WINCHESTER’S THOM SIMMONS DECLARES CANDIDACY FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
WINCHESTER, NH – Thomas R. Simmons of Watson Road, Winchester, N.H. has announced his candidacy for the Cheshire District 4 State Representative seat. Cheshire District - 04 is comprised of the Towns of Chesterfield, Hinsdale, and Winchester.
Simmons, 50, chairs the Business Department at Greenfield Community College where he teaches Economics. Simmons has also taught Economics and Public Finance at Keene State College.
“I have worked in the field of Economic Development and Education for the last two decades, and believe I can bring that experience and strength to the critical issues we are facing in Concord right now,” said Simmons. “Budget impasses, a regressive taxation system, and partisan bickering have left many Granite Staters frustrated with their legislature. I aim to bring ‘fresh blood’ to the process.”
“If you believe that Government ought to keep its hands out of your wallet and its nose out of your bedroom, then we have something in common” writes Simmons on his website, where he outlines his positions on everything from Civil Liberties and Education to Taxes and Health Care. Simmons, a graduate of Hofstra Law School where he concentrated in Environmental Law, also pointed to significant environmental issues in the district, including the long-term integrity of Pisgah State Park and quality of the waters surrounding Vermont Yankee.
Simmons, a strong supporter of Marriage Equality, medical marijuana, and legal gaming, portrays himself as “fiscally responsible and socially progressive…placing me squarely in the great New Hampshire tradition.” A Democrat, Simmons freely admits to having been a lifelong Republican. “But,” he says, “like many disaffected Yankee Republicans and Independents, I have found that the Republican Party has become shrill and extreme, and can no longer claim to be either fiscally responsible or the party of individual rights. It is the Democratic Party that has established a ‘Big Tent,” admitting a diversity that has resulted in a balance of both compassion and frugality.”
Thom Simmons may be reached at either (603) 239-7507 or Thom@Simmons4NH.org
His Campaign website is: http://www.Simmons4NH.org
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tax Bills Are Out .. It's Crying Time Again
New rate of $13.48 should make everyone happy. Keep voting for more and more spending folks, we're getting closer to being the highest taxed town in the state. How many families will not be able to afford this years taxes? When will the voters in town stop falling for the same old lines of bull and vote in responsible people who think of the town's people first? Maybe this will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
New Blog Exposes State and Town Corruption
We've been notified that a new blog has opened up which will report on corruption within the state and especially our town of Winchester. To visit this new blog, cut and paste this link in your browser. Several people have asked if this is a joke or if it is legit .. Go see for yourselves.
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Executive Secretary Resigns
There has been a change up at Town Hall. For those of you that aren't up on current events - Ellen Cole resigned her post as secretary to the Executive Assistant, Robert Gray. She was no longer happy dealing with local politics and ready to go back to the legal field. In the mean time, our illustrious Selectman Roberta Fraser has been hired to fill in until a replacement can be hired. We would like to hear back from you, what you think of this change....
Friday, May 21, 2010
Selectmen Snub ZBA .. Fraser And TBC Not Happy
MINUTES of the
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Wednesday
May 12, 2010
Board Members Present: Roberta Fraser-Acting Chairperson; Sherman Tedford; Gustave Ruth; Theresa Sepe; and Kenneth Gardner. Also present Bob Gray, Town Administrator and Ellen Cole, Executive Assistant. The meeting convenes at 7:00PM.
1st Order of Business: Open Meeting and Acceptance of Minutes
Selectman Fraser is filling in as Acting Chairperson this evening, but Chairman Tedford is present and participating in this evening’s discussion.
Minutes of the May 5, 2010 regular minutes: Selectman Ruth makes a motion to accept the minutes. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
2nd Order of Business: Other Business
Recently, Avitar came up with a new format for the tax bills, which was tabled by the Board last week so they could review. Deputy Tax Collector Karey Miner likes this idea because the format is easier to read and will save on paper. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to accept the new tax bill format. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Southwest Region Planning Commission (“SWRPC”) would like the Board to vote and send a letter to support the nomination of the American Tissue Mills of New Hampshire property on Route 119 (Winchester Tax Map 7, Lot 66) for the SWRPC’s Brownsfields Assessment Program. Bob Gray makes the Board aware that the Attorney General has given the Town an easement to go on to the former mill property to determine if it is safe to tax deed, by testing to see if contamination is present. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to send this letter to SWRPC requesting that they proceed. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Lisa Murphy with SWRPC advised Bob that the Town’s Hazard Mitigation Plan expired. Funding is available to SWRPC through Homeland Security to update the Plan for the Town. The Town of Winchester’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is outdated and needs to be fully updated. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to formally request the assistance and services of the Southwest Region Planning Commission to accomplish this update as soon as possible. Chairman Tedford seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Bob would like the Board’s permission to close the Town Hall on Thursday, June 3, 2010 from 9:00AM-11:00AM for mandatory, DOL compliance training of all employees (except for volunteer ambulance and fire) presented by Bill Cote with the LGC. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to close the Town Hall on June 3 for the hours requested. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Last year, the Budget Committee eliminated the ‘sick time buyback’ line item, but this type of employee compensation still exists in the Personnel Manual as Town policy. Sharon Haley in HR/Finance would like to know if the Board would still like to offer this benefit to employees, and if so, where payment would come from in the new fiscal year budget effective July 2010. Chairman Tedford asks Bob to get a legal opinion from the LGC, that if the Board wishes to maintain the policy do they have the authority to appropriate the money from the operating budget, or does the Budget Committee’s decision supersede policy. Selectman Sepe makes clear that this is Town policy, therefore, when applicable, employees would be due payment unless the Board changed policy. Chairman Tedford reiterates the question to the LGC, asking if benefit is in place, and unless we change policy, are we obligated to pay it, even if the line item has been zeroed out. Selectman Sepe would like employee involvement in this discussion, giving personnel an opportunity to publicly voice their opinion regarding this issue. Bob will make the Town employees aware and it will be posted on the Agenda.
Amy Bond in HR/Finance completed the summer schedule for the lifeguards at the Town Beach. The new fiscal year for 2010-2011 has $9,000.00 allotted for personnel. Amy estimates that the personnel line from July 1, 2010 to September 6, 2010 will be overdrawn by $5,172.00, even when reducing to the minimum amount of lifeguard coverage (and staying within the State’s requirement). Acting Chair Fraser is not in favor of having the beach open and unlocked, when there is no supervision, due to vandalism or having people swim at their own risk. Selectman Ruth suggests closing the beach a couple of days during the week. Acting Chair Fraser is on the Beach Committee, and regrets cutting back beach hours, but suggests residents need to see the repercussions of taking money out of the beach budget. She further explains that at numerous town meetings she voiced concerns that if money for these community activities, which benefit the Town as a whole are not properly funded, services may be cut. Chairman Tedford would rather keep the beach operation hours open for the people to enjoy and not penalize the Town, to which Acting Chairperson Fraser agrees, and does not want to penalize the Town, but something needs to be done. Chairman Tedford suggests changing the beach hours from 11:00AM to 12:00PM, open to 6:00PM instead of 7:00PM to help lower the associated costs of coverage. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to hire the lifeguards starting Memorial Day weekend for the summer with hours from 12-6:00PM. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 4-1. Selectman Ruth voted no, because he thinks the Town will have a hard time finding lifeguards to work the reduced hours.
Chief Phillips requests use of the town gravel pit adjacent to the Evergreen Cemetery for ATV Training/Certification course sponsored by NH Fish and Game Department on May 26, 2010 from 8:30AM to 4:30PM. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to permit the Chief’s request. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Last week the Board accepted John Grappone Ford’s bid on a 2011 Ford F550 with the Fairfield package, and asked Bob to shop around the financing for a 3-year lease/purchase. Bob learned that Grappone Ford’s price is not associated with the lease. TD Banknorth offers: 3.8%, $21,057.00 payment/year; Citizens/Baystone offers: 4.69$; $21,486 payment/year; and Ford Motor Credit: 5.9% (no payment quoted). Bob adds he ordered the truck today and TD Banknorth would be the Town’s best option for financing. Selectman Sepe makes a motion to go with TD Banknorth’s financing and authorize Bob Gray to sign the associated paperwork. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
3rd Order of Business: Open to the Floor (15 minutes)
Steve Sullivan approached the Board last week about renegotiating the terms of an agreement entered into by the Town and owner of 136 Main Street, Toby Debattiste. Mr. Sullivan provided the Board with a copy of the Power of Attorney, which gives him the authority to speak on Mr. Debattiste’s behalf. Mr. Sullivan explains that he made a $400.00 payment on Monday, which brings the bill down to $793.57. Mr. Sullivan is requesting that the Board approve reducing the water/sewer monthly arrearage payment from $600.00 to $400.00. Chairman Tedford points out the new bills have not gone out yet. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to modify the agreement, allowing 136 Main Street to pay $400.00, due the 10th of each month, with the same terms of the previous agreement still in place. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Chairman Tedford anticipates two months remaining to pay this arrearage off.
Allen Humes, Zoning Board of Adjustment member, asks how many properties in Town are in some kind of litigation for code violations, to which the Board responds a total of three. Mr. Humes asks what criteria are set to determine which properties will be cited for code violations. Bob Gray responds there is no specific criterion, but if it violates the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, the Code Enforcement Office has the authority to enforce code. Selectman Ruth adds the Board needs to abide by state laws. Chairman Tedford responds the Code Enforcement Officer issues letters to the offenders, and if there is no response or neighbors complain, the Board may be inclined to take it to the next level. Unfortunately, there are many problem properties, and the Board cannot address them all because it is expensive to take legal action. Selectman Gardner adds the Board is more inclined to pursue flagrant violations of the zoning ordinance or if a property is creating a health hazard. Lastly, Mr. Humes was disappointed that not one board member attended last Thursday’s ZBA meeting, to which the Board responds they clearly stated in a letter addressed to the ZBA why they would not participate in that meeting and why. Mr. Humes states the presence of a select person would have made a difference, and feels no attendance shows a lack of cooperation.
Cindy Ryder encourages the Board to attend the next CAST meeting scheduled at the Ford Building on Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 9:00AM, and is very excited about a Vision Meeting for 20-20 that she attended at the Cheshire Medical Center, which provides health counseling in the community. Ms. Ryder is optimistic that the new sidewalks and Safe Routes to School will improve healthy habits and raise awareness in this area.
Selectman Sepe asks if Gary Puffer heard back from the two property owners on River Court regarding their water leak. Bob responds that one of the two property owners did sign for the certified letter, and Ellen and Gary made service on the other property owner, who lives in Keene. Bob and Gary agree that if the leak has not been fixed or arrangements have not been made to engage the services of a contractor by Wednesday, May 19, 2010, Gary will shut off the water, which then gives the owners an opportunity to respond to the Board of Selectmen that same evening.
4th Order of Business: Office Documents
1. Second original Water Warrant for 2010 in the amount of $59,353.07, and original Sewer Warrant for 2010 in the amount of $92,621.77. Chairman Tedford makes the motion to approve and sign said warrants. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
2. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 7, Lot 37-Vincent in the amount of $1,028.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
3. Tax Collector’s Warrant, Property Tax Levy in the amount of $3,792,684.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to authorize collection of said warrant. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
4. Highway Purchase Requisition for purchase of lumber at Watson Farm (to build a lean-to at the garage) in the amount of $567.48. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to approve purchase. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
5. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 8, Lot 120-2-Conant in the amount of $422.18. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
6. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 12, Lot 5-2-Beaman in the amount of $306.32. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
7. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 2, Lot 18-McFadden in the amount of $594.24. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Chairman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
8. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 3, Lot 28-Sul in the amount of $276.01. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Chairman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
9. Permit to Display Fireworks at 512 Keene Road on July 3 and September 5, 2010; signed by applicant, Fire Chief Kellom, and Police Chief Phillips. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to give permission for said displays and to sign. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
10. Manifest for SRF Funds to Weston & Sampson-$19,350.00 (TOW Retainage acct-$2,150.00) in the amount of $21,500.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve said payments. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
11. Manifest for Police Outside Activities to Parro’s Gun Shop in the amount of $660.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve said payment. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 4-1. Selectman Sepe states she would like to see other estimates because that is a lot of money for a vest.
12. Assessing and Revaluation Capital Reserve to Avitar in the amount of $23,776.25. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to make said payment. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
5th Order of Business: Non-Public Session under RSA 91-A:3II (a), (b) and (c)
Selectman Sepe is not clear if the Board intends to discuss the ‘sick time buyback/policy issue’ at next week’s meeting. Chairman Tedford suggests putting this item on the agenda for the first Wednesday in June-that way, Bob will have time to get a response from the LGC and the Board members can brainstorm from there. Selectman Sepe, again, stresses that she’d like the employees to be part of the discussion since it affects them.
Chairman Tedford makes a motion to enter non-public session under (a), (b), and (c). Selectman Gardner seconds the motion. A role call vote is taken and all members vote “yes”, and the Board convenes in non-public session at 8:10PM (after a 10-minute break).
6th Order of Business: Reconvene Public Session
The Board reconvenes in public session at 8:50PM. The non-public minutes under (a) and (c) were sealed; and the minutes under (b) were not sealed.
Chairman Tedford announces that the Board accepted Executive Assistant Ellen Cole’s resignation effective Thursday, May 20, 2010. The Board thanks Ellen for her service to the Town. In the meantime, the Board has agreed to rehire Roberta Fraser on a part-time basis as secretary, not to exceed 32 hours per week to assist Bob while transitioning to another full-time permanent placement hire. Roberta was the Town’s secretary before Amy Lewis was hired, and also filled in on a part-time basis while she was a Selectman before Ellen became employed with the Town.
7th Order of Business: Adjournment
Selectman Fraser makes a motion to adjourn. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:50PM.
Respectfully recorded,
Ellen A. Cole
Executive Assistant
Perhaps if the TBC hadn't wasted $3200 last year on 4 picnic tables and another $2400 on 2 more this year, they would have had plenty of money to fund lifeguards and provide safety for Winchester's citizen. Putting the blame on the Budget Committee, who attempted to make them act more responsibly when spending taxpayer dollars is a joke. Place the blame where it squarely belongs for shorter hours at the beach this year ..
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Wednesday
May 12, 2010
Board Members Present: Roberta Fraser-Acting Chairperson; Sherman Tedford; Gustave Ruth; Theresa Sepe; and Kenneth Gardner. Also present Bob Gray, Town Administrator and Ellen Cole, Executive Assistant. The meeting convenes at 7:00PM.
1st Order of Business: Open Meeting and Acceptance of Minutes
Selectman Fraser is filling in as Acting Chairperson this evening, but Chairman Tedford is present and participating in this evening’s discussion.
Minutes of the May 5, 2010 regular minutes: Selectman Ruth makes a motion to accept the minutes. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
2nd Order of Business: Other Business
Recently, Avitar came up with a new format for the tax bills, which was tabled by the Board last week so they could review. Deputy Tax Collector Karey Miner likes this idea because the format is easier to read and will save on paper. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to accept the new tax bill format. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Southwest Region Planning Commission (“SWRPC”) would like the Board to vote and send a letter to support the nomination of the American Tissue Mills of New Hampshire property on Route 119 (Winchester Tax Map 7, Lot 66) for the SWRPC’s Brownsfields Assessment Program. Bob Gray makes the Board aware that the Attorney General has given the Town an easement to go on to the former mill property to determine if it is safe to tax deed, by testing to see if contamination is present. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to send this letter to SWRPC requesting that they proceed. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Lisa Murphy with SWRPC advised Bob that the Town’s Hazard Mitigation Plan expired. Funding is available to SWRPC through Homeland Security to update the Plan for the Town. The Town of Winchester’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is outdated and needs to be fully updated. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to formally request the assistance and services of the Southwest Region Planning Commission to accomplish this update as soon as possible. Chairman Tedford seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Bob would like the Board’s permission to close the Town Hall on Thursday, June 3, 2010 from 9:00AM-11:00AM for mandatory, DOL compliance training of all employees (except for volunteer ambulance and fire) presented by Bill Cote with the LGC. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to close the Town Hall on June 3 for the hours requested. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Last year, the Budget Committee eliminated the ‘sick time buyback’ line item, but this type of employee compensation still exists in the Personnel Manual as Town policy. Sharon Haley in HR/Finance would like to know if the Board would still like to offer this benefit to employees, and if so, where payment would come from in the new fiscal year budget effective July 2010. Chairman Tedford asks Bob to get a legal opinion from the LGC, that if the Board wishes to maintain the policy do they have the authority to appropriate the money from the operating budget, or does the Budget Committee’s decision supersede policy. Selectman Sepe makes clear that this is Town policy, therefore, when applicable, employees would be due payment unless the Board changed policy. Chairman Tedford reiterates the question to the LGC, asking if benefit is in place, and unless we change policy, are we obligated to pay it, even if the line item has been zeroed out. Selectman Sepe would like employee involvement in this discussion, giving personnel an opportunity to publicly voice their opinion regarding this issue. Bob will make the Town employees aware and it will be posted on the Agenda.
Amy Bond in HR/Finance completed the summer schedule for the lifeguards at the Town Beach. The new fiscal year for 2010-2011 has $9,000.00 allotted for personnel. Amy estimates that the personnel line from July 1, 2010 to September 6, 2010 will be overdrawn by $5,172.00, even when reducing to the minimum amount of lifeguard coverage (and staying within the State’s requirement). Acting Chair Fraser is not in favor of having the beach open and unlocked, when there is no supervision, due to vandalism or having people swim at their own risk. Selectman Ruth suggests closing the beach a couple of days during the week. Acting Chair Fraser is on the Beach Committee, and regrets cutting back beach hours, but suggests residents need to see the repercussions of taking money out of the beach budget. She further explains that at numerous town meetings she voiced concerns that if money for these community activities, which benefit the Town as a whole are not properly funded, services may be cut. Chairman Tedford would rather keep the beach operation hours open for the people to enjoy and not penalize the Town, to which Acting Chairperson Fraser agrees, and does not want to penalize the Town, but something needs to be done. Chairman Tedford suggests changing the beach hours from 11:00AM to 12:00PM, open to 6:00PM instead of 7:00PM to help lower the associated costs of coverage. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to hire the lifeguards starting Memorial Day weekend for the summer with hours from 12-6:00PM. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 4-1. Selectman Ruth voted no, because he thinks the Town will have a hard time finding lifeguards to work the reduced hours.
Chief Phillips requests use of the town gravel pit adjacent to the Evergreen Cemetery for ATV Training/Certification course sponsored by NH Fish and Game Department on May 26, 2010 from 8:30AM to 4:30PM. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to permit the Chief’s request. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
Last week the Board accepted John Grappone Ford’s bid on a 2011 Ford F550 with the Fairfield package, and asked Bob to shop around the financing for a 3-year lease/purchase. Bob learned that Grappone Ford’s price is not associated with the lease. TD Banknorth offers: 3.8%, $21,057.00 payment/year; Citizens/Baystone offers: 4.69$; $21,486 payment/year; and Ford Motor Credit: 5.9% (no payment quoted). Bob adds he ordered the truck today and TD Banknorth would be the Town’s best option for financing. Selectman Sepe makes a motion to go with TD Banknorth’s financing and authorize Bob Gray to sign the associated paperwork. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
3rd Order of Business: Open to the Floor (15 minutes)
Steve Sullivan approached the Board last week about renegotiating the terms of an agreement entered into by the Town and owner of 136 Main Street, Toby Debattiste. Mr. Sullivan provided the Board with a copy of the Power of Attorney, which gives him the authority to speak on Mr. Debattiste’s behalf. Mr. Sullivan explains that he made a $400.00 payment on Monday, which brings the bill down to $793.57. Mr. Sullivan is requesting that the Board approve reducing the water/sewer monthly arrearage payment from $600.00 to $400.00. Chairman Tedford points out the new bills have not gone out yet. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to modify the agreement, allowing 136 Main Street to pay $400.00, due the 10th of each month, with the same terms of the previous agreement still in place. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Chairman Tedford anticipates two months remaining to pay this arrearage off.
Allen Humes, Zoning Board of Adjustment member, asks how many properties in Town are in some kind of litigation for code violations, to which the Board responds a total of three. Mr. Humes asks what criteria are set to determine which properties will be cited for code violations. Bob Gray responds there is no specific criterion, but if it violates the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, the Code Enforcement Office has the authority to enforce code. Selectman Ruth adds the Board needs to abide by state laws. Chairman Tedford responds the Code Enforcement Officer issues letters to the offenders, and if there is no response or neighbors complain, the Board may be inclined to take it to the next level. Unfortunately, there are many problem properties, and the Board cannot address them all because it is expensive to take legal action. Selectman Gardner adds the Board is more inclined to pursue flagrant violations of the zoning ordinance or if a property is creating a health hazard. Lastly, Mr. Humes was disappointed that not one board member attended last Thursday’s ZBA meeting, to which the Board responds they clearly stated in a letter addressed to the ZBA why they would not participate in that meeting and why. Mr. Humes states the presence of a select person would have made a difference, and feels no attendance shows a lack of cooperation.
Cindy Ryder encourages the Board to attend the next CAST meeting scheduled at the Ford Building on Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 9:00AM, and is very excited about a Vision Meeting for 20-20 that she attended at the Cheshire Medical Center, which provides health counseling in the community. Ms. Ryder is optimistic that the new sidewalks and Safe Routes to School will improve healthy habits and raise awareness in this area.
Selectman Sepe asks if Gary Puffer heard back from the two property owners on River Court regarding their water leak. Bob responds that one of the two property owners did sign for the certified letter, and Ellen and Gary made service on the other property owner, who lives in Keene. Bob and Gary agree that if the leak has not been fixed or arrangements have not been made to engage the services of a contractor by Wednesday, May 19, 2010, Gary will shut off the water, which then gives the owners an opportunity to respond to the Board of Selectmen that same evening.
4th Order of Business: Office Documents
1. Second original Water Warrant for 2010 in the amount of $59,353.07, and original Sewer Warrant for 2010 in the amount of $92,621.77. Chairman Tedford makes the motion to approve and sign said warrants. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
2. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 7, Lot 37-Vincent in the amount of $1,028.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
3. Tax Collector’s Warrant, Property Tax Levy in the amount of $3,792,684.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to authorize collection of said warrant. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
4. Highway Purchase Requisition for purchase of lumber at Watson Farm (to build a lean-to at the garage) in the amount of $567.48. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to approve purchase. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
5. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 8, Lot 120-2-Conant in the amount of $422.18. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
6. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 12, Lot 5-2-Beaman in the amount of $306.32. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
7. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 2, Lot 18-McFadden in the amount of $594.24. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Chairman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
8. Certification and Timber Tax Levy at Map 3, Lot 28-Sul in the amount of $276.01. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve the timber tax. Chairman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
9. Permit to Display Fireworks at 512 Keene Road on July 3 and September 5, 2010; signed by applicant, Fire Chief Kellom, and Police Chief Phillips. Selectman Ruth makes a motion to give permission for said displays and to sign. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
10. Manifest for SRF Funds to Weston & Sampson-$19,350.00 (TOW Retainage acct-$2,150.00) in the amount of $21,500.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve said payments. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
11. Manifest for Police Outside Activities to Parro’s Gun Shop in the amount of $660.00. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve said payment. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 4-1. Selectman Sepe states she would like to see other estimates because that is a lot of money for a vest.
12. Assessing and Revaluation Capital Reserve to Avitar in the amount of $23,776.25. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to make said payment. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
5th Order of Business: Non-Public Session under RSA 91-A:3II (a), (b) and (c)
Selectman Sepe is not clear if the Board intends to discuss the ‘sick time buyback/policy issue’ at next week’s meeting. Chairman Tedford suggests putting this item on the agenda for the first Wednesday in June-that way, Bob will have time to get a response from the LGC and the Board members can brainstorm from there. Selectman Sepe, again, stresses that she’d like the employees to be part of the discussion since it affects them.
Chairman Tedford makes a motion to enter non-public session under (a), (b), and (c). Selectman Gardner seconds the motion. A role call vote is taken and all members vote “yes”, and the Board convenes in non-public session at 8:10PM (after a 10-minute break).
6th Order of Business: Reconvene Public Session
The Board reconvenes in public session at 8:50PM. The non-public minutes under (a) and (c) were sealed; and the minutes under (b) were not sealed.
Chairman Tedford announces that the Board accepted Executive Assistant Ellen Cole’s resignation effective Thursday, May 20, 2010. The Board thanks Ellen for her service to the Town. In the meantime, the Board has agreed to rehire Roberta Fraser on a part-time basis as secretary, not to exceed 32 hours per week to assist Bob while transitioning to another full-time permanent placement hire. Roberta was the Town’s secretary before Amy Lewis was hired, and also filled in on a part-time basis while she was a Selectman before Ellen became employed with the Town.
7th Order of Business: Adjournment
Selectman Fraser makes a motion to adjourn. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:50PM.
Respectfully recorded,
Ellen A. Cole
Executive Assistant
Perhaps if the TBC hadn't wasted $3200 last year on 4 picnic tables and another $2400 on 2 more this year, they would have had plenty of money to fund lifeguards and provide safety for Winchester's citizen. Putting the blame on the Budget Committee, who attempted to make them act more responsibly when spending taxpayer dollars is a joke. Place the blame where it squarely belongs for shorter hours at the beach this year ..
Thursday, May 13, 2010
WANTED .. Fiscal responsible people
MINUTES of the BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Wednesday April 7, 2010
4th Order of Business: Any Other Business
The Town Beach Committee asks if the Board intends to remove the four rotting picnic tables from the grove area before the season begins, to which Chairman Tedford responds, yes, if they are rotted and unsafe, they should be removed. The Committee is requesting Board approval to purchase replacement picnic tables. Chairman Tedford checked the money available in the budget-$2,388.00 and checking-$9,580.00 (interest from the trust fund). The Board governs these accounts and has the authority to spend the money, as this committee is only advisory. Selectman Fraser makes the Board aware that the committee would like to use the remaining money for this fiscal year to pay lifeguards from May to June 2010. Chairman Tedford suggests the committee wait to purchase these tables until the new fiscal year begins and prepare a purchase requisition at that time. Selectman Fraser would also like the Board to review the responsibilities of the Beach Committee so each member has a clear guideline and understands their duties as a member. Ellen will put the Bylaws and Lifeguard Rules in the Board’s reading file for discussion at an upcoming work session. Erin Robb gave Ellen some specifications for the retaining wall to put out to bid, but needs some assistance from the Chairman. The committee intends to advertise for the rebid on the wall after July 1, 2010.
MINUTES of the BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Wednesday April 21, 2010
4th Order of Business: Any Other Business
The Town Beach Committee would like to purchase two weather-exposed green square tables and blue umbrellas for the patio area at the lake. The committee is looking for board approval for this expenditure using money from the checking account (roughly $9,000.00 available). Selectman Sepe does not understand why the beach committee does not need to bid this out, and provide quotes for the Board to review. Selectman Gardner is in favor of putting this discussion off for another week to see what the beach needs and how much money is available. Chairman Tedford advises that this money is in trust set up by the Court, and the Board’s only authority is to approve the expenditures and sign the checks. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve expenditure out of Town Beach checking account. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 3-2.
Last night, the Selectman heard an impassionate speech from Selectman Roberta Fraser on how horrible the Budget Committee was by cutting $5,000 out of their Beach Committee budget. “They do not appear to understand how their cruel actions hurt our town.” According to Roberta, the Beach Committee will not have enough money in the budget to pay for two life guards all summer. There was a long discussion about cutting the hours per day and swimming-at-their-own-risk. Roberta informed the board that they were going to be $2,000 short even with the cut in hours.
Which of course leaves us scratching our heads. After reading the minutes above, one has to ask – why were they spending $1,200/each on two picnic tables? Is this not the $2,000 shortage? Were the tables really a necessity? Why not purchase two wooden tables for less than $100/each ? Are we running the Beach budget the same way we do our own personal budget? Purchasing what we want and then not having the money to pay our required expenses….
Wednesday April 7, 2010
4th Order of Business: Any Other Business
The Town Beach Committee asks if the Board intends to remove the four rotting picnic tables from the grove area before the season begins, to which Chairman Tedford responds, yes, if they are rotted and unsafe, they should be removed. The Committee is requesting Board approval to purchase replacement picnic tables. Chairman Tedford checked the money available in the budget-$2,388.00 and checking-$9,580.00 (interest from the trust fund). The Board governs these accounts and has the authority to spend the money, as this committee is only advisory. Selectman Fraser makes the Board aware that the committee would like to use the remaining money for this fiscal year to pay lifeguards from May to June 2010. Chairman Tedford suggests the committee wait to purchase these tables until the new fiscal year begins and prepare a purchase requisition at that time. Selectman Fraser would also like the Board to review the responsibilities of the Beach Committee so each member has a clear guideline and understands their duties as a member. Ellen will put the Bylaws and Lifeguard Rules in the Board’s reading file for discussion at an upcoming work session. Erin Robb gave Ellen some specifications for the retaining wall to put out to bid, but needs some assistance from the Chairman. The committee intends to advertise for the rebid on the wall after July 1, 2010.
MINUTES of the BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Wednesday April 21, 2010
4th Order of Business: Any Other Business
The Town Beach Committee would like to purchase two weather-exposed green square tables and blue umbrellas for the patio area at the lake. The committee is looking for board approval for this expenditure using money from the checking account (roughly $9,000.00 available). Selectman Sepe does not understand why the beach committee does not need to bid this out, and provide quotes for the Board to review. Selectman Gardner is in favor of putting this discussion off for another week to see what the beach needs and how much money is available. Chairman Tedford advises that this money is in trust set up by the Court, and the Board’s only authority is to approve the expenditures and sign the checks. Chairman Tedford makes a motion to approve expenditure out of Town Beach checking account. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 3-2.
Last night, the Selectman heard an impassionate speech from Selectman Roberta Fraser on how horrible the Budget Committee was by cutting $5,000 out of their Beach Committee budget. “They do not appear to understand how their cruel actions hurt our town.” According to Roberta, the Beach Committee will not have enough money in the budget to pay for two life guards all summer. There was a long discussion about cutting the hours per day and swimming-at-their-own-risk. Roberta informed the board that they were going to be $2,000 short even with the cut in hours.
Which of course leaves us scratching our heads. After reading the minutes above, one has to ask – why were they spending $1,200/each on two picnic tables? Is this not the $2,000 shortage? Were the tables really a necessity? Why not purchase two wooden tables for less than $100/each ? Are we running the Beach budget the same way we do our own personal budget? Purchasing what we want and then not having the money to pay our required expenses….
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Poor behaviour at the ELMMC events?
We have been contacted by several individuals that have made complaints to the “powers that be”, but they are falling on deaf ears. We wanted to give everyone a public forum on which they can have an opportunity to voice their complaints publicly. Perhaps by posting about these issues on a public forum, it will prompt some action from those in charge and hopefully resolve these problems.
Keep in mind, there is no need for name calling. Just explain what the situation is/was that has upset you and let us know how it was or wasn’t resolved.
Keep in mind, there is no need for name calling. Just explain what the situation is/was that has upset you and let us know how it was or wasn’t resolved.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Drinking Water Safety
A number of you have broached the subject concerning the Town's drinking water and Selectman Ruth's statements that there is possible contamination in one or two of the Town's wells, especially the one out on Route #10. For those of you with concerns and questions a call to the Town's Water Dept. or Selectman's Office can provide you with an updated report on the situation.
For those of you who would like to test your drinking water, whether it comes from the Town or your own private well, which you should do yearly, copy and paste this link into your browser's navigation window and fill out the request form for free bottles and information in regards to getting your water tested.
http://www2.des.state.nh.us/OneStop/Homeowner_Container_Request.asp
Your health and the health of your children should always be your top priority. The testing is well worth the cost for peace of mind and assurance that your water is safe.
For those of you who would like to test your drinking water, whether it comes from the Town or your own private well, which you should do yearly, copy and paste this link into your browser's navigation window and fill out the request form for free bottles and information in regards to getting your water tested.
http://www2.des.state.nh.us/OneStop/Homeowner_Container_Request.asp
Your health and the health of your children should always be your top priority. The testing is well worth the cost for peace of mind and assurance that your water is safe.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Really Makes You Wonder
MINUTES of the BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
WORK SESSION, Wednesday April 7, 2010
Board Members Present: Sherman Tedford, Chairman; Roberta Fraser; Theresa Sepe; Gustave Ruth; and Kenneth Gardner. Also present Robert Gray, Town Administrator; Department Heads-Barry Kellom, Rick Meleski, John Gomarlo, Dale Gray, Ken Smith, Herb Stephens, Sharon Haley, Gary Phillips, Leroy Austin; and Ellen Cole, Executive Assistant. The meeting convenes at 10:00AM. Gary Puffer is absent due to water meter software training.
1st Order of Business: Safety Manual Review
Bob Gray with the assistance of the Local Government Center (hereinafter “LGC”) drafted a Safety Manual for the Town of Winchester. After revisions are made to this template, the Board of Selectmen will need to adopt the policy in order to comply with the State of New Hampshire Department of Labor. All municipalities need to provide safe working environments for their employees, and this manual has been modified to fit Winchester’s needs. Each Department Head has had an opportunity to review the manual to offer feedback, especially in the areas, which pertain to their department and duties. Chairman Tedford would like to review ‘physical safety of town vehicles’ and the situations, which arise in emergency and/or work situations for ambulance, fire, police and highway. Oftentimes these vehicles are left idling, and Selectman Sepe suggests ‘safety switches’ or ‘secret lock buttons’ be installed, or Selectman Ruth suggests ‘extra keys’ or ‘remote key locks’ be used to lock vehicles while not in use during an emergency. In conclusion, when fire, ambulance, emergency and police, are responding on duty and engaged in functions, said personnel shall keep their vehicles secured per their department’s operating procedures. The Board agrees that when issues arise, this policy will need to be revisited and tweaked by addendums.
Sharon Haley in HR/Finance provides each Department Head with a folder that contains a form for reporting on-the-job injuries, which must be processed within a certain number of days, or the Town will be fined. The Board reviews ‘investigation of incidents’ in town vehicles and determines that the police will respond to incidents in Winchester, and/or use another independent law enforcement agency when applicable (and incident occurs out of town). Selectman Sepe discusses ‘confined spaces’ with Rick Meleski, who says in most situations he has not been at risk of anything falling or collapsing on him. Hard hats/safety helmets should be used during excavation and trenching, including water and sewer line subsurface repair work to provide adequate head protection. Water and Sewer Departments will need to purchase hard hats, as Dale and his crew already have them available. Selectman Sepe would like to see an ‘Incident Report Kit’ provided in a timely manner for all town vehicles, after the policy is adopted.
The Board reviews foot protection and reimbursement for purchase made of ‘safety footwear’ by highway, water and sewer and thinks an increase should be made to compensate town employees for this expenditure. The Board learns about the Joint Loss Management Committee. Eventually after the Board adopts this safety policy, the committee will need to have the proper balance of management and employees in order to comply with statutory requirements. Any person, who flags traffic, must be certified. Rick Meleski makes the Board aware that the Water Department has a non-assembled, collapsible trench box, and would like the Board to consider purchase of a heavy-duty trench box to fit all departments’ needs especially when an emergency arises. Dale Gray offers to price out a trench box compatible in weight with the Town’s backhoe. Bob and Ellen will make these changes as discussed prior to signature and put before the Board at next week’s work session scheduled for April 14, 2010.
2nd Order of Business: Town Policies
Chairman Tedford would like to have a public discussion while the Department Heads are still present regarding Town policy. Chairman Tedford is concerned that personnel are exhibiting poor behavior, which is being vocalized to their fellow co-workers and suggests it stop immediately. Town policies are in place and need to be followed by every Town employee. Selectman Sepe will not tolerate disrespect among employees or inappropriate statements being made to co-workers. Selectman Sepe reminds the Department Heads that their attitudes affect their employees, and if they have a problem they need to address that concern to the Board who makes the policy. Selectman Fraser adds personnel matters have been dealt with in a confidential manner, and when the Board requests information from a department, that person is doing their job by following up on that request. The Board is not going to ignore misuse of the purchase policy, and that person should be held accountable for their actions. Sharon Haley states the purchasing policy has been in place since 2008, and lately her department has been taking the brunt of accusations and turmoil. Selectman Gardner says the town employees need to work together, and follow the policy in place. If you don’t know, then ask the Board for direction. Selectman Ruth adds the Board reviews paperwork and if they have a question, they are going to follow up with the appropriate personnel for answers. In close, Chairman Tedford advises the Department Heads to move forward, and work together as a team. The Town has a lot of projects coming up and the Board relies on them to manage these departments. The Board gives the Department Heads an opportunity to speak or comment, and no one offers any response.
3rd Order of Business: Recess
The Board takes a 10-minute break at 11:50AM and resumes the meeting at 12:00PM.
4th Order of Business: Any Other Business
Selectman Sepe makes a motion to increase the boot allotment for sewer, water and highway departments from $100.00 to $175.00 to appropriately purchase safety shoes. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The shoe retailer can send the Town a bill and the employee pays the rest. The Town does not have to purchase from one manufacturer, and the employees in these departments are allowed to buy one pair of safety boots per year.
A trench box is currently disassembled at the Well No. 1-storage. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to have the Water Superintendent assemble the trench box and store at the highway garage within the next two weeks, and may ask for assistance to get it done within that timeframe. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
5th Order of Business: Truck Specifications for 2011 Model
Dale reviews the proposed, detailed specifications for the 2011 medium duty dump truck with the Board. The warrant article passed in March 2010, giving the Board authorization to enter into a 3-year lease/purchase agreement in the amount of $64,996 to be paid in 3 annual principal and interest payments of $23,174 for the purpose of purchasing a 2011 1-ton dump truck, with central hydraulics system, flat bed dump body and plow set-up. Dale would like to trade-in the 1999 F450 1-ton truck with plow, as-is, which will not pass inspection. The Board agrees and asks that he get an official rejection sticker. The Board asks Ellen to advertise in the Keene Sentinel, website and around town. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to advertise for the 2011 truck in the Keene Sentinel, with a closing date of April 28, 2010, and Dale may solicit bids outside of the Keene area. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Ellen suggests awarding the bid a week after the bids are opened, so the Board can thoroughly review them. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to reconsider the previous motion. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Selectman Sepe makes a motion to award the bid on May 5, 2010, with advertising in the Keene Sentinel, and bid opening on April 28, 2010. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The Board will accept sealed bids until April 28 and award the bid on May 5, 2010.
6th Order of Business: Any Other Business
While John Gomarlo is present, Chairman Tedford asks him about the status for reappointing members to the Revitalization Economic Development Committee. All terms expire this year, and some members have not been showing up for meetings. The Chairman asks John to prepare a list of recommendations, and asks Ellen to post openings for this committee on the website. Interested applicants should send a letter of interest to Margaret Sharra by April 24, 2010. The Board will then review appointments after the closing date.
Rick Meleski has some information for the Board regarding the replacement of the 1982 chlorine tanks. Rick spoke with Steve Roberts (NHDES Senior Sanitary Engineer) who approves purchase and installation of high density cross link polyethylene tanks and oxidation resistant barrier. Rick is still inclined to make this purchase from Northeast Fluid Control; hire Lawrence Excavation to lift the roof, remove and replace the tanks; and B.K. Plumbing (licensed plumber) for installation of lines/valves. Northeast has had very few problems with transporting and provide a 3-year warranty on these tanks. Rick intends to test the tanks once delivered to guarantee they sustained no damage during transportation. Selectman Sepe suggests the job go to a bonded, licensed contractor. Rick feels this is a very simple job and would prefer to not involve the engineers to keep the cost down. These tanks have a 15-year life expectancy and will be Rick’s responsibility to maintain over the years. Rick intends to use one tank at a time, and switch out when once the operating tank starts to leak. The Board still needs to digest this information and tables further discussion till next week.
Rick asks the Board if he has the authority to instruct the engineers to remove some overgrown big shrubs and trees, and remove some fill behind the plant, to which Chairman Tedford responds, as long as we do not need a change order and at no additional cost to the Town. Selectman Fraser makes a motion that Rick may use his discretion and do what is necessary for tree, bush, and topsoil removal by Lawrence Excavation, at no additional cost to the Town. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion an it passes 5-0.
The Town has finally received written approval of Contract Amendment No. 1, dated December 11, 2009 from the NHDOT, which increases the original for the Hoyle, Tanner & Associates (hereinafter “HTA”) contract for replacement of bridge over Wheelock Brook by $8,482.00 for a new total of $45,442.00. Formerly, the Board requested redesign of a shorter span to stay within the $500,000.00 budget for this project, with the Board’s full knowledge of its liability should any damages be incurred to the bridge or roadway during a 50-year flood event. Selectman Sepe abstains from voting since she was not involved, and excuses herself from the meeting at 12:50PM due to a previous engagement. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to authorize Bob Gray to sign the Contract Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the Town. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 4-0.
The Town Clerk sent a memo to all boards and committees in Town to reiterate that those members are responsible for their own minutes and distribution, with written copies to be held in the clerk’s office, as provided under statute. Chairman Tedford makes clear that these duties lie with said boards. If these committees wish to have their minutes on the website, they should send to Ellen electronically. Selectman Gardner makes a motion that these duties are the responsibility of the boards and committees, and not the Town Administrator or his assistant’s job. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 4-0.
7th Order of Business: Adjournment
Selectman Fraser makes a motion to adjourn. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 1:01PM.
Respectfully recorded,
Ellen A. Cole
Executive Assistant
WORK SESSION, Wednesday April 7, 2010
Board Members Present: Sherman Tedford, Chairman; Roberta Fraser; Theresa Sepe; Gustave Ruth; and Kenneth Gardner. Also present Robert Gray, Town Administrator; Department Heads-Barry Kellom, Rick Meleski, John Gomarlo, Dale Gray, Ken Smith, Herb Stephens, Sharon Haley, Gary Phillips, Leroy Austin; and Ellen Cole, Executive Assistant. The meeting convenes at 10:00AM. Gary Puffer is absent due to water meter software training.
1st Order of Business: Safety Manual Review
Bob Gray with the assistance of the Local Government Center (hereinafter “LGC”) drafted a Safety Manual for the Town of Winchester. After revisions are made to this template, the Board of Selectmen will need to adopt the policy in order to comply with the State of New Hampshire Department of Labor. All municipalities need to provide safe working environments for their employees, and this manual has been modified to fit Winchester’s needs. Each Department Head has had an opportunity to review the manual to offer feedback, especially in the areas, which pertain to their department and duties. Chairman Tedford would like to review ‘physical safety of town vehicles’ and the situations, which arise in emergency and/or work situations for ambulance, fire, police and highway. Oftentimes these vehicles are left idling, and Selectman Sepe suggests ‘safety switches’ or ‘secret lock buttons’ be installed, or Selectman Ruth suggests ‘extra keys’ or ‘remote key locks’ be used to lock vehicles while not in use during an emergency. In conclusion, when fire, ambulance, emergency and police, are responding on duty and engaged in functions, said personnel shall keep their vehicles secured per their department’s operating procedures. The Board agrees that when issues arise, this policy will need to be revisited and tweaked by addendums.
Sharon Haley in HR/Finance provides each Department Head with a folder that contains a form for reporting on-the-job injuries, which must be processed within a certain number of days, or the Town will be fined. The Board reviews ‘investigation of incidents’ in town vehicles and determines that the police will respond to incidents in Winchester, and/or use another independent law enforcement agency when applicable (and incident occurs out of town). Selectman Sepe discusses ‘confined spaces’ with Rick Meleski, who says in most situations he has not been at risk of anything falling or collapsing on him. Hard hats/safety helmets should be used during excavation and trenching, including water and sewer line subsurface repair work to provide adequate head protection. Water and Sewer Departments will need to purchase hard hats, as Dale and his crew already have them available. Selectman Sepe would like to see an ‘Incident Report Kit’ provided in a timely manner for all town vehicles, after the policy is adopted.
The Board reviews foot protection and reimbursement for purchase made of ‘safety footwear’ by highway, water and sewer and thinks an increase should be made to compensate town employees for this expenditure. The Board learns about the Joint Loss Management Committee. Eventually after the Board adopts this safety policy, the committee will need to have the proper balance of management and employees in order to comply with statutory requirements. Any person, who flags traffic, must be certified. Rick Meleski makes the Board aware that the Water Department has a non-assembled, collapsible trench box, and would like the Board to consider purchase of a heavy-duty trench box to fit all departments’ needs especially when an emergency arises. Dale Gray offers to price out a trench box compatible in weight with the Town’s backhoe. Bob and Ellen will make these changes as discussed prior to signature and put before the Board at next week’s work session scheduled for April 14, 2010.
2nd Order of Business: Town Policies
Chairman Tedford would like to have a public discussion while the Department Heads are still present regarding Town policy. Chairman Tedford is concerned that personnel are exhibiting poor behavior, which is being vocalized to their fellow co-workers and suggests it stop immediately. Town policies are in place and need to be followed by every Town employee. Selectman Sepe will not tolerate disrespect among employees or inappropriate statements being made to co-workers. Selectman Sepe reminds the Department Heads that their attitudes affect their employees, and if they have a problem they need to address that concern to the Board who makes the policy. Selectman Fraser adds personnel matters have been dealt with in a confidential manner, and when the Board requests information from a department, that person is doing their job by following up on that request. The Board is not going to ignore misuse of the purchase policy, and that person should be held accountable for their actions. Sharon Haley states the purchasing policy has been in place since 2008, and lately her department has been taking the brunt of accusations and turmoil. Selectman Gardner says the town employees need to work together, and follow the policy in place. If you don’t know, then ask the Board for direction. Selectman Ruth adds the Board reviews paperwork and if they have a question, they are going to follow up with the appropriate personnel for answers. In close, Chairman Tedford advises the Department Heads to move forward, and work together as a team. The Town has a lot of projects coming up and the Board relies on them to manage these departments. The Board gives the Department Heads an opportunity to speak or comment, and no one offers any response.
3rd Order of Business: Recess
The Board takes a 10-minute break at 11:50AM and resumes the meeting at 12:00PM.
4th Order of Business: Any Other Business
Selectman Sepe makes a motion to increase the boot allotment for sewer, water and highway departments from $100.00 to $175.00 to appropriately purchase safety shoes. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The shoe retailer can send the Town a bill and the employee pays the rest. The Town does not have to purchase from one manufacturer, and the employees in these departments are allowed to buy one pair of safety boots per year.
A trench box is currently disassembled at the Well No. 1-storage. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to have the Water Superintendent assemble the trench box and store at the highway garage within the next two weeks, and may ask for assistance to get it done within that timeframe. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.
5th Order of Business: Truck Specifications for 2011 Model
Dale reviews the proposed, detailed specifications for the 2011 medium duty dump truck with the Board. The warrant article passed in March 2010, giving the Board authorization to enter into a 3-year lease/purchase agreement in the amount of $64,996 to be paid in 3 annual principal and interest payments of $23,174 for the purpose of purchasing a 2011 1-ton dump truck, with central hydraulics system, flat bed dump body and plow set-up. Dale would like to trade-in the 1999 F450 1-ton truck with plow, as-is, which will not pass inspection. The Board agrees and asks that he get an official rejection sticker. The Board asks Ellen to advertise in the Keene Sentinel, website and around town. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to advertise for the 2011 truck in the Keene Sentinel, with a closing date of April 28, 2010, and Dale may solicit bids outside of the Keene area. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Ellen suggests awarding the bid a week after the bids are opened, so the Board can thoroughly review them. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to reconsider the previous motion. Selectman Sepe seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Selectman Sepe makes a motion to award the bid on May 5, 2010, with advertising in the Keene Sentinel, and bid opening on April 28, 2010. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The Board will accept sealed bids until April 28 and award the bid on May 5, 2010.
6th Order of Business: Any Other Business
While John Gomarlo is present, Chairman Tedford asks him about the status for reappointing members to the Revitalization Economic Development Committee. All terms expire this year, and some members have not been showing up for meetings. The Chairman asks John to prepare a list of recommendations, and asks Ellen to post openings for this committee on the website. Interested applicants should send a letter of interest to Margaret Sharra by April 24, 2010. The Board will then review appointments after the closing date.
Rick Meleski has some information for the Board regarding the replacement of the 1982 chlorine tanks. Rick spoke with Steve Roberts (NHDES Senior Sanitary Engineer) who approves purchase and installation of high density cross link polyethylene tanks and oxidation resistant barrier. Rick is still inclined to make this purchase from Northeast Fluid Control; hire Lawrence Excavation to lift the roof, remove and replace the tanks; and B.K. Plumbing (licensed plumber) for installation of lines/valves. Northeast has had very few problems with transporting and provide a 3-year warranty on these tanks. Rick intends to test the tanks once delivered to guarantee they sustained no damage during transportation. Selectman Sepe suggests the job go to a bonded, licensed contractor. Rick feels this is a very simple job and would prefer to not involve the engineers to keep the cost down. These tanks have a 15-year life expectancy and will be Rick’s responsibility to maintain over the years. Rick intends to use one tank at a time, and switch out when once the operating tank starts to leak. The Board still needs to digest this information and tables further discussion till next week.
Rick asks the Board if he has the authority to instruct the engineers to remove some overgrown big shrubs and trees, and remove some fill behind the plant, to which Chairman Tedford responds, as long as we do not need a change order and at no additional cost to the Town. Selectman Fraser makes a motion that Rick may use his discretion and do what is necessary for tree, bush, and topsoil removal by Lawrence Excavation, at no additional cost to the Town. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion an it passes 5-0.
The Town has finally received written approval of Contract Amendment No. 1, dated December 11, 2009 from the NHDOT, which increases the original for the Hoyle, Tanner & Associates (hereinafter “HTA”) contract for replacement of bridge over Wheelock Brook by $8,482.00 for a new total of $45,442.00. Formerly, the Board requested redesign of a shorter span to stay within the $500,000.00 budget for this project, with the Board’s full knowledge of its liability should any damages be incurred to the bridge or roadway during a 50-year flood event. Selectman Sepe abstains from voting since she was not involved, and excuses herself from the meeting at 12:50PM due to a previous engagement. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to authorize Bob Gray to sign the Contract Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the Town. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 4-0.
The Town Clerk sent a memo to all boards and committees in Town to reiterate that those members are responsible for their own minutes and distribution, with written copies to be held in the clerk’s office, as provided under statute. Chairman Tedford makes clear that these duties lie with said boards. If these committees wish to have their minutes on the website, they should send to Ellen electronically. Selectman Gardner makes a motion that these duties are the responsibility of the boards and committees, and not the Town Administrator or his assistant’s job. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 4-0.
7th Order of Business: Adjournment
Selectman Fraser makes a motion to adjourn. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 1:01PM.
Respectfully recorded,
Ellen A. Cole
Executive Assistant
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Gus Ruth says, ... "Take Us To Court"
Once again, as has happened many times in the past, our town Select Board failed to take responsibility and to perform their duty as an elected board and act on a citizen complaint.
At last night's board meeting, the board addressed a citizen's complaint in regards to noise and what is believed to be illegal activity occurring on the grounds of the Toy Box Auto Body Repair Shop on Route #10. The owner of this business has constructed a recreational outdoor motor-cross track with jumps on this property which is attracting riders from not only Winchester and abutting Swanzey; but from as far away as Massachusetts and Vermont. The increased noise and traffic on the old rail bed has reached the point where neighbors to this shop are fed up and approached the board for some relief.
In the past, they were told by the Police Dept. that there was nothing they could do; because our old Noise Ordinance was written in such a way that it was unenforceable. However, our new ordinance is and the police and Fish and Game officers have responded to complaints several times and in fact several riders have been ticketed by the Fish and Game officer who responded and 4-wheelers were impounded for lack of registrations.
Mr. Towne, who brought this complaint to the board and Mr. Homan, who's property abuts The Toy Box business, gave testimony before the board to the fact that when the owner of this business approached the Planning and Zoning Boards with his application, there was no mention of constructing an outdoor recreational motor-cross track on the property, nor was there any evidence that there was one there previously as to be grandfathered into the application. The business application was for an Auto Body Repair and Paint Shop, no mention of servicing or selling 4-wheelers or motorcycles; nor was permission sought to construct this track.
According to Sherman Tedford, he stated he had "checked out the matter" and "in his opinion, there was nothing wrong with the owner and his family riding on this property," that the board had no authority to do anything and that if they, the abutters were concerned about the noise to call the police. When he was informed that officer LT. Roberts had responded to an earlier complaint and had stated that this was an illegal activity and to take the matter to the board, Tedford stated they had "no power of enforcement" and that "in his opinion the activity was not illegal." Mr. Homan responded that the business had no permit for this outdoor activity, had not had any public hearings in regards to constructing this track; nor had even out of courtesy approached the abutters before hand to discuss any concerns that they may have about the noise. Mr. Homan told the board that as an abutter he had attended the public hearings for this business application and that no mention of a track ever came up or was any permission given by the Planning Board to construct one in the future. That there had never been any notice or public hearings prior to this business owner building this outdoor track.
The activity starts on this track every evening around 5:00 - 6:00pm during the week and goes on until after dusk. On the weekends, it's an all day event, from 8:00am until well after dark, with as many as a dozen or more riders carrying on all day long. Mr. Towne and Mr. Homan complained that they have to shut windows and doors in order to get any relief from the noise inside their homes and that sitting outside on the weekends in their own backyards is unbearable, not only from the noise coming from the Toy Box property; but from riders riding at high speeds up and down the old rail bed and in Mr. Homan's case, right through the middle of his backyard.
When Selectman Tedford stated the board had no enforcement powers and to call the police if they believed the noise was too loud, Mr. Towne asked why they refused to act as a governing body of the town. That weren't they, the members of the Board of Selectmen, the Chief Elected Officials and Executive Officers of the Town and weren't they responsible for the enforcement of bylaws and regulation of public ways? Didn't they have the power to instruct the town's Code Enforcement Officer to issue a Cease and Desist Order until the complaint could be checked out fully to see if the Toy Box was in fact in non-compliance and operating illegally?
Mr. Tedford did not answer and it was at this point in the discussion that Selectman Gus Ruth attempted to make a motion to close the public hearing and that Mr. Towne injected a comment that this was typical of how the board conducts it's business and why matters end up in court. Gus Ruth then stated to Mr. Towne, "don't you already have a case against the town in court now? Mr. Towne responded yes; "but not by choice". Then Mr. Ruth responded, "then take us to court", to which Mr. Towne responded, "if that's what it takes to get you to do your duty. you leave me no choice". Then Mr Ruth attempted to end the public hearing stating" we can't discuss this any further as we are now in litigation". Mr. Homan responded to Mr. Ruth that his statement was unfounded as no lawsuit had even been filed yet; that all they wanted was the Select Board to act in accordance with the law and grant them some relief.
Needless to say, the board did nothing, proving once again how useless it is to attempt to approach these people to solve an issue. They continuously shirk their duties, act irresponsibly and pass the buck onto someone else. Just how fiscally responsible is it to waste tax payers money on lawsuits over issues that they could resolve without going to court by simply enforcing our town regulations and ordinances?
We wonder just how long it is going to take for the Police Dept. to get sick and tired of answering noise complaints from Mr. Towne and Mr. Homan and the rest of the neighborhood and if they will be required to file a lawsuit just to be able to enjoy their backyards this summer. So much for Gus's statement to bring your issues to the board, what a waste of time.
At last night's board meeting, the board addressed a citizen's complaint in regards to noise and what is believed to be illegal activity occurring on the grounds of the Toy Box Auto Body Repair Shop on Route #10. The owner of this business has constructed a recreational outdoor motor-cross track with jumps on this property which is attracting riders from not only Winchester and abutting Swanzey; but from as far away as Massachusetts and Vermont. The increased noise and traffic on the old rail bed has reached the point where neighbors to this shop are fed up and approached the board for some relief.
In the past, they were told by the Police Dept. that there was nothing they could do; because our old Noise Ordinance was written in such a way that it was unenforceable. However, our new ordinance is and the police and Fish and Game officers have responded to complaints several times and in fact several riders have been ticketed by the Fish and Game officer who responded and 4-wheelers were impounded for lack of registrations.
Mr. Towne, who brought this complaint to the board and Mr. Homan, who's property abuts The Toy Box business, gave testimony before the board to the fact that when the owner of this business approached the Planning and Zoning Boards with his application, there was no mention of constructing an outdoor recreational motor-cross track on the property, nor was there any evidence that there was one there previously as to be grandfathered into the application. The business application was for an Auto Body Repair and Paint Shop, no mention of servicing or selling 4-wheelers or motorcycles; nor was permission sought to construct this track.
According to Sherman Tedford, he stated he had "checked out the matter" and "in his opinion, there was nothing wrong with the owner and his family riding on this property," that the board had no authority to do anything and that if they, the abutters were concerned about the noise to call the police. When he was informed that officer LT. Roberts had responded to an earlier complaint and had stated that this was an illegal activity and to take the matter to the board, Tedford stated they had "no power of enforcement" and that "in his opinion the activity was not illegal." Mr. Homan responded that the business had no permit for this outdoor activity, had not had any public hearings in regards to constructing this track; nor had even out of courtesy approached the abutters before hand to discuss any concerns that they may have about the noise. Mr. Homan told the board that as an abutter he had attended the public hearings for this business application and that no mention of a track ever came up or was any permission given by the Planning Board to construct one in the future. That there had never been any notice or public hearings prior to this business owner building this outdoor track.
The activity starts on this track every evening around 5:00 - 6:00pm during the week and goes on until after dusk. On the weekends, it's an all day event, from 8:00am until well after dark, with as many as a dozen or more riders carrying on all day long. Mr. Towne and Mr. Homan complained that they have to shut windows and doors in order to get any relief from the noise inside their homes and that sitting outside on the weekends in their own backyards is unbearable, not only from the noise coming from the Toy Box property; but from riders riding at high speeds up and down the old rail bed and in Mr. Homan's case, right through the middle of his backyard.
When Selectman Tedford stated the board had no enforcement powers and to call the police if they believed the noise was too loud, Mr. Towne asked why they refused to act as a governing body of the town. That weren't they, the members of the Board of Selectmen, the Chief Elected Officials and Executive Officers of the Town and weren't they responsible for the enforcement of bylaws and regulation of public ways? Didn't they have the power to instruct the town's Code Enforcement Officer to issue a Cease and Desist Order until the complaint could be checked out fully to see if the Toy Box was in fact in non-compliance and operating illegally?
Mr. Tedford did not answer and it was at this point in the discussion that Selectman Gus Ruth attempted to make a motion to close the public hearing and that Mr. Towne injected a comment that this was typical of how the board conducts it's business and why matters end up in court. Gus Ruth then stated to Mr. Towne, "don't you already have a case against the town in court now? Mr. Towne responded yes; "but not by choice". Then Mr. Ruth responded, "then take us to court", to which Mr. Towne responded, "if that's what it takes to get you to do your duty. you leave me no choice". Then Mr Ruth attempted to end the public hearing stating" we can't discuss this any further as we are now in litigation". Mr. Homan responded to Mr. Ruth that his statement was unfounded as no lawsuit had even been filed yet; that all they wanted was the Select Board to act in accordance with the law and grant them some relief.
Needless to say, the board did nothing, proving once again how useless it is to attempt to approach these people to solve an issue. They continuously shirk their duties, act irresponsibly and pass the buck onto someone else. Just how fiscally responsible is it to waste tax payers money on lawsuits over issues that they could resolve without going to court by simply enforcing our town regulations and ordinances?
We wonder just how long it is going to take for the Police Dept. to get sick and tired of answering noise complaints from Mr. Towne and Mr. Homan and the rest of the neighborhood and if they will be required to file a lawsuit just to be able to enjoy their backyards this summer. So much for Gus's statement to bring your issues to the board, what a waste of time.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Who pays whose pension?
Fosters Daily Democrat cites a new rule allowing the state retirement system to charge local governments up to &600,000. per worker at retirement
... The surcharge is based on cities and towns that allow workers to receive larger retirement benefits by end-loading their working years with unused sick/vacation time payouts as well as accumulated additional overtime pay. It's the income from the last few years of an employee's career that sets the basis for retirement system payouts.
Does this sound familiar folks?
... The effort to recoup funds for the retirement system lies in the logic that these higher retiree benefits have not been funded properly over time, i.e. that the retirement system has not had the money to invest in anticipation of the higher benefits. It would be nice to believe this new provision would put an end to the problems with the state retirement system. It will not!
... Already, a lawsuit is underway challenging an earlier decision by the Legislature to shift more of the retirement system costs to cities and towns.
... The real answer to the problem was recognized years ago by private employers who closed down and bought out more traditional retirement programs. These programs, like the state system, made promises that in the long run were too expensive to keep.
The answer to the state retirement system crisis -- and it is a crisis -- is to move toward employee managed plans such as 401K and 403b retirement plans.
... These plans have become a financial necessity for businesses and now for the state retirement system. What's more, they are already used by the semi-public University System of New Hampshire.
... It only makes practical as well as financial sense that the state system head in the same direction.
... The surcharge is based on cities and towns that allow workers to receive larger retirement benefits by end-loading their working years with unused sick/vacation time payouts as well as accumulated additional overtime pay. It's the income from the last few years of an employee's career that sets the basis for retirement system payouts.
Does this sound familiar folks?
... The effort to recoup funds for the retirement system lies in the logic that these higher retiree benefits have not been funded properly over time, i.e. that the retirement system has not had the money to invest in anticipation of the higher benefits. It would be nice to believe this new provision would put an end to the problems with the state retirement system. It will not!
... Already, a lawsuit is underway challenging an earlier decision by the Legislature to shift more of the retirement system costs to cities and towns.
... The real answer to the problem was recognized years ago by private employers who closed down and bought out more traditional retirement programs. These programs, like the state system, made promises that in the long run were too expensive to keep.
The answer to the state retirement system crisis -- and it is a crisis -- is to move toward employee managed plans such as 401K and 403b retirement plans.
... These plans have become a financial necessity for businesses and now for the state retirement system. What's more, they are already used by the semi-public University System of New Hampshire.
... It only makes practical as well as financial sense that the state system head in the same direction.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Board of Selectmen Work Session Minutes 03/24/2010
Board Members Present: Sherman Tedford, Chairman; Roberta Fraser; Theresa Sepe; Gustave Ruth; and Kenneth Gardner. Also present Sharon Haley, Finance Supervisor; Amy Bond, Finance Assistant; Karey Miner, Deputy Tax Collector; and Ellen Cole, Executive Assistant. The meeting convenes at 10:00AM.
1st Order of Business: Current Fiscal Budget/Cash Flow Review
The Board held a work session with Sharon Haley-Finance Supervisor, Peg Tatro-Treasurer, and Karey Miner-Deputy Tax Collector on February 10, 2010 to discuss revenues, cash flow and accounts payable. The Board requested revisiting this financial overview to see where the numbers and percentages are today. The Board reviews the budget expenses, managed by Sharon, who points out the operating budget should be at 25%, but has 23% remaining with 13 weeks remaining of the fiscal year. The Water and Sewer budgets are separate enterprises, but are part of the operating budget. Sharon and the Board have a general discussion, and review the weekly, anticipated payments for payroll, payroll taxes, accounts payable, retirement, and health insurance. Amy Bond reviews the APs for the weeks of March 4-$45,000.00, March 11-$47,000.00, March 18-$15,000.00, and March 25-$32,000.00. Amy anticipates a return the second week of May of roughly $9,000.00 (7,300 gallons left) for unused, prepaid fuel. Other anticipated revenues include $23,000.00 from the Highway Block Grant and reimbursement of RERP. The Board has not put a freeze on spending, but the purchasing policy in place makes clear that anything over $3,000.00 must receive Board approval. Selectman Sepe asks Sharon for her professional opinion if we’ll meet the bottom line, to which Sharon estimates as of right now, we’ll be over budget with anticipated APs. Selectman Sepe makes a motion to freeze the budget, excluding the mandatory payments for payroll, etc. in order to keep our creditors up to date, and anything absolutely necessary, otherwise anything that comes up will go before the Board for approval.
Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to hold a budget work session on April 14, 2010 at 9:30AM. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. At that time, these figures will be re-reviewed. Chairman Tedford asks Sharon to break down weekly figures of contractual obligations the Town needs to pay, excluding water and sewer. The Board asks Sharon to recalculate the projected expense figures to check for accuracy. Sharon suggests the Board consider ‘no spending’ after June 15 because outstanding invoices create a problem when closing the fiscal year. Sharon would prefer to not backdate and asks purchases be made early enough so Finance can cut the checks. Sharon and Amy completely understand, however, emergencies would be an exception to this request.
Karey makes the Board aware that yesterday she collected roughly $250,000.00. Since Karey last met with the Board, the Town has taken in over $400,000.00 in deposits. Karey gives a breakdown of unpaid taxes for: 2007-$84,240.00; 2008-$352,979.00; and 2009 balance-$635,520.00 for a grand total of $1,073,000.00. Karey did a year-to-year comparison of total outstanding taxes for March 2008-$681,000.00; and March 2009-$831,000.00. The total tax bill is over $7.6 million. Another factor Karey would like the Board to consider is in April she will tax deed for 2007 unpaid taxes. Karey anticipates a majority of property owners will pay before April 14, 2010. Overall, the cash flow seems fine.
The Board thanks the ladies for their input.
2nd Order of Business: Non-Public Session under RSA 91-A:3II (a)
Selectman Fraser makes a motion to enter non-public session under (a). Selectman Ruth seconds the motion. A role call vote is taken and all members vote “yes”, and the Board convenes in non-public session at 10:48AM.
3rd Order of Business: Reconvene Public Session
The Board reconvenes in public session at 11:45AM. The non-public minutes under (a) was sealed.
4th Order of Business: Adjournment
Selectman Tedford makes a motion to adjourn. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 12:15PM.
Respectfully recorded,
Ellen A. Cole
Executive Assistant
1st Order of Business: Current Fiscal Budget/Cash Flow Review
The Board held a work session with Sharon Haley-Finance Supervisor, Peg Tatro-Treasurer, and Karey Miner-Deputy Tax Collector on February 10, 2010 to discuss revenues, cash flow and accounts payable. The Board requested revisiting this financial overview to see where the numbers and percentages are today. The Board reviews the budget expenses, managed by Sharon, who points out the operating budget should be at 25%, but has 23% remaining with 13 weeks remaining of the fiscal year. The Water and Sewer budgets are separate enterprises, but are part of the operating budget. Sharon and the Board have a general discussion, and review the weekly, anticipated payments for payroll, payroll taxes, accounts payable, retirement, and health insurance. Amy Bond reviews the APs for the weeks of March 4-$45,000.00, March 11-$47,000.00, March 18-$15,000.00, and March 25-$32,000.00. Amy anticipates a return the second week of May of roughly $9,000.00 (7,300 gallons left) for unused, prepaid fuel. Other anticipated revenues include $23,000.00 from the Highway Block Grant and reimbursement of RERP. The Board has not put a freeze on spending, but the purchasing policy in place makes clear that anything over $3,000.00 must receive Board approval. Selectman Sepe asks Sharon for her professional opinion if we’ll meet the bottom line, to which Sharon estimates as of right now, we’ll be over budget with anticipated APs. Selectman Sepe makes a motion to freeze the budget, excluding the mandatory payments for payroll, etc. in order to keep our creditors up to date, and anything absolutely necessary, otherwise anything that comes up will go before the Board for approval.
Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. Selectman Gardner makes a motion to hold a budget work session on April 14, 2010 at 9:30AM. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. At that time, these figures will be re-reviewed. Chairman Tedford asks Sharon to break down weekly figures of contractual obligations the Town needs to pay, excluding water and sewer. The Board asks Sharon to recalculate the projected expense figures to check for accuracy. Sharon suggests the Board consider ‘no spending’ after June 15 because outstanding invoices create a problem when closing the fiscal year. Sharon would prefer to not backdate and asks purchases be made early enough so Finance can cut the checks. Sharon and Amy completely understand, however, emergencies would be an exception to this request.
Karey makes the Board aware that yesterday she collected roughly $250,000.00. Since Karey last met with the Board, the Town has taken in over $400,000.00 in deposits. Karey gives a breakdown of unpaid taxes for: 2007-$84,240.00; 2008-$352,979.00; and 2009 balance-$635,520.00 for a grand total of $1,073,000.00. Karey did a year-to-year comparison of total outstanding taxes for March 2008-$681,000.00; and March 2009-$831,000.00. The total tax bill is over $7.6 million. Another factor Karey would like the Board to consider is in April she will tax deed for 2007 unpaid taxes. Karey anticipates a majority of property owners will pay before April 14, 2010. Overall, the cash flow seems fine.
The Board thanks the ladies for their input.
2nd Order of Business: Non-Public Session under RSA 91-A:3II (a)
Selectman Fraser makes a motion to enter non-public session under (a). Selectman Ruth seconds the motion. A role call vote is taken and all members vote “yes”, and the Board convenes in non-public session at 10:48AM.
3rd Order of Business: Reconvene Public Session
The Board reconvenes in public session at 11:45AM. The non-public minutes under (a) was sealed.
4th Order of Business: Adjournment
Selectman Tedford makes a motion to adjourn. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 12:15PM.
Respectfully recorded,
Ellen A. Cole
Executive Assistant
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wolves in Volunteers’ Clothing: The Need for Background Checks
New Hampshire Town and City, November/December 2005
By Greg Langan
We all assume that background checks are being done on teachers, summer day camp counselors and nursing home staff in order to protect our children and vulnerable adult populations. Are these checks being done on all staff who work for schools, municipal recreation departments and elder care facilities? Are the checks being done on volunteer staff or just employees?
The passage of the National Child Protection Act (NCPA) in 1993, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, and the Volunteers for Children Act of 1998 provided the states with the authority to enact legislation requiring schools and organizations serving vulnerable populations to conduct background checks on employees, contractors and volunteers.
Legislation requiring background checks and criminal record checks is the responsibility of each state’s governing bodies; there is no federal law requiring background checks. Since it is each state’s responsibility, there is no single, uniform requirement for criminal record checks of employees, contractors and volunteers.
The Need for Background Checks
Congress and the nation are convinced that criminal record checks are a good method to screen teachers, caregivers, program staff, and others who have contact with children and vulnerable populations. The data on crimes against children, compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), provides statistical evidence that criminal record checks are valuable:
* 59 percent of current prisoners with a child victim had been previously convicted of a crime.
* 42 percent of current offenders with a child victim and a prior criminal history had a past conviction for a violent crime against either children or adults.
* 19 percent of current child victimizers convicted of prior violent crimes had been convicted in the past of statutory rape, lewd acts with a child or child abuse.
Criminal record checks will never be able to identify every potential victimizer of children and vulnerable populations, especially those without a criminal record. Nevertheless, the DOJ data provides rationale for conducting those checks in order to remove applicants with criminal records from the employee selection process.
The Case for Volunteer Background Checks
The U.S. Department of Justice data, cited earlier, validates an assumption that offenders will repeat. Screening will identify those with prior criminal convictions. More than 87,000,000 children are involved in activities that depend on volunteer staff persons. Millions of other vulnerable citizens also are involved in volunteer-staffed activities. The sheer number of potential victims is likely to attract attention from potential volunteers with a criminal predator background, looking to find a new victim.
The United States Congress and state legislatures have recognized the problem and have passed legislation that provides organizations with access to law enforcement databases for criminal record checks. With the passage of the Volunteers of Children Act in 1998, all organizations that provide education, recreation or care for children and vulnerable populations have access to national fingerprint-based criminal history checks. The American Youth Soccer Association, Little League Association, Boy Scouts of America and countless other organizations dedicated to children’s activities are requiring background and criminal record checks on staff and volunteers.
Criminal background checks are becoming the norm for employers. Whether it is a result of the post-9/11 terrorism concerns, the perceived need for additional security in the workplace or the fear that employers face involving liability for failure to screen, employer-requested criminal history checks are not commonplace. The trauma suffered by the victims of sexual and physical abuse cannot be measured against the cost to complete the criminal history background checks. Admittedly, the school district, the city recreation department or the county nursing home will have to deal with the cost of the criminal background reports. Consider one school district in the northeast: 28,000 students and 2,200 volunteers. The cost of completing criminal history checks for the 2,200 volunteers, if it could be done for $28 per volunteer, would amount to more than $60,000.
What Records Should Be Reviewed for Background Checks?
A “volunteer background check" could involve checking a number of records, including:
* · Driving records
* · Professional licenses
* · Past employment records
* · Credit history
* · Criminal records
* · References
* · Education
* · Interviews
The type of record that is reviewed should have some bearing on the role and responsibility that the volunteer is seeking to undertake. Checking criminal records will yield information about criminal behavior. Reviewing driving records will provide insight into the volunteer’s driving behaviors. Credit history records may be useful if the volunteer will be handling cash or financial transactions. Past employment records may provide information about the volunteer’s stability or work responsibility.
If convictions are predictive of future behavior, why not use arrest records in the screening process, too? Case law, based on Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, bars the use of arrest data in screening processes for paid positions. It is wise to assume that the same case law would also preclude using arrest data for screening volunteers. The screening process should consider convictions and only those arrests for which final disposition is pending.
The criminal history record check is a screening tool, not a selection tool. Do not make the assumption that every volunteer who “passes" the criminal check will be able to contribute to the organization. There should be volunteer selection criteria that are used after the volunteer applicant clears the criminal history record check.
Is There Any Defense for Organizations that Don’t Do Criminal Checks?
Courts are increasingly holding employers liable for negligent hiring practices that result in injury to other employees or to third parties. The employer is expected to use reasonable care in hiring employees and to take steps to prevent injury where there is a foreseeable risk. Any legal distinction between employer-employee negligent hiring and employer-volunteer hiring is likely to be irrelevant, especially in a setting where volunteers are interacting with children and vulnerable populations.
The Volunteer Protection Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1997, provides some immunity for volunteers from claims for injury or damage to others while the volunteer is performing their duties. It does not, however, provide immunity for willful, wanton or illegal acts committed by the volunteer. The act was never intended to provide liability immunity for the organization.
In a recent case involving sexual molestation by a volunteer, the defendant, a school, had not conducted a criminal record check on the volunteer. The prosecution alleged negligence because there had been no background check, even though the check would have revealed no criminal history for the volunteer.
In another case, the plaintiff invoked 42 USC Section 1983, alleging that the organization had been “deliberately indifferent" to protect the student’s right to personal body integrity. The deliberate indifference was manifest in the organization’s lack of background screening and the absence of a policy on reporting suspected sexual abuse of students. Furthermore, the organization had never instructed staff and volunteers in recognizing the warning signs of abuse or provided guidelines for dealing with such suspicions.
Are There Other Options to Doing a Criminal Record Check?
There are organizations that are asking their volunteers to sign “Behavioral Expectation Policies" that outline the expected behaviors of volunteers when working with children and vulnerable populations. While some of the behaviors are fairly specific, such as, “staff and volunteers may not hug any child," there are a number that are less specific, such as, “represent the organization by being a positive role model." The lack of specificity in the latter example renders it ineffective for describing expected behaviors.
Even with the signature of the volunteer, indicating agreement with the policy, there is no assurance that the volunteer will abide by the policies. If the volunteer violates the Behavior Expectations, the organization may have grounds to release the non-compliant volunteer from service. But the policy does nothing to protect children and vulnerable populations from abuse and victimization.
Are There Other Risk Management Controls that Should Be in Place?
There are a number of other risk management techniques to guard against opportunities for victimization that should be integral with the operation of the organization:
* • Minimize (or eliminate) the times when a volunteer has isolated one-on-one contact with children or vulnerable populations.
* Ensure that supervision practices permit close monitoring of the staff and volunteers with children and other vulnerable populations.
* • Change facility design to reduce or eliminate private, secluded areas within buildings that could be occupied by volunteers working with children and vulnerable populations.
* • Require supervisors to interact face-to-face with children and vulnerable populations to detect any concerns.
* • Establish policies that limit contact between the volunteer and the children or vulnerable population, outside of the organization’s activities.
* • Consider whether changing volunteer assignments periodically would be appropriate for inhibiting the development of close relationships.
* • Develop and adopt a policy that requires the reporting of all suspicious conduct to a law enforcement or protective services agency—and then train all staff and volunteers on the policy and the reporting procedures.
Criminal history background checks are insufficient to absolutely guarantee the protection of children and vulnerable populations. Criminal checks will only uncover criminal predators with a criminal record. The background checks must be coupled with other risk management procedures to help the organization protect against victimization by volunteers.
What Do I Need to Do to Get Authorization to Conduct Background Checks on Volunteers?
Volunteer applicants should authorize the organization to conduct the background check. While it may be possible to check public records to obtain some of the information that would be checked in the background investigation, it is always advisable to have the volunteer applicant sign the authorization before commencing any checks. If the volunteer applicant is unwilling to authorize the background check, the organization should not read anything into the refusal, but should withdraw the invitation to apply for a volunteer position.
Your local law enforcement agency will be able to advise your organization about the authorization form that is required for the criminal history background check. If the process involves a national search through the FBI database, your local law enforcement agency will be able to provide the criminal history questionnaire, fingerprint cards and authorization forms.
If the background check is being conducted by a commercial investigative or commercial consumer reporting service, the requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) will apply. The volunteer applicant must complete an authorization form that is on a page separate from all other application information. This authorization form must identify the types of information that will be provided by the reporting company and include the authorization signature of the volunteer applicant.
Further, if the report will include interviews with others, the organization must give notice of the individual’s right to ask about the nature and scope of the report. If the organization needs medical information in the report, an additional authorization will be required.
Every organization should be aware that there are obligations placed on those who receive reports from commercial investigative or commercial consumer reporting agencies:
* • The organization has an obligation to notify the subject of a back-ground check before taking any adverse action based on information included in a report. An example would be if the volunteer applicant is not offered a position based on information included in the report.
* • The volunteer, depending on the state, may be able to receive a copy of the report at no cost.
* • The volunteer is entitled to receive a copy of the report if there is any “adverse" volunteer position decision.
* • The volunteer is entitled to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the information in the report directly with the consumer reporting or consumer investigative reporting agency.
* • The information in the report should be treated as confidential and should only be available to those persons in the organization who need to know the information in order to make a decision on the volunteer applicant.
* • Disposal of consumer information reports must be through shredding paper copies and erasing electronic data copies so that the information cannot be reconstructed.
*Summary
Criminal predators may be trying to infiltrate our schools, recreation departments and elder care facilities. The DOJ confirms what the media has been reporting: Criminal predators will continue to seek new victims until they are stopped.
An effective way to identify known criminal predators is through criminal history background checks. Congress and state legislatures have opened access to fingerprint-based criminal history databases for employee and volunteer record checks. States have responded by requiring criminal record checks as part of the certification screening for some professionals and pre-employment screening for some positions.
Prudent risk management practices suggest that, “what is good for the goose, is good for the gander." Anyone working closely with children, whether it is a teacher or a volunteer, a softball coach or a summer day care provider, should be subject to the same criminal record check screening process. Anyone working closely with vulnerable adult populations, whether it is a registered nurse or a patient transport aide, should be subject to the same criminal record check screening process.
rocess.
By Greg Langan
We all assume that background checks are being done on teachers, summer day camp counselors and nursing home staff in order to protect our children and vulnerable adult populations. Are these checks being done on all staff who work for schools, municipal recreation departments and elder care facilities? Are the checks being done on volunteer staff or just employees?
The passage of the National Child Protection Act (NCPA) in 1993, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, and the Volunteers for Children Act of 1998 provided the states with the authority to enact legislation requiring schools and organizations serving vulnerable populations to conduct background checks on employees, contractors and volunteers.
Legislation requiring background checks and criminal record checks is the responsibility of each state’s governing bodies; there is no federal law requiring background checks. Since it is each state’s responsibility, there is no single, uniform requirement for criminal record checks of employees, contractors and volunteers.
The Need for Background Checks
Congress and the nation are convinced that criminal record checks are a good method to screen teachers, caregivers, program staff, and others who have contact with children and vulnerable populations. The data on crimes against children, compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), provides statistical evidence that criminal record checks are valuable:
* 59 percent of current prisoners with a child victim had been previously convicted of a crime.
* 42 percent of current offenders with a child victim and a prior criminal history had a past conviction for a violent crime against either children or adults.
* 19 percent of current child victimizers convicted of prior violent crimes had been convicted in the past of statutory rape, lewd acts with a child or child abuse.
Criminal record checks will never be able to identify every potential victimizer of children and vulnerable populations, especially those without a criminal record. Nevertheless, the DOJ data provides rationale for conducting those checks in order to remove applicants with criminal records from the employee selection process.
The Case for Volunteer Background Checks
The U.S. Department of Justice data, cited earlier, validates an assumption that offenders will repeat. Screening will identify those with prior criminal convictions. More than 87,000,000 children are involved in activities that depend on volunteer staff persons. Millions of other vulnerable citizens also are involved in volunteer-staffed activities. The sheer number of potential victims is likely to attract attention from potential volunteers with a criminal predator background, looking to find a new victim.
The United States Congress and state legislatures have recognized the problem and have passed legislation that provides organizations with access to law enforcement databases for criminal record checks. With the passage of the Volunteers of Children Act in 1998, all organizations that provide education, recreation or care for children and vulnerable populations have access to national fingerprint-based criminal history checks. The American Youth Soccer Association, Little League Association, Boy Scouts of America and countless other organizations dedicated to children’s activities are requiring background and criminal record checks on staff and volunteers.
Criminal background checks are becoming the norm for employers. Whether it is a result of the post-9/11 terrorism concerns, the perceived need for additional security in the workplace or the fear that employers face involving liability for failure to screen, employer-requested criminal history checks are not commonplace. The trauma suffered by the victims of sexual and physical abuse cannot be measured against the cost to complete the criminal history background checks. Admittedly, the school district, the city recreation department or the county nursing home will have to deal with the cost of the criminal background reports. Consider one school district in the northeast: 28,000 students and 2,200 volunteers. The cost of completing criminal history checks for the 2,200 volunteers, if it could be done for $28 per volunteer, would amount to more than $60,000.
What Records Should Be Reviewed for Background Checks?
A “volunteer background check" could involve checking a number of records, including:
* · Driving records
* · Professional licenses
* · Past employment records
* · Credit history
* · Criminal records
* · References
* · Education
* · Interviews
The type of record that is reviewed should have some bearing on the role and responsibility that the volunteer is seeking to undertake. Checking criminal records will yield information about criminal behavior. Reviewing driving records will provide insight into the volunteer’s driving behaviors. Credit history records may be useful if the volunteer will be handling cash or financial transactions. Past employment records may provide information about the volunteer’s stability or work responsibility.
If convictions are predictive of future behavior, why not use arrest records in the screening process, too? Case law, based on Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, bars the use of arrest data in screening processes for paid positions. It is wise to assume that the same case law would also preclude using arrest data for screening volunteers. The screening process should consider convictions and only those arrests for which final disposition is pending.
The criminal history record check is a screening tool, not a selection tool. Do not make the assumption that every volunteer who “passes" the criminal check will be able to contribute to the organization. There should be volunteer selection criteria that are used after the volunteer applicant clears the criminal history record check.
Is There Any Defense for Organizations that Don’t Do Criminal Checks?
Courts are increasingly holding employers liable for negligent hiring practices that result in injury to other employees or to third parties. The employer is expected to use reasonable care in hiring employees and to take steps to prevent injury where there is a foreseeable risk. Any legal distinction between employer-employee negligent hiring and employer-volunteer hiring is likely to be irrelevant, especially in a setting where volunteers are interacting with children and vulnerable populations.
The Volunteer Protection Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1997, provides some immunity for volunteers from claims for injury or damage to others while the volunteer is performing their duties. It does not, however, provide immunity for willful, wanton or illegal acts committed by the volunteer. The act was never intended to provide liability immunity for the organization.
In a recent case involving sexual molestation by a volunteer, the defendant, a school, had not conducted a criminal record check on the volunteer. The prosecution alleged negligence because there had been no background check, even though the check would have revealed no criminal history for the volunteer.
In another case, the plaintiff invoked 42 USC Section 1983, alleging that the organization had been “deliberately indifferent" to protect the student’s right to personal body integrity. The deliberate indifference was manifest in the organization’s lack of background screening and the absence of a policy on reporting suspected sexual abuse of students. Furthermore, the organization had never instructed staff and volunteers in recognizing the warning signs of abuse or provided guidelines for dealing with such suspicions.
Are There Other Options to Doing a Criminal Record Check?
There are organizations that are asking their volunteers to sign “Behavioral Expectation Policies" that outline the expected behaviors of volunteers when working with children and vulnerable populations. While some of the behaviors are fairly specific, such as, “staff and volunteers may not hug any child," there are a number that are less specific, such as, “represent the organization by being a positive role model." The lack of specificity in the latter example renders it ineffective for describing expected behaviors.
Even with the signature of the volunteer, indicating agreement with the policy, there is no assurance that the volunteer will abide by the policies. If the volunteer violates the Behavior Expectations, the organization may have grounds to release the non-compliant volunteer from service. But the policy does nothing to protect children and vulnerable populations from abuse and victimization.
Are There Other Risk Management Controls that Should Be in Place?
There are a number of other risk management techniques to guard against opportunities for victimization that should be integral with the operation of the organization:
* • Minimize (or eliminate) the times when a volunteer has isolated one-on-one contact with children or vulnerable populations.
* Ensure that supervision practices permit close monitoring of the staff and volunteers with children and other vulnerable populations.
* • Change facility design to reduce or eliminate private, secluded areas within buildings that could be occupied by volunteers working with children and vulnerable populations.
* • Require supervisors to interact face-to-face with children and vulnerable populations to detect any concerns.
* • Establish policies that limit contact between the volunteer and the children or vulnerable population, outside of the organization’s activities.
* • Consider whether changing volunteer assignments periodically would be appropriate for inhibiting the development of close relationships.
* • Develop and adopt a policy that requires the reporting of all suspicious conduct to a law enforcement or protective services agency—and then train all staff and volunteers on the policy and the reporting procedures.
Criminal history background checks are insufficient to absolutely guarantee the protection of children and vulnerable populations. Criminal checks will only uncover criminal predators with a criminal record. The background checks must be coupled with other risk management procedures to help the organization protect against victimization by volunteers.
What Do I Need to Do to Get Authorization to Conduct Background Checks on Volunteers?
Volunteer applicants should authorize the organization to conduct the background check. While it may be possible to check public records to obtain some of the information that would be checked in the background investigation, it is always advisable to have the volunteer applicant sign the authorization before commencing any checks. If the volunteer applicant is unwilling to authorize the background check, the organization should not read anything into the refusal, but should withdraw the invitation to apply for a volunteer position.
Your local law enforcement agency will be able to advise your organization about the authorization form that is required for the criminal history background check. If the process involves a national search through the FBI database, your local law enforcement agency will be able to provide the criminal history questionnaire, fingerprint cards and authorization forms.
If the background check is being conducted by a commercial investigative or commercial consumer reporting service, the requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) will apply. The volunteer applicant must complete an authorization form that is on a page separate from all other application information. This authorization form must identify the types of information that will be provided by the reporting company and include the authorization signature of the volunteer applicant.
Further, if the report will include interviews with others, the organization must give notice of the individual’s right to ask about the nature and scope of the report. If the organization needs medical information in the report, an additional authorization will be required.
Every organization should be aware that there are obligations placed on those who receive reports from commercial investigative or commercial consumer reporting agencies:
* • The organization has an obligation to notify the subject of a back-ground check before taking any adverse action based on information included in a report. An example would be if the volunteer applicant is not offered a position based on information included in the report.
* • The volunteer, depending on the state, may be able to receive a copy of the report at no cost.
* • The volunteer is entitled to receive a copy of the report if there is any “adverse" volunteer position decision.
* • The volunteer is entitled to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the information in the report directly with the consumer reporting or consumer investigative reporting agency.
* • The information in the report should be treated as confidential and should only be available to those persons in the organization who need to know the information in order to make a decision on the volunteer applicant.
* • Disposal of consumer information reports must be through shredding paper copies and erasing electronic data copies so that the information cannot be reconstructed.
*Summary
Criminal predators may be trying to infiltrate our schools, recreation departments and elder care facilities. The DOJ confirms what the media has been reporting: Criminal predators will continue to seek new victims until they are stopped.
An effective way to identify known criminal predators is through criminal history background checks. Congress and state legislatures have opened access to fingerprint-based criminal history databases for employee and volunteer record checks. States have responded by requiring criminal record checks as part of the certification screening for some professionals and pre-employment screening for some positions.
Prudent risk management practices suggest that, “what is good for the goose, is good for the gander." Anyone working closely with children, whether it is a teacher or a volunteer, a softball coach or a summer day care provider, should be subject to the same criminal record check screening process. Anyone working closely with vulnerable adult populations, whether it is a registered nurse or a patient transport aide, should be subject to the same criminal record check screening process.
rocess.
Troubleshooting on Election Day .. Food For Thought
New Hampshire Town and City, February 2010
By C. Christine Fillmore
An election is a complex event. Election officials spend a lot of time each year learning election laws and preparing for the election so that it will run smoothly. There are always a few questions, however. These are some of the more common questions that arise among our members each year.
Q. Who is in charge of elections?
A. The selectmen are responsible for setting up the polling place according to the requirements of RSA 658:9. However, the moderator is the chief election officer in charge of the polls on election day. It is the moderator’s duty to make certain all election officials understand their roles and fulfill them on election day. RSA 659:9. Of course, all election officials serve an important role. Municipal election officials may include any moderator, deputy moderator, assistant moderator, town clerk, deputy town clerk, city clerk, deputy city clerk, ward clerk, selectman, supervisor of the checklist, registrar or deputy registrar. RSA 652:14. The moderator may also appoint other election officials as he or she deems necessary. RSA 658:7.
Q. Do the selectmen have to be at the polling place on election day?
A. Yes. The New Hampshire Constitution, Part 2, Article 32, provides that “[t]he meetings for the choice of governor, council and senators, shall be warned by warrant from the selectmen, and governed by a moderator, who shall, in the presence of the selectmen (whose duty it shall be to attend) in open meeting, receive the votes of all the inhabitants of such towns….” The Secretary of State’s New Hampshire Election Procedure Manual: 2008-2009 states that, for “other elections, if the selectmen are not on-site during the election, they should be available for recall to the polls by the clerk or the moderator. The selectmen should be prepared or have town employees prepared to deal with any problems, such as light bulbs illuminating the polling booths burning out, that might develop during voting.”
It is important to note, however, that town elections are conducted in the same manner as state elections pursuant to RSA 669:25, so the rules for election procedures for state elections should generally be followed for town elections as well.
Q. What if we run out of paper ballots?
A. The town or city clerk should create more “unofficial” ballots following RSA 658:35. Photocopies should be made of an unused official ballot, and each photocopy should be signed or initialed by the clerk before being issued to a voter. This helps to prevent fraud by distinguishing the properly-created unofficial ballots from fraudulently created ballots. RSA 659:24. An accurate record should be kept of the total number of unofficial ballots created and the number of those that were actually used by voters.
Q: Do we have to allow people to “observe” the election from inside the polling place?
A. Yes. Any person has a right, as safety, welfare and rights of voters permit, to observe in-person voter registration, wherever it is conducted. However, observers must be located at least five feet from the registration table where the exchange of nonpublic information between the applicant and the election official receiving the application may be heard or seen. When a person registers to vote on election day, the election official shall announce the person’s name twice and also announce the address the person has registered as his or her domicile one time. These announcements will be made in a manner that allows any person appointed as a challenger to hear the announcement. RSA 654:7-c (effective August 21, 2009); RSA 666:4.
The selectmen should have the guardrail set up so that only those within the rail can approach within six feet of the ballot box and voting booths, and so that the voting booths and ballot box are within plain view of those observing from outside the rail. RSA 658:9.
Q. How do we handle it when someone challenges a voter?
A. Challenges may be made by any other registered voter in the town or ward (in writing only), by any election official, or by any challenger appointed by a political party or by the Attorney General with the proper signed statement from the political party/Attorney General. RSA 659:27; RSA 666:4-:5. A challenge may be made at any time until the voter puts his or her ballot into the ballot box or voting machine.
If a voter is challenged, the moderator may not receive that person’s vote until the challenged voter signs and gives to the moderator a Challenged Voter Affidavit (prepared by the Secretary of State). The affidavit must be sworn before an election official or any other person authorized by law to administer oaths. The challenged voter may then be permitted to vote. RSA 659:30.
The clerk must keep a record of all challenges including the name and address of the voters completing the affidavits, the affidavits, the name of the person challenging and the reason for the challenge, and report the challenge on the State’s ElectioNet system. RSA 659:27 – RSA 659:33. See the Secretary of State’s election manual for complete instructions regarding challenges.
Q. Who decides how campaigning at the polls will be controlled?
A. The moderator, under authority from the New Hampshire Constitution, Part 2, Article 32, as well as RSA 659:9 and RSA 659:43. According to the Secretary of State’s manual, “[a] voter must be able to come into a polling place and cast his or her vote, without being accosted or interfered with by those who may be participating in electioneering or other activities at the voting place such as bake sales, public information displays on issues not before the voters at the election, public displays by civic groups and so on.”
It is the moderator’s duty to ensure that no illegal electioneering occurs at the polling place. RSA 659:9. The moderator should control all areas from the building entrance to the room where the voting occurs. The moderator is also responsible for setting up a 10-foot wide “no-electioneering zone” from the building entrance extending as far into the driveway or parking area as the moderator deems appropriate. In addition, the moderator should designate an election official to periodically check the voting booths and remove any materials left there, including campaign materials or other items left by voters. RSA 659:43.
Q. What is illegal electioneering?
A. Illegal electioneering includes distributing or posting campaign materials within the building where the election is being held as well as the areas leading to the polling place. RSA 659:43, I, II. It is also illegal for an election officer or public employee to electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties. RSA 659:44; RSA 659:44-a.
Q. Can a municipality regulate the distribution of campaign materials or electioneering by ordinance?
A. Yes, to some extent. Under RSA 31:41-c and RSA 47:17, XIV-a, towns and cities have the power to make ordinances regulating both the distribution of campaign materials and electioneering that “affects the safety, welfare and rights of voters at any election.” However, municipalities cannot regulate: (1) the display of campaign materials attached to any legally parked motor vehicle; or (2) activities conducted wholly on private property that do not interfere with voter access or exiting of the polling place. In towns, ordinances regulating such election activities must be provided to the town clerk immediately after adoption so that they may be available to candidates filing for office. The ordinances must also be posted at each polling place at least 72 hours in advance of any town election.
Q. Do we have to allow exit polls?
A. Voters may not be obstructed or interfered with as they enter or exit the polling place, or as they vote within the polling place. Other than this, however, there are no legal restrictions on exit polling. Therefore, it may make the most sense for the moderator to adopt a policy regarding an acceptable place for exit polling (or other non-voting activities, such as bake sales) to occur, such as an adjacent vacant room or hallway that does not interfere with the customary entrance pathway, exit pathway, or railed area.
Q. Can campaigners give voters preprinted stickers with the name of a write-in candidate to paste onto their ballots?
A. No, New Hampshire statute and case law clearly prohibit this. RSA 659:65 provides that “a ballot shall be regarded as defective in part and that part shall not be tabulated if either or both of the following conditions exist:…(b) the ballot has attached to it an adhesive slip, sticker or paster not prepared in accordance with RSA 656:21 in the space for any office….” RSA 656:21, in turn, provides that the Secretary of State may authorize the use of pasters for state elections when a candidate dies or is disqualified and the name of a substitute candidate must be used.
While RSA 659 is a statute that applies generally to state elections, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that the prohibition on stickers also applies to town elections. Kibbe v. Milton, 142 N.H. 288, 291 (1997). The only instance in which a statute permits the use of pasters or stickers on a town ballot is in the limited circumstance when a candidate dies or makes oath that he or she no longer qualifies for the office. In that case, the town clerk is required to omit the name from the ballot, and if ballots have already been printed, to cover the name with pasters. RSA 669:22.
“Even when the voters’ intent is clear, if the means they employed to indicate their vote does not substantially comply with the applicable statute, their attempt to vote is a failure.” Kibbe v. Milton, 142 N.H. at 293. Although the Court noted that “the right to vote is cherished and protected by our State Constitution,” it still concluded that RSA 659:65, II(b) legally regulates the manner by which a voter may not express his or her vote. See id. at 293-94.
Q. Can members of the public observe the counting of the ballots?
A. Yes. Just as the public may observe voter check-in from outside the rail, the public must be permitted to observe the counting of the ballots from outside the rail. This means that the doors should not be locked when the polls are closed. Ballot counting “shall not be adjourned nor postponed until it shall have been completed.” When the polling place is rearranged for counting after the polls are closed, counting tables must be located at least four feet from the rail, and no ballot may be placed any closer to the rail than four feet. RSA 659:63.
Q. How soon does the winner take over the office?
A. If a person has run unopposed and no write-in candidate has received five percent or more of the votes for that office, that person may be sworn in at any time after the results are declared and, in a traditional town meeting town, after the business session of the meeting has ended. RSA 42:3. Otherwise, so long as no recount has been requested, a person elected to an office that was contested or for which a write-in candidate received five percent or more of the vote may be sworn in at any time after the deadline for requesting a recount (the Friday following the election). RSA 42:3; RSA 669:30.
Q. How long do people have to take the oath of office?
A. Every town officer is required to take the constitutional oath of office. RSA 42:1. The board of selectmen may decide when the oath will be taken (so long as it is after the end of the recount period under RSA 669:30). RSA 42:3. It is the town clerk’s job, either “immediately, or in accordance with the time adopted by the governing body, if one has been adopted,” to notify the person by a police officer (personal notice or notice left at their home) or by registered mail, to appear before the clerk within six days after receiving the notice to take the oath. RSA 42:4. If he or she does not appear within six days after personal notice, or notice left at their home, or after returning (if they were absent when the notice was left), and in any case within 30 days after the election, the position is legally deemed to be vacant. RSA 42:6; RSA 652:12, IV. It is also worth noting that that person is guilty of a violation and is subject to fines. RSA 42:6; RSA 625:9 (classification of violations as crimes).
Q: If no one runs for a position, does the write-in with the most votes win?
A. Yes. The person who receives the most votes wins the election, whether they ran for the position or were written in by voters.
Q: What if the person with the most votes declines to take the position after being elected? Do we offer the position to the person with the next-highest number of votes?
A. No. This is a common misconception. If the person who won the election declines to take the office, the position is vacant. RSA 652:12, IV. Check RSA 669:62 through RSA 669:75 for the method to fill a vacancy in a particular municipal office. The law designates a particular board or official to appoint someone to fill each category of vacant position. Generally, the person appointed will serve only until the next annual election (rather than the rest of the unexpired term), at which time the office is open once again and someone will be elected to fill the remainder of the term, if any, or a new term, if the original term has ended. RSA 669:61. However, for some positions, the law provides that the appointee will fill the entire unexpired term. RSA 669:73 (trustees of trust funds); RSA 669:74 (highway agents).
Effective August 25, 2008, towns may adopt an optional procedure by town meeting vote to fill vacant positions. This option is available if a vacancy exists and the board or official with authority to appoint someone to fill it has not appointed anyone within 45 days after at least one legally qualified person has applied in writing for the position. In towns which have formally adopted this procedure, voters may petition the selectmen to hold a special town election to fill a vacancy. The petition for special election must be filed at least 90 days before the next annual election. The person elected at the special election serves until the next annual election, when voters elect someone to fill the remainder of the unexpired term (if any) or a new term (as appropriate). RSA 669:61, IV.
By C. Christine Fillmore
An election is a complex event. Election officials spend a lot of time each year learning election laws and preparing for the election so that it will run smoothly. There are always a few questions, however. These are some of the more common questions that arise among our members each year.
Q. Who is in charge of elections?
A. The selectmen are responsible for setting up the polling place according to the requirements of RSA 658:9. However, the moderator is the chief election officer in charge of the polls on election day. It is the moderator’s duty to make certain all election officials understand their roles and fulfill them on election day. RSA 659:9. Of course, all election officials serve an important role. Municipal election officials may include any moderator, deputy moderator, assistant moderator, town clerk, deputy town clerk, city clerk, deputy city clerk, ward clerk, selectman, supervisor of the checklist, registrar or deputy registrar. RSA 652:14. The moderator may also appoint other election officials as he or she deems necessary. RSA 658:7.
Q. Do the selectmen have to be at the polling place on election day?
A. Yes. The New Hampshire Constitution, Part 2, Article 32, provides that “[t]he meetings for the choice of governor, council and senators, shall be warned by warrant from the selectmen, and governed by a moderator, who shall, in the presence of the selectmen (whose duty it shall be to attend) in open meeting, receive the votes of all the inhabitants of such towns….” The Secretary of State’s New Hampshire Election Procedure Manual: 2008-2009 states that, for “other elections, if the selectmen are not on-site during the election, they should be available for recall to the polls by the clerk or the moderator. The selectmen should be prepared or have town employees prepared to deal with any problems, such as light bulbs illuminating the polling booths burning out, that might develop during voting.”
It is important to note, however, that town elections are conducted in the same manner as state elections pursuant to RSA 669:25, so the rules for election procedures for state elections should generally be followed for town elections as well.
Q. What if we run out of paper ballots?
A. The town or city clerk should create more “unofficial” ballots following RSA 658:35. Photocopies should be made of an unused official ballot, and each photocopy should be signed or initialed by the clerk before being issued to a voter. This helps to prevent fraud by distinguishing the properly-created unofficial ballots from fraudulently created ballots. RSA 659:24. An accurate record should be kept of the total number of unofficial ballots created and the number of those that were actually used by voters.
Q: Do we have to allow people to “observe” the election from inside the polling place?
A. Yes. Any person has a right, as safety, welfare and rights of voters permit, to observe in-person voter registration, wherever it is conducted. However, observers must be located at least five feet from the registration table where the exchange of nonpublic information between the applicant and the election official receiving the application may be heard or seen. When a person registers to vote on election day, the election official shall announce the person’s name twice and also announce the address the person has registered as his or her domicile one time. These announcements will be made in a manner that allows any person appointed as a challenger to hear the announcement. RSA 654:7-c (effective August 21, 2009); RSA 666:4.
The selectmen should have the guardrail set up so that only those within the rail can approach within six feet of the ballot box and voting booths, and so that the voting booths and ballot box are within plain view of those observing from outside the rail. RSA 658:9.
Q. How do we handle it when someone challenges a voter?
A. Challenges may be made by any other registered voter in the town or ward (in writing only), by any election official, or by any challenger appointed by a political party or by the Attorney General with the proper signed statement from the political party/Attorney General. RSA 659:27; RSA 666:4-:5. A challenge may be made at any time until the voter puts his or her ballot into the ballot box or voting machine.
If a voter is challenged, the moderator may not receive that person’s vote until the challenged voter signs and gives to the moderator a Challenged Voter Affidavit (prepared by the Secretary of State). The affidavit must be sworn before an election official or any other person authorized by law to administer oaths. The challenged voter may then be permitted to vote. RSA 659:30.
The clerk must keep a record of all challenges including the name and address of the voters completing the affidavits, the affidavits, the name of the person challenging and the reason for the challenge, and report the challenge on the State’s ElectioNet system. RSA 659:27 – RSA 659:33. See the Secretary of State’s election manual for complete instructions regarding challenges.
Q. Who decides how campaigning at the polls will be controlled?
A. The moderator, under authority from the New Hampshire Constitution, Part 2, Article 32, as well as RSA 659:9 and RSA 659:43. According to the Secretary of State’s manual, “[a] voter must be able to come into a polling place and cast his or her vote, without being accosted or interfered with by those who may be participating in electioneering or other activities at the voting place such as bake sales, public information displays on issues not before the voters at the election, public displays by civic groups and so on.”
It is the moderator’s duty to ensure that no illegal electioneering occurs at the polling place. RSA 659:9. The moderator should control all areas from the building entrance to the room where the voting occurs. The moderator is also responsible for setting up a 10-foot wide “no-electioneering zone” from the building entrance extending as far into the driveway or parking area as the moderator deems appropriate. In addition, the moderator should designate an election official to periodically check the voting booths and remove any materials left there, including campaign materials or other items left by voters. RSA 659:43.
Q. What is illegal electioneering?
A. Illegal electioneering includes distributing or posting campaign materials within the building where the election is being held as well as the areas leading to the polling place. RSA 659:43, I, II. It is also illegal for an election officer or public employee to electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties. RSA 659:44; RSA 659:44-a.
Q. Can a municipality regulate the distribution of campaign materials or electioneering by ordinance?
A. Yes, to some extent. Under RSA 31:41-c and RSA 47:17, XIV-a, towns and cities have the power to make ordinances regulating both the distribution of campaign materials and electioneering that “affects the safety, welfare and rights of voters at any election.” However, municipalities cannot regulate: (1) the display of campaign materials attached to any legally parked motor vehicle; or (2) activities conducted wholly on private property that do not interfere with voter access or exiting of the polling place. In towns, ordinances regulating such election activities must be provided to the town clerk immediately after adoption so that they may be available to candidates filing for office. The ordinances must also be posted at each polling place at least 72 hours in advance of any town election.
Q. Do we have to allow exit polls?
A. Voters may not be obstructed or interfered with as they enter or exit the polling place, or as they vote within the polling place. Other than this, however, there are no legal restrictions on exit polling. Therefore, it may make the most sense for the moderator to adopt a policy regarding an acceptable place for exit polling (or other non-voting activities, such as bake sales) to occur, such as an adjacent vacant room or hallway that does not interfere with the customary entrance pathway, exit pathway, or railed area.
Q. Can campaigners give voters preprinted stickers with the name of a write-in candidate to paste onto their ballots?
A. No, New Hampshire statute and case law clearly prohibit this. RSA 659:65 provides that “a ballot shall be regarded as defective in part and that part shall not be tabulated if either or both of the following conditions exist:…(b) the ballot has attached to it an adhesive slip, sticker or paster not prepared in accordance with RSA 656:21 in the space for any office….” RSA 656:21, in turn, provides that the Secretary of State may authorize the use of pasters for state elections when a candidate dies or is disqualified and the name of a substitute candidate must be used.
While RSA 659 is a statute that applies generally to state elections, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that the prohibition on stickers also applies to town elections. Kibbe v. Milton, 142 N.H. 288, 291 (1997). The only instance in which a statute permits the use of pasters or stickers on a town ballot is in the limited circumstance when a candidate dies or makes oath that he or she no longer qualifies for the office. In that case, the town clerk is required to omit the name from the ballot, and if ballots have already been printed, to cover the name with pasters. RSA 669:22.
“Even when the voters’ intent is clear, if the means they employed to indicate their vote does not substantially comply with the applicable statute, their attempt to vote is a failure.” Kibbe v. Milton, 142 N.H. at 293. Although the Court noted that “the right to vote is cherished and protected by our State Constitution,” it still concluded that RSA 659:65, II(b) legally regulates the manner by which a voter may not express his or her vote. See id. at 293-94.
Q. Can members of the public observe the counting of the ballots?
A. Yes. Just as the public may observe voter check-in from outside the rail, the public must be permitted to observe the counting of the ballots from outside the rail. This means that the doors should not be locked when the polls are closed. Ballot counting “shall not be adjourned nor postponed until it shall have been completed.” When the polling place is rearranged for counting after the polls are closed, counting tables must be located at least four feet from the rail, and no ballot may be placed any closer to the rail than four feet. RSA 659:63.
Q. How soon does the winner take over the office?
A. If a person has run unopposed and no write-in candidate has received five percent or more of the votes for that office, that person may be sworn in at any time after the results are declared and, in a traditional town meeting town, after the business session of the meeting has ended. RSA 42:3. Otherwise, so long as no recount has been requested, a person elected to an office that was contested or for which a write-in candidate received five percent or more of the vote may be sworn in at any time after the deadline for requesting a recount (the Friday following the election). RSA 42:3; RSA 669:30.
Q. How long do people have to take the oath of office?
A. Every town officer is required to take the constitutional oath of office. RSA 42:1. The board of selectmen may decide when the oath will be taken (so long as it is after the end of the recount period under RSA 669:30). RSA 42:3. It is the town clerk’s job, either “immediately, or in accordance with the time adopted by the governing body, if one has been adopted,” to notify the person by a police officer (personal notice or notice left at their home) or by registered mail, to appear before the clerk within six days after receiving the notice to take the oath. RSA 42:4. If he or she does not appear within six days after personal notice, or notice left at their home, or after returning (if they were absent when the notice was left), and in any case within 30 days after the election, the position is legally deemed to be vacant. RSA 42:6; RSA 652:12, IV. It is also worth noting that that person is guilty of a violation and is subject to fines. RSA 42:6; RSA 625:9 (classification of violations as crimes).
Q: If no one runs for a position, does the write-in with the most votes win?
A. Yes. The person who receives the most votes wins the election, whether they ran for the position or were written in by voters.
Q: What if the person with the most votes declines to take the position after being elected? Do we offer the position to the person with the next-highest number of votes?
A. No. This is a common misconception. If the person who won the election declines to take the office, the position is vacant. RSA 652:12, IV. Check RSA 669:62 through RSA 669:75 for the method to fill a vacancy in a particular municipal office. The law designates a particular board or official to appoint someone to fill each category of vacant position. Generally, the person appointed will serve only until the next annual election (rather than the rest of the unexpired term), at which time the office is open once again and someone will be elected to fill the remainder of the term, if any, or a new term, if the original term has ended. RSA 669:61. However, for some positions, the law provides that the appointee will fill the entire unexpired term. RSA 669:73 (trustees of trust funds); RSA 669:74 (highway agents).
Effective August 25, 2008, towns may adopt an optional procedure by town meeting vote to fill vacant positions. This option is available if a vacancy exists and the board or official with authority to appoint someone to fill it has not appointed anyone within 45 days after at least one legally qualified person has applied in writing for the position. In towns which have formally adopted this procedure, voters may petition the selectmen to hold a special town election to fill a vacancy. The petition for special election must be filed at least 90 days before the next annual election. The person elected at the special election serves until the next annual election, when voters elect someone to fill the remainder of the unexpired term (if any) or a new term (as appropriate). RSA 669:61, IV.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Experimenting with new forum for discussions
We'll be opening a new site soon, one where everyone will have to register to take part in any discussions. Unlike this blog, which will remain open, the new site will have no anonymous option. You will have the option of posting under your own name or choosing a nickname; however a valid email address will be required to receive notifications from us and to validate your membership. This will keep out spammers, spiders and other nefarious characters and protect everyone from malicious web surfers who install Trojans and viruses in pictures and private messages. The new Forum will have many new features and allow you the freedom to post pictures with your comments if you so desire. It will be open to everyone and we invite the CAST and WGYB organizations to join and will provide a separate section for them to post their news and upcoming events to better inform all of the citizens of Winchester. We hope you all will take part in helping us unite the people of Winchester and work to solve the many issues our town has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
