The Exeter Gymkhana

When watching auto commercials on TV, you've probably seen cars driven through an obstacle  course that is called a "gymkhana." Auto gymkhana, or autocross, is a form of automobile racing where drivers navigate, one at a time, around and through a defined course featuring obstacles such as cones, tires, and barrels. Anyone who routinely  drives on town roads that have manhole covers engages in a form of gymkhana attempting to maneuver around the sunken covers. Really skilled drivers can also drive around the smaller sunken water shutoff valve covers. Drivers who successfully complete their Exeter gymkhana don't win any prizes. However, drivers who have failed to memorize the location of these obstacles are penalized with cars that vibrate when driving at highway speeds because of dented alloy rims or front end damage. 

Wednesday evening at the Budget Advisory Committee meeting, our DPW Director was asked if the Department might be able to raise these covers when they repave roadways. Unfortunately, I received no response. Perhaps the reasoning for leaving these covers sunken when the roadways are repaved is the belief that the roadway asphalt will be worn down or settle and the covers will become flush with the road surface. That hasn't been our experience.

I guess we should feel honored because drivers in other communities don't have the ability to practice this type of driving skill. Just look at Route 27 in Hampton. The section between the Route 101 entrance and Route 1 was recently repaved, but Hampton failed to prove the sunken manhole covers. Hampton drivers have to drive over covers that are flush to the road.  How boring.

If you are looking to hone your gymkhana driving skills I suggest driving on High Street, Epping Road, Main Street, Washington Street or the newly paved Portsmouth Avenue.  Good luck.

The Selling of Exeter

We should congratulate our forward thinking selectmen (Dan, BH and Julie) for having recently passed the Exeter Advertising Policy. They called it a sponsorship policy, but we all know that the banners have nothing to do with sponsorship.  They're advertising plain and simple.

Now businesses located within and outside of Exeter can pay to advertise their services on huge banners to be hung all across our historic town; and oh what revenue they will bring to the town.

Initially, advertising locations are limited to only our beautiful parks and recreation fields.  But as long as we are going to commercialize the Town, we shouldn't stop with just Parks & Rec. We have a lot of town vehicles that drive all around Exeter. Why not sell advertising space on DPW trucks and vans?  In the winter, we could paint advertising on the snow plows advertising wood pellets.  DPW drives those sidewalk plows all over town, so why not have them fly a small banner from the back of the tractor advertising Dunkin' Donuts? We could even put those little billboards that you see on taxis on our Police cruisers! Heck, let's hang banners advertising McDonald's on the front of the Town Hall. Maybe we can even have the new town-owned drone fly around town pulling a banner like the airplanes do.

Yessir, we have to hand it to our selectmen.  I suggest we do that at the next election.

No More Symbols of Our Racist Past

The latest movement literally sweeping the country is the elimination of vestiges of anything connected with our Country's history of slavery. The Connecticut Democrat Party recently unanimously voted to remove the names of Presidents Jefferson and Jackson from their annual dinner. President Jefferson owned slaves and President Jackson persecuted Native Americans. Democrats in other states, including New Hampshire, have done likewise or are considering doing so. In Portland, Oregon, there is a movement to remove President Woodrow Wilson's name from their high school because he was "America’s most racist modern president.”

I don't think we should stop there. Didn't George Washington own slaves? I'm sure that many pre-Civil War presidents also owned slaves. Let's rid ourselves of anything with their names.

In fact, it is a disgrace that the Democrats haven't changed the name of their party. Wasn't the Democrat Party the party of slave owners and advocates of expansion of slavery into the western territories? Didn't the Democrat Party vigorously oppose the Civil War and didn't they want a negotiated peace with the Confederacy that would have left slavery intact? Didn't people who opposed slavery have to leave the Democrat Party and form their own anti-slavery party, which they called the Republican Party? Wouldn't it be extremely hypocritical for Democrats to decry the flying of the Confederate Flag and yet leave that vestige symbol of slavery, the Democrat Party, unscathed?

Come on Democrats, progressives and other liberals! Where is your outrage at this lasting symbol of slavery and racism? Tear down those Democrat banners wherever you see them. Strip the words, Democrat Party, from our dictionaries and from every public place. Only then will we be free of this symbol of a racist past.

Exeter for Sale

     Well fellow citizens, Selectman Dan and Bobble-Head tried to sell our Town for 30 pieces of silver last Monday night. In truth, it was actually for $6,000 per year.  It seems that our Town Manager, acting through the Parks & Rec Director, illegally signed an exclusive contract with an out of town business, Convenient MD (CMD), allowing CMD the right to hang huge banners on our Rec fields. The agreement also required Parks & Rec to place the CMD logo on all Parks & Rec brochures, made CMD the sponsor of all youth sports as well as the Easter Egg Hunt and Halloween Parade and prohibited the Town from allowing any other advertising or sponsorship for any of these events.

     Probably the most ludicrous provision required Parks & Rec to refer any non-life threatening sports injury to Convenient MD in Stratham. First of all there is the impropriety of such a demand and then there's the liability issue of the Town making medical referrals. And how do you think one of the Town's top 3 taxpayers, Exeter Hospital, would feel about the Town referring injuries to an out of town for-profit business?
     Fortunately, Julie joined Don and Anne in terminating this agreement. Dan, and of course Bobble-Head, made a motion to re-negotiate the agreement, but withdrew the motion when it was clear that he would lose. Never fear, he plans to bring it up again.
     With these negotiating skills, it's not hard to understand why the Town got such a bad deal on the water sales agreement with Stratham.  Can you imagine what the sewer sales agreement is going to look like?

Clean up Exeter's Appearance

     There is a contingent in town, including Town Planner Sylvia von Aulock and Dan Chartrand, that want Exeter to be a clone of Newburyport.  Forget the cost, "if we build it they will come."  Instead of spending taxpayer dollars to repair what we have, they would spend on beautification items.  An exception (though it took years to make it happen) is repairing/renovating downtown sidewalks.  Fortunately voters rejected brick trim as not a worthy expenditure of tax dollars.  The same money could be spent to repair other deteriorating sidewalks.  Perhaps there is a message here.
     As one travels through town one cannot help but notice certain areas are eyesores.  This would include along Epping and Hampton Roads.  A long standing eyesore on the latter is Colcord's garage.  Derelict vehicles have been parked there for over a year.  This is ostensibly an auto repair shop, but in reality is a junkyard.  It is likely a zoning violation.  So, what should be done?
     It is suggested that the Town Manager take the necessary steps to improve the appearance of Exeter through legal remedies.  He could start by enforcing existing town ordinances and then follow up with developing appropriate ordinances to get property owners to meet minimum standards of property maintenance.  This seems a prudent way to enhance the appearance of Exeter for those who visit here, without spending large amounts of taxpayer's money.

Who is in Charge at the Town Offices?

The March 26th Seacoastonline and March 27th Exeter NewsLetter articles regarding Darren Winham, the Economic Development Director, performing consulting work for the Town of Waterbury, Vermont are most interesting.  Once again, the question is; who is in charge at the Town offices.  It must not be Russ Dean, the Town Manager.  Mr. Dean described the issue as Mr. Winham simply wrapping up a couple loose ends with his former employer and states “we take full responsibility.”   Who is we?  Why doesn’t Mr. Dean simply state that Mr. Winham has a business that he runs on the side.   

The bigger question is related to Mr. Dean’s performance as Town Manager and in particular his oversight of Mr. Winham’s activities.  First Mr. Dean is quoted in Seacoastonline as stating “It’s my recollection that he told us he had some work to finish up.” He is contradicted by Mr. Winham in the same article when he describes his company, DarWin Dynamic Solutions.   Has Mr. Dean provided the adequate oversight of the Economic Development Director’s work for the Town of Exeter?  Is Mr. Dean able to state that Mr. Winham’s work for other municipalities did not have an adverse affect upon his work for the Town of Exeter?  Does Mr. Dean clearly understand Mr. Winham’s work activities since he was placed on the payroll at an annual cost of approximately $120,000 per year?

The failure of Article 8 in the recent Town Meeting implies that Mr. Dean had a lack of understanding and was not in alignment with Mr. Winham’s activities.   Was Article 8 adequately developed and did it address the underlying problems in Exeter’s regulations?   How could such an important Article fail?  Why was the Epping Road TIF allowed to move forward if Mr. Dean was holding negotiations with Stratham to give away the water and sewer services that Exeter taxpayers are being asked to fund on Epping Road?

Who is in charge at the Town offices? One only needs to reflect upon Bill Clinton’s deposition to understand that it depends upon the definition of “in charge.”

More of the same from Chartrand

Someone brought to our attention another case of Dan Chartrand's distrust of the Exeter voters. It seems that at the last Economic Development Commission meeting, an EEDC member suggested that the EDC meet in non-public session to work on the Master Plan. Instead of pointing out that this is not a permitted use of a non-public session, Danny made a motion to "not publicize the March meeting."
It wasn't clear what he meant by "not publicize" the meeting. Since upcoming EDC meetings are seldom the subject of articles on the front page of the Exeter Newsletter, I assume he meant that Russ Dean should not post a public notice for the March meeting.  I hope that isn't what he meant, because that would be advocating a clear and blatant violation of the state's Right-to-Know law. That would be grounds for calling for his resignation.
Interestingly, according to the town's web site, the March EDC meeting has been "cancelled" (or has it?)
It's bad enough that Chartrand has so little respect for the voters that he wants to conduct secret meetings. (He has a documented history of having secret meetings with Board members.) Now he is making public statements that he wants to conduct the town's business behind locked doors.
Everyone should remember this when they go to vote next Tuesday.  Danny boy may not have an official opponent, but he is not unopposed.