Moultonborough Community Center

[longislander]

Well, Mr. Shipp and Mr. Punturieri are now posting to the Moultonborough Speaks blog. Perhaps other members of the BOS under assumed names?

Pretty soon there will be a Right To Know request -- who knows.
Yesterday 02:36 PM

Russ is on record as stating anyone going on the blog is an idiot. Does Russ go on the blog as "Anonymous". HHHMMM ...

Don't know about RTK, but a malfeasance complaint might be in order!

[jbolty]

I have not followed this issue at all and am late to the party but wasn't there discussion not long ago about the high school being under utilized? Why build something else?

[longislander]

Study commissioned last year:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByT...5qb2p0VjA/view


enrollments history:
page 16:
2005 to2015 (year)
658 to 502 pupils

Projected:
page 13:
Projected: 3 year Weighted Average Method
2016-2025 (year)
496 to 425

Projections are probably on the high side.

[jeffk]

Unfortunately, it is easy for a small group of people to push an idea in a small town. Developing the town, making a town green/center, are all the buzz. The problem is, there is no guarantee that things that worked in other places will work here. In fact, there is no guarantee that things done in other places were the CAUSE of any improvements where they were tried. There are often many things going on that could have caused improvements but no one bothers to figure it out.

It is also unfortunate that people that simply do not want to foot the bill for the high costs of these efforts are branded as "trying to drive young families out of town" and other such derogatory labels. People in the political arena have made everything so nasty. If you oppose me, you must be BAD. Well, I'm sorry but each voter has the right to question all decisions made and vote what their preference is. There does not need to be bad intent, just disagreement. Frankly, the outcome of government decisions (everywhere) doesn't have that good of a track record so having grave doubts about the plans proposed by government is a healthy attitude for a voter to have. If government proposals fail, it falls on the shoulders of government leaders who failed to make their case to the voters. You would think they would know their constituents better than to push things that have little chance to pass.

And if it is a small well organized group opposing such efforts, what of it? A small well organized group is pushing the Community Center. What gives them the high ground? They don't have a free pass to propose large expenditures and have them rubber stamped. Other voters have a legitimate say and they did. A government leadership body that doesn't respect the decisions of the voters has no business in office.

[longislander]

Today's Meredith News:

"At the beginning of the meeting, the selectmen discussed committee assignments. Selectman Paul Punturieri requested that Bartlett not serve as selectmen's representative to the Capital Improvements Planning Committee(CIPC), saying his opinions at town meeting against taxpayer money being spent for recreation did not reflect the philosophy of the selectmen."


"I think one of the jobs of the CIPC is to look at wants versus needs," Bartlett said. "If you disagree with me, if they think the board of selectmen is an ATM machine or Santa Claus, fine; I probably disagree."

Bartlett said he did not oppose recreation services, but he was philosophically against using taxpayer dollars for it.


http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...al-issues.html

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Josh Bartlett would probably have done better at town meeting to have addressed article 2 specifically rather than go off on a tangent about his philosophical view on taxpayer funded recreation. The article had so many flaws that he should have stayed on topic and pointed out the many problems with the plan.

Also, since when are selectmen supposed to advocate the view of the board when serving on a committee or board? This is a ridiculous idea that was probably used as an excuse to dump Bartlett from the CIPC.

[winni83]

I was wondering how long it would take for this to raise its head out of the rat hole -- See RSA 31.5 I (a):

"No money shall be raised or appropriated or shall any appropriation previously made be reduced or rescinded at any special town meeting except by vote by ballot, nor unless the ballots cast at such meeting shall be equal in number to at least 1/2 of the number of legal voters borne on the checklist of the town entitled to vote at the annual or biennial election next preceding such special meeting; and such checklist, corrected according to law, shall be used at any meeting upon the request of 10 legal voters of the town. This section shall not apply to money to be raised for the public defense or any military purpose in time of war. In case an emergency arises requiring an immediate expenditure of money, the selectmen may petition the superior court for permission to hold a special town meeting which, if granted, shall give said meeting the same authority as an annual town meeting. "


Query whether getting " least 1/2 of the number of legal voters borne on the checklist of the town entitled to vote at the annual or biennial election next preceding such special meeting" is even remotely possible. I wonder whether any of the Selectmen are behind this.

Moultonborough Speaks at 10:57 AM:

"The BoS have gotten a few references in recent days to a possible " special town meeting"to be called by a petition of 50 registered voters. A special town meeting is any Town meeting other than the annual meeting.
I am unaware of the the specifics or if it is just bluster, but it is the right of registered voters to do so.

RSA 39:3 states in part: "In towns with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants upon the written application of 50 or more voters or 1/4 of the voters in town, whichever is fewer, and in towns with 10,000 or more inhabitants upon the written application of 5 percent of the registered voters in the town, so presented not less than 60 days before the next annual meeting, the selectmen shall warn a special meeting to act upon any question specified in such application."

According to the NH Municipal Association, there is a caution: "Money articles (i.e. articles requiring the appropriation of funds) can’t be voted on at special meetings unless at least half the town’s voters show up, or unless the selectmen have petitioned the Superior Court."

Special meetings are not often called by citizen petition, but in the event they are, the process and conduct of the meeting is really no different than the way an annual Town meeting is held. While the RSA above states that the Selectmen "shall' call the special meeting if properly petitioned, if the article to be voted on conflicts with a statutory provision or is not legally enforceable, it could be problematic."

[longislander]

The Special Town meeting "rumors" was especially trumpeted after the rancor at the March 12th meeting. I can personally attest to that.

It had "been heard" that the BoS were seeking ways to "reconsider" the vote.

Since the town strife is more about the "Gym" portion of the Center, not the Community" portion, there was a "shot across the bow" to the Select Board. Since the Recreation Department has been the "bone of contention" in this town fight, and the source of turmoil, a caveat was "rumored".

So, if a Special Town meeting is called (no appropriation): To see if the Town will vote to eliminate the Moultonborough Recreation Department ...

No Rec. Dept. ... No third gym needed!
A 50 registered voter petition for a Special Town meeting REQUIRES the BoS to warrant the Special Town meeting (NH law). As long as there is no "appropriation" (money issue) there is no legal requirement for Superior Court approval. If there is appropriation, then Superior Court approval must be had. The concept is the Court wants to make sure at least 50 % of the voters are aware of the money issue, and are allowed to vote on it.

The Speaks blog is only parroting what has been sent to the BoS, several times, and the blogger is a Select person. The info is sent to the BoS at no charge

Special meetings are not often called by citizen petition, but in the event they are, the process and conduct of the meeting is really no different than the way an annual Town meeting is held.

Sure! I remember when I brought it up a couple of years ago, when I successfully petitioned the town for the fireworks ordinance. The BoS had never heard of it.

No problem with the blog posting. It only means their guard is up and they are getting worried that Special Meetings (plural) might be called this summer when the snow birds get back. Their absentee ballots do not allow them to vote on warrant articles. They will not need absentee ballots in the summer when they are back. The BoS will get an earful, directly!

It has already been suggested to some circles, to let the present anger die down a bit, and wait. Petitions gathered in, say, May, for a ,say, July Special meeting/meetings might. be more productive.

If I remember the MoBo Town Clerk's rendering of the absentee ballots, there were over 400. That means the potential of an additional 400 voters at the Special Town meeting, that couldn't make the March meeting.

[winni83]

What "threats"???

From the Selectman's blog:

2 comments:
Anonymous said...
How does this work? Under RSA 31.5 I (a), don't more than one half of the voters on the checklist for the most recent annual meeting have to cast ballots? And the right of the Selectmen to petition the Superior Court for permission seems to be limited to emergency situations.
March 24, 2016 at 12:03 PM

Moultonboro Blogger said...
To clarify and quell any rumors, this post is in reference to " threats" by citizens to petition a special town meeting. The BoS have no intention to call a special town meeting for any reason. If such a petition were to be presented, I am certain the BoS would seek the counsel of an attorney for proper legal advice.


March 24, 2016 at 1:29 PM

[longislander]

don't more than one half of the voters on the checklist for the most recent annual meeting have to cast ballots?

No!

Only if appropriations (money) is petitioned.


NHMA
9. Any 50 Voters Can Call a Special Town Meeting.
“In order to petition for a special meeting, you need 50 voters’ signatures on a petitioned warrant article, submitted to the selectmen. The selectmen must call the meeting, unless the annual meeting is only 60 days away or less, in which case they can just add your petitioned article to the annual meeting warrant (RSA 39:3).”

https://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/600

Special Town Meeting with Court Permission
“Under RSA 31:5, a special town meeting to appropriate money may only be held in two circumstances. Either 50 percent of all voters on the checklist must attend the special meeting (which is not likely to occur), or the superior court must grant permission for the meeting in advance. The court cannot grant this permission unless it finds that an "emergency" exists.”

https://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/377


"Moultonboro Blogger said...
To clarify and quell any rumors


I interpret that to mean the BoS will not try reconsider Article 2, and do not want a petition to eliminate the Wreck Dept.

[longislander]

Last evening's Moultonborough Select Board work session was another exercise in stifling the opposition to the "The Town's got to pay for my recreation" junta.

Two select board members were telling another member how to vote. He wanted to abstain and they strenuously objected.

The meeting was streamed:

http://www.townhallstreams.com/locat...h/events/29306

The episode is @ 31:00 minutes in.

[longislander]

The player may not come up.

Try:

http://www.townhallstreams.com/locat...ltonborough-nh

Go to left and scroll down to the March 24, 2016 Selectmen's work session @31:00+