition of approximately 25 tractor trailers coming in and out of the facility each day. Those trucks along with trucks servicing a proposed Gravel Pit would destroy the small town feel and pristine environment we so much treasure here.

Should this project or any project of a similar nature be allowed to become a part of the tapestry of our town life it would only serve to set in stone our town status as a thoroughfare to be avoided. No one wants to live next to or near such a facility with the type of truck traffic it would generate. Regardless of what those proposing such a facility may say – I believe it will negatively impact all our property values.

I believe that beauty brings dignity to a community and I have sought to the best of my ability to bring beauty to my neighborhood and make people feel good about where they live. What possible beauty or advantage would this type of a facility would add to our town? I see only an estimated 25 trucks a day going in and out and future possible home buyers staying away due to the traffic, dirt and noise. Imagine having your home passed by tractor trailers 50 times a day, every day. That is exactly what our residents will face and there will be no turning back. We should all be against this.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this Resident Tax Payer,

William A. Phillips - Ashuelot, New Hampshire

Triple T Trucking = “N&M Properties of Vermont”

What? Do they think we’re stupid?

Triple T Trucking is at it again. They are persistent with putting their dump in Winchester. The first time they came to town with their dump proposal it was called a “Resource Recovery Park”. Nice green name that makes you want to go have a picnic there. This time they are coming in under the guise of a “Commercial / Industrial Park”. Admittedly we don’t want to have a picnic there, but hey it just might bring in some business that would help out with the taxes and create some jobs. Wrong!

The only businesses that “N&M Properties of Vermont” is planning on marketing to are a recycling center and composting facility, along with a sand & gravel pit to boot, all owned by Triple T Trucking. Guess what? N&M Properties of Vermont is owned by the same two guys. Aw shucks, the new selectman fell for that one…we set him straight.

To all 679 of my neighbors that voted March 3^rd not to allow this proposal and to all the other neighbors that couldn’t make it, please mark your calendars for Monday, May 18 at 7 pm Town Hall. Grab your neighbors and friends and let’s remind these guys that we DON’T WANT THEIR TRASH in Winchester. Let’s also show them that (as my neighbor Wendy Smith so kindly put it), we are not the provincial rubes that they think we are!

Sharron Laurie
PO Box 58
Ashuelot, NH 03441
239-8289


These guys are not going to give up unless we show them and our town officials that "NO" means "NO" .. and in order to do that everyone needs to show up at this meeting and let them know we won't be ignored or pushed around, that this is our town.

This is a copy of another letter abutters received recently;

STEVENS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Consulting in the Design & Development of Livable Communities

Engineers Landscape Architects Planners

May 5, 2009

RE: Triple T Materials Recovery Facility

Winchester, New Hampshire

S&A #: 08-002

Dear ( names removed for privacy )

This letter is to notify you that N&M Winchester Properties is applying for a Dredge and Fill in Wetlands Permit for the proposed construction of a commercial/industrial park that will impact approximately 27,000 square feet of unnamed wetlands.

In accordance with the New Hampshire Fill and Dredge in Wetlands Law (RSA 482-A), we are sending certified mail notification to the Town of Winchester and all the abutters within a ¼ mile of the proposed improvements.

The proposed project is located on Route 119 in Winchester, across from the Old Ashuelot Road/Route 119 intersection. Please refer to the attached USGS map showing the location of the project parcels and the approximate limits of work on those parcels.

N&M Winchester Properties had originally proposed a Materials Recovery Facility for the site which would take a waste product (organic wastes) and convert it into a saleable commodity (compost). However, local zoning changes would be required for such a facility and these changes are being pursued by the property owner. However, the parcel may be used for other allowable uses in a small commercial/industrial park. As the varying uses on the project site do not alter the proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetland, we are proceeding with the permit application.

Once certified mail receipts have been received for all parties, complete copies of the application will be sent to the Winchester Town Clerk and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

Sincerely,

Peter Hetzel

Cc: Peter Gaskill

122 Birge Street PO Box 1586

Brattleboro, VT 05302

802-257-9329 Fax: 802-258-3892

www.stevens-assoc.com

Triple T Trucking ignores Winchester's voters

Despite sending a resounding message that Winchester's residents do not want any type of facilities designed to process, recycle, treat and transport solid waste, refuse and putrescible materials as defined by RSA’s in our town; article #40 of this year's warrants, which by the way was not recommended by the Planning Board, Triple T Trucking, knowing full well the results is still going ahead and attempting an end run around the voters to get their facility built in town.

The following letter was sent out certified mail to all abutters of this property. You can bet your last dollar that our Zoning and Planning Boards will be handing out waivers like candy at Christmas and this project will be approved unless every voter in Winchester goes to the upcoming meetings and voices their disapproval; though even that may not deter them from rubber stamping this application as their track record would indicate. Looks like this could turn into another expensive lawsuit for the people of Winchester.

STEVENS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting in the Design & Development of Livable Communities
Engineers Landscape Architects Planners


April 16, 2009

RE: Triple T Materials Recovery Facility
Winchester, New Hampshire
S&A #: 08-002

Dear Abutters ( name and address removed for privacy )

In accordance with the New Hampshire Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (RSA 483-B), we are notifying you of a project that proposes improvements within 250’ of a protected resource, the Ashuelot River. Certified mail notification to the Town of Winchester, the Ashuelot River Local Advisory Committed and all abutters within ¼ mile of the proposed improvements is required when a Shoreland Protection Permit application is going to be submitted.

The proposed project is located on Route 119 in Winchester, across from the Old Ashuelot Road/Route 119 intersection. Refer to the attached USGS map showing the location of the project parcels and the approximate limits of work on those parcels.

N&M Winchester Properties had originally proposed a Materials Recovery Facility for the site which would take a waste product (organic wastes) and convert it into a saleable commodity (compost). However, local zoning changes would be required for such a facility and these changes are being pursued by the property owner. However, the parcel may be used for other industrial purposes in a small industrial park. As the varying uses on the project site do not alter the proposed work within the Shoreland Protection area, we are proceeding with permitting for the Shoreland Protection Act.

Portions of the project within the 250’ Shoreland Protection Area are generally limited to access roads, utilities, stormwater management systems, and the removal of existing houses and their associated driveways and utilities. No industrial uses will be located within the 250’ zone.

Once certified mail receipts have been received for all parties, a complete copy of the application will be sent to the Winchester Town Clerk, Ashuelot River Local Advisory Committee (ARLAC), and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

Sincerely,

Kathleen D. Williams, P.E.
Project Manager

Cc: Peter Gaskill

Winchester Deserves Better Leaders

The following was submitted to the Reader Opinion section of tonight's Keene Sentinel. Thought it was a very interesting opinion based on fact and should be made available to everyone that does not subscribe to the paper.

On March 10th, Winchester residents voted on a zoning warrant article submitted by the board of selectmen to override an existing ordinance and allow composting of various wastes -- and their smells, dust, noise, etc.

The 25 to 155 tons of waste per day would be brought ion from out of state by a Vermont company; but would mostly be Massachusetts garbage.

The company, Triple T Trucking of Brattleboro, is a commercial hauler and has never run a waste/composting/transfer station.

Triple T never made an application to introduce composting; however, the chair of the planning board and the board of selectmen met with Triple T on Dec. 3rd, 2008.

At that time, minutes from the meeting reflect, the planning board did not want to propose an amendment for the people to vote on.

The planning board had a public information meeting with one member of the public attending; at a second meeting, no more than six members of the public were present. Then, on Dec. 18th, a legal notice was finally placed in The Sentinel.

That is it folks, -- that is all the notice you get.

Fortunately, 865 of the 2,902 registered voters turned out and voted and the article failed, 524 - 300.

Article 35, as submitted by the board of selectmen, called to allow composting, recommended by the planning board.

The selectmen voted 4-0 in favor, the one opposing selectman was sick that day and did not vote. There are 7 people on the planning board.

Never, never has there been a properly advertised notice of a public meeting to discuss composting -- my God, 22 - 155 tons per day !

At the deliberative session, the board of selectmen chairman suggested that since the article could not be changed as written, that there was no need to discuss it.

Remember, this is a deliberative session. Only because the minority selectmen, along with state Rep. Robert Carr, spoke up, was it even discussed.

There was one motion to close discussion and adjourn, by the chairman. This makes it seem like someone is hiding something, or attempting to "slip" something in.

At minimum, an ordinance should not be changed until an application is submitted.

And something this serious should require notice of at least two public meetings solely pertaining to the issue.

That is not what democracy is all about.

Winchester needs openness and transparency and free and open debates. Also, selectmen should be required to have a published telephone number.

Winchester, we can do a lot better.

J. Keenan
Winchester

Town Headed To Court ...again.

The Town's Planning Board has been sued in Superior Court by the abutters and several other concerned citizens over their handling of the proposed Robert Van Dkye condominium development on Franklin Mountain off Route 10 next to Shamrock Realty. The board had not only looked the other way on many violations of their own rules and regulations, they have time and time again gone against their own regulations in this ongoing process despite protests from the abutter's attorney and others. Their total disregard for the Town of Winchester's Subdivision and Planned Rural Development regulations and the concerns of the property owners abutting this project has prompted this lawsuit. A hearing will be held on May 12th at 9:00am at the Superior Court House in Keene. Any interested parties are invited to attend.

The hearing has been continued to Friday, May 29th at 1:00pm in courtroom #2 on the second floor of Superior Court.

Town Employees Threaten Union

Word has it that our town employees are threatening the Selectmen with forming a union. The reasoning behind this is that several employees, despite receiving substantial wages, a yearly cost of living raise, performance bonuses, a full benefits package that costs them next to nothing, overtime, uniform and shoe allowance and other perks, they feel that they are not being treated fairly.

Sherman Tedford confirmed that the Water, Sewer, Highway and Police Departments are now actively examining union options and that the whole process could take up to a year to take effect due to the contract negotiations. All hourly employees will be involved with voting for or against the union. The governing body has no say in this creation and can not discourage it from happening; but if created, it will definitely have an effect on our Town Budget.

Talk about greed and looking out for themselves while the rest of us scramble just to stay afloat.

Count down to raceday at WSP.

Countdown To Race Day

Learn how to cut your property taxes this fall, visit winchesternoisecoalition.com

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

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

SOURCE: Wired.com

Diebold Admits Systemic Audit Log Failure; State Vows Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Do We Make Winchester A Better Place To Live?

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

Final Vote on Warrant Articles and Budget

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

Is Democracy Dead in Winchester?

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