Moultonborough town meeting

[C-Bass]

Unfortunately I could not attend the town meeting. Does anyone know if the community center got voted down. I believe that was Article 6. Thank you. In the future I really wish just put these on the ballot for when we vote on the Tuesday prior, instead having to go to a meeting. Seems like it would much easier.

[DEJ]

Yes article 6 was defeated 352/269.

[phoenix]

cant understand why the selectmen can't take no for an answer. This bill keeps getting defeated and they keep bringing it back. Not sure also why they didn't offer a much cheaper alternative since if you read selectmen's minutes there were cheaper alternatives.

[Top-Water]

Originally Posted by phoenix

cant understand why the selectmen can't take no for an answer.

Because you need new selectmen.

My guess would be that this will be on the ballot again. But more than likely presented with elements of dire consequences if it does not pass it will cost more later, or a *grant (see definition of Grant) will be offered to defray costs if we do it now/ this time and make you feel your getting free long term money.


*Grant: Usually seed monies presented to promote a project to get a program of the ground. Very often presented by folks that have a vested monetary background interest in the project. Often presented as Free monies and actually it is. However when the long term costs for staffing, maintenance, upgrades, new programs, and the list goes on & on comes to light. The free monies at the beginning pale in comparison to the long term costs.

[winni83]

Article 6 was poorly conceived, drafted and presented by Selectmen who were in favor of it and by those who supported it. Despite a public (dis??)information campaign, including the sudden offer of child care at Town Meeting and a shuttle bus, the bond article did not get the required 2/3 vote, garnering 57%. There was a motion for reconsideration, which reconsideration, if passed, could not take place for at least 7 days. However, it was pointed out to those moving for reconsideration that since Article 6 was so poorly drafted, it called for the location of the community center to be determined in accordance with Articles 7 (Lions Club) or 8 (Taylor House). However, since Article 6 was defeated, Articles 7 and 8 were moot and never brought to the floor. Thus, if the motion for reconsideration were to pass and at the meeting to reconsider Article 6, Article 6 were to in fact pass by the required 2/3 vote, then what? A bond with no way or location to spend the money or perhaps just trust the Selectmen? Needless to say, the motion to reconsider was easily defeated. So what next? Who knows. There is a new member on the Board of Selectmen who defeated an incumbent Selectman who was very much in favor of Article 6 so we shall see. However, it should be noted that the community center proponents seemed pleased that for once, the proposal did get a majority vote, just not the required 2/3. They will be back and those of us who oppose the massive 6 plus million dollar recreation center Taj Mahal or community center and gym at the Taylor House will just as surely be back advocating for a community center at the Lions Club which will far less expensive and more responsive to the true needs of the Town. At the 2016 Town Meeting where a similar proposal failed even to get a majority vote, the proponents complained that the meeting was “hijacked” because there was a vote to call the question. There is an older thread, now closed, on this interesting topic from 2016. Draw your own conclusions. See https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ad.php?t=20330

[tis]

Originally Posted by phoenix

cant understand why the selectmen can't take no for an answer. This bill keeps getting defeated and they keep bringing it back. Not sure also why they didn't offer a much cheaper alternative since if you read selectmen's minutes there were cheaper alternatives.

That's what they do. Bring it up again and again and again until it passes.

[C-Bass]

What I cannot figure out, is if these people want the community center so badly, why don't they start some kind of fund or trust. They can begin raising some money. Ultimately it will cost the town in yearly upkeep and staff. I personally would not object to that, I don't think that would blow the budget out of the water. If the money could be raised to pay for the construction of the building and not have any bond to deal with. You would not have any objections from me. My understanding in Tuftonboro, they are doing their library addition. They had raised some money towards it and in fact I had heard they had a single donation of $500,000. It passed their town meeting and they got the go ahead. That may be a better way to go.

[phoenix]

I would agree or offer a cheaper alternative. Putting forward as an only choice a nearly $7m choice was not wise

[Irish mist]

Vote these obstinate selectmen out of office. This repetitive nonsense will never stop until you get rid of this arrogance.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by C-Bass

What I cannot figure out, is if these people want the community center so badly, why don't they start some kind of fund or trust. They can begin raising some money. Ultimately it will cost the town in yearly upkeep and staff. I personally would not object to that, I don't think that would blow the budget out of the water. If the money could be raised to pay for the construction of the building and not have any bond to deal with. You would not have any objections from me. My understanding in Tuftonboro, they are doing their library addition. They had raised some money towards it and in fact I had heard they had a single donation of $500,000. It passed their town meeting and they got the go ahead. That may be a better way to go.

Unfortunately, in Moultonborough the Rec Dept can only think in terms of using OPM or taxpayer money. On various occasions the idea of raising money has been suggested and has always been turned down vehently by the gym proponents. The Nick in Wolfeboro was done with donations as was the new facility in Fryeburg and the Moultonborough Library had $700,000 raised by private donations. In spite of these facts, the gym advocates, especially the Rec Dept director, the just defeated selectman, and their backers are adamant that they are entitled to an expensive unjustified facility.

It would be nice if an unbiased group could be established to do a true needs analysis study. This approach is unlikely since the gym people would want such a group made up of people who are predisposed to having a gym. There is a need for a better community center but the need for additional facilities such as gym requires further analysis.

[Lakes Region Guy]

Originally Posted by C-Bass

Unfortunately I could not attend the town meeting. Does anyone know if the community center got voted down. I believe that was Article 6. Thank you. In the future I really wish just put these on the ballot for when we vote on the Tuesday prior, instead having to go to a meeting. Seems like it would much easier.

If the town had passed SB2 a few years back you could have voted for this article on the ballot. At the town meeting there was a total of 621 votes cast. On the ballot on Tuesday there was a total of 1366 votes cast. Which one do you think is more representative of the towns people. I go with the 1366.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I would agree or offer a cheaper alternative. Putting forward as an only choice a nearly $7m choice was not wise

For that price you can have a community center that can double as a DPW building.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Lakes Region Guy

If the town had passed SB2 a few years back you could have voted for this article on the ballot. At the town meeting there was a total of 621 votes cast. On the ballot on Tuesday there was a total of 1366 votes cast. Which one do you think is more representative of the towns people. I go with the 1366.

Exactly!! Why anybody would vote down SB2 is beyond me. Obviously they WANT less people to vote.

[Descant]

In the mid-90's when town started going to SB2, there was great fear from schools in particular, that budgets would be cut and the sky would fall. As it turned out, SB2 towns became the big spenders. This was especially so in towns/school districts where the boards learned to manipulate the default budget. After struggling for many years to make the default budget more transparent in SB2 towns, the best they could do was a requirement that the calculation of the default budget be read at the deliberative session. Unfortunately, they also decreed that Capital Reserve Fund additions had to be by separate warrant article, so the operating budget looks smaller until you add back the CRF.
For most towns, we know that Town Meeting and School District, where the big money is, will be in March, usually the second Tuesday for elections. Find out for your town, mark your calendar now and don't whine on the Forum that you had a conflict. Yes, I know some people have to work, and that's one reason SB2 was created. But, if you're an SB2 town, you still need to attend the deliberative session, probably on a Tuesday night.

[bigpatsfan]

Not supporting SB2 does not mean wanting less people to vote.

It really means having informed people vote.

SB2 diminishes the value and power of the deliberative session.

Voters that go to the deliberative session hear the pros and cons regarding the articles up for vote. At the deliberative session they have the ability to make changes to whatever is being voted on. SB2 limits what can be changed at the deliberative session.

To me it keeps the power in the hands of the involved and hopefully informed voters. Instead of having someone just voting yes or no on an article without fully understanding the impact of their vote.

[Lakes Region Guy]

Originally Posted by Descant

In the mid-90's when town started going to SB2, there was great fear from schools in particular, that budgets would be cut and the sky would fall. As it turned out, SB2 towns became the big spenders. This was especially so in towns/school districts where the boards learned to manipulate the default budget. After struggling for many years to make the default budget more transparent in SB2 towns, the best they could do was a requirement that the calculation of the default budget be read at the deliberative session. Unfortunately, they also decreed that Capital Reserve Fund additions had to be by separate warrant article, so the operating budget looks smaller until you add back the CRF.
For most towns, we know that Town Meeting and School District, where the big money is, will be in March, usually the second Tuesday for elections. Find out for your town, mark your calendar now and don't whine on the Forum that you had a conflict. Yes, I know some people have to work, and that's one reason SB2 was created. But, if you're an SB2 town, you still need to attend the deliberative session, probably on a Tuesday night.

The deliberative session is held in February and is conducted similar to a town meeting. The articles are discussed and/or amended before they are voted on to go on the general ballot in March. As far as the default budget being manipulated by the governing board this is a fallacy by those who are against SB2. I'm not sure why the some towns people are against SB2 as it allows the handicap and shut ins to exercise their democratic voting right through an absentee ballot.

[tis]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

Not supporting SB2 does not mean wanting less people to vote.

It really means having informed people vote.

SB2 diminishes the value and power of the deliberative session.

Voters that go to the deliberative session hear the pros and cons regarding the articles up for vote. At the deliberative session they have the ability to make changes to whatever is being voted on. SB2 limits what can be changed at the deliberative session.

To me it keeps the power in the hands of the involved and hopefully informed voters. Instead of having someone just voting yes or no on an article without fully understanding the impact of their vote.

Not quite following you. SB2 diminishes the value and power of the deliberative session? How? SB2 limits what can be changed at the deliberative session? How? If you are an SB2 town, you have a deliberative session at which people that attend (usually very few) can amend any of the articles being voted on. Then on voting day, the public votes on what was finalized at the deliberative session. So I can't understand what you are trying to say.

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

Not supporting SB2 does not mean wanting less people to vote.

It really means having informed people vote.

SB2 diminishes the value and power of the deliberative session.

Voters that go to the deliberative session hear the pros and cons regarding the articles up for vote. At the deliberative session they have the ability to make changes to whatever is being voted on. SB2 limits what can be changed at the deliberative session.

To me it keeps the power in the hands of the involved and hopefully informed voters. Instead of having someone just voting yes or no on an article without fully understanding the impact of their vote.

At the same time the reason the heavily involved tend to be so is they are more likely pushing an agenda. What gets on the ballot and how it's worded are a huge factor in whether it gets passed or not.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by tis

Not quite following you. SB2 diminishes the value and power of the deliberative session? How? SB2 limits what can be changed at the deliberative session? How? If you are an SB2 town, you have a deliberative session at which people that attend (usually very few) can amend any of the articles being voted on. Then on voting day, the public votes on what was finalized at the deliberative session. So I can't understand what you are trying to say.

Thanks tis, well said.
It just proves that some people like to complain about something they don't know anything about. I won't mention his name but it begins with "bigpatsfan".

[jeffk]

I would also point out that, while "being informed" sounds good, it is my right as a voter, if I don't want a community center no way no how, to vote against it without further ado. I doubt that many people attending the meeting have their minds changed about agenda driven topics.

Unfortunately, elected officials and groups with an agenda have well learned how to spin things to get what they want. It's like your kid explaining to you why they NEED a car. There's always a "good" reason. Arguments against it mysteriously never appear or are "reasonably" rebuked. And, like with your kid, "NO!" is interpreted as "not now" and invites retrying until you are worn down.

[C-Bass]

What does SB-12 or SB 12 towns refer too?

[SAMIAM]

I've seen towns pass some outrageous spending bills with a very simple tactic that would not happen with SB2

Authors of a bill stack the meeting with friends ,relatives and supporters
The bill is delayed until very late at night until other townspeople have to leave because they are tired or have to work the next day
Works every time.

[tis]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I've seen towns pass some outrageous spending bills with a very simple tactic that would not happen with SB2

Authors of a bill stack the meeting with friends ,relatives and supporters
The bill is delayed until very late at night until other townspeople have to leave because they are tired or have to work the next day
Works every time.

It's true. And in Tuftonboro a few years ago, they voted something down, then after most of the people left, they brought it up again to reconsider. And of course it passed. That was one of the sneakiest ones I have heard of.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by C-Bass

What does SB-12 or SB 12 towns refer too?

Some years ago a bill was filed in the legislature as Senate Bill 2, SB 2, which in the simplest of forms allowed towns to change the manner of voting on the annual Town business meeting from Town Hall meeting where attendees debated articles and voted on them in person to a ballot on the articles at the same time as the election of officials. The finalization of articles takes place at deliberative sessions about a month before the town elections.

The idea is to have more citizens take part in the decisions of town annual business. Communities who use this manner of elections are called SB2 towns.

Dave

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by C-Bass

What does SB-12 or SB 12 towns refer too?

It's SB2 and not SB12.

"RSA 40:13, Senate Bill 2, also known as SB2, (Official Ballot Referenda) is a form of town meeting that has two sessions. The first session (deliberative session) is for explanation, discussion, debate and amendments to the proposed operating budget and warrant articles. The second session (voting session) allows voters to cast an official ballot to pass/fail proposed articles."

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...assistance.htm

[Descant]

Yes, the deliberative session is more restricted than traditional Town Meeting. You cannot amend an article to change its intent, e.g. adding the word "not". At Traditional Town Meeting, you can simply vote "No" and the issue is closed.
Most Moderators now announce at the beginning of a meeting, "The procedure is: We will not take up new business after 11:00 pm. A motion to reconsider must be made before we move on to the next item of business, etc. preventing the late night shenanigans of years ago.

[bigpatsfan]

Wow... a personal attack right off the bat..... thanks Rusty.... also not sure what I was complaining about.

If my reasoning was incorrect then say why.. which is what TIS and jbolty did.

I am not a fan of personal attacks.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

Wow... a personal attack right off the bat..... thanks Rusty.... also not sure what I was complaining about.

If my reasoning was incorrect then say why.. which is what TIS and jbolty did.

I am not a fan of personal attacks.

I apologize if you think I attacked you. Sometimes I should be less critical of other opinions and just let it go.