New Exeter Community Affairs program coming

Many Exeter residents have voiced the opinion that there isn't any media focused solely on what's happening in Exeter. Well, a new community affairs program is coming to Exeter's local cable access channel 98. The new program will focus on happenings in Exeter with a new show every two weeks with content that will be non-political and timely.
Stay tuned for more details about content and times when the program will be shown.

Why all the secrecy?

   A little birdie told us that the Selectmen and Town Manager are so embarrassed by the Town’s new Pay Plan that they are holding all the hearings on the Plan’s appeals in secret.
   While the Town Manager told the Board of Selectmen, the News-Letter and the residents that there were only a “handful” of appeals, we have learned otherwise. Apparently, that “handful” is somewhere between 40-50% of the employees covered by the plan have appealed the plan. 

   These secret, non-public meetings are being held in violation of the citizens' Right to Know law, RSA 91-A.  The law limits the ability of town officials to have these secret meetings.  One of the allowable reasons for going into non-public session is to avoid discussing the reputation of the person being discussed.
    However, what is being discussed in the appeal is whether the pay range for a particular employment position is the proper range. It is not about whether a particular employee’s performance merits moving that position to a different pay range. 
     For example, during the debate on adoption of the Pay Plan, one of the employment positions that many felt was in the wrong pay range was that of the Assistant Fire Chief. People expressed concern that, as a first responder who is on call 24/7 and has a risky job, the Asst. Chief pay range should be at a higher level than the IT Director or Finance Director. No one spoke about whether the individuals in that position should be paid more because of their performance. We don’t know whether this is one of the positions being appealed, but if it were, the sole basis for the appeal should be the job function, not a person’s performance.  If an appeal was lodged and was successful, and an Asst. Chief quit soon thereafter, the pay range for that position would remain the same because it is based on the position, not the person.
    I remember Selectman Chartrand getting up at the Deliberative Session in March and proclaiming that the Town government is “radically transparent.” If this is an example of radically transparent government, I would hate to see what a merely transparent form of government is.  
   Why are the Town Manager and Dan Chartrand continuing to support these illegal secret meetings? The Board of Selectmen and Town Manager should stop hiding and shine the light of day on the Town’s business. The citizens do have the right to know.

ZBA Denies Application by Seacoast Family Promise

     For those who even followed this issue it is likely there are mixed feelings about the ZBA denying the application of Seacoast Family Promise (SFP) to place a homeless shelter at 27 Hampton Road in the former "Learning Tree Children's Center" building.  While this writer did not attend the ZBA meeting, it is reported that many spoke for and against the application and that the issue was fairly considered.  However, some may agree that unsubstantiated concerns outweighed available facts.
     Consider this, SFP is currently located in the basement of the Stratham Community Church where it has operated for eight years.  During that time have there been criminal issues (e.g., drugs) impacting the church or neighbors?  If not, why is that specter being raised in opposition to the granting of the desired application?  Have they been a good neighbor?
     Questions have been raised about their ability to address social issues attendant with a homeless shelter.  SFP acknowledged that there are some outstanding issues requiring attention.  If these issues can be willingly resolved, should they be a roadblock to approval?
     The concern always seems to come up in cases like this, its presence will negatively impact property values.  Really?  The previous resident at this property was commercial in a R-2 residential zone.  Are there any facts that would support this argument or is it an unsubstantiated concern?
     Homelessness is a significant problem in the Seacoast area.  Here we have an organization who has stepped up to the challenge and is making a difference.  Could they do more, better?  Probably.  Clearly space restrictions at their current location inhibit this.  This writer believes the ZBA took the easy way out by saying, "No."  It's too bad that Exeter, that professes to have concerns over the need for affordable housing, takes a negative approach to one's basic need - shelter.

    Another Secret Meeting?

  We noticed that the Board of Selectmen have posted another secret meeting for tonight (Nov. 24.) This follows last weeks Board meeting that ended with a secret (non-public) meeting. We understand that there was some disagreement amongst Board members as to whether the secret meeting subject qualified for being kept from the public eye.
   What is going on in Town that it requires so many secret meetings? Do you remember the last Deliberative Session where Selectman Chartrand boasted that the Town government is "radically transparent" (his words, not mine)?
    When View asked about minutes of the last secret meeting, we were told that the Board had sealed the minutes.  Does that sound like a "radically transparent" government?

Where were they?
 
    On Tuesday, the Exeter Post of the American Legion held a program in Gale Park to honor our past and present veterans. A number of veterans and observers attended the event.
    As was pointed out by one of the speakers, this year marks 100 years since the start of the `War to end all wars.'
    Unfortunately, what was very noticeable at the event was the absence of our selectmen, Town Manager and Town department managers. Apparently, our elected and appointed officials, like too many others today, look at Veterans Day as just another day off of work.

Don't Give Up On Us

     The blog is not dead, just resting as not much going on at the local level.  Once we get past the 4th the Town may come alive with important matters of which you should be made aware.
     Exercise your right to vote on the 4th.  Plenty of brave men and women have shed their blood for our freedom, liberty and rights.

People are smarter than that

     In today’s Portsmouth Herald, Kate Murray pulls out the tired old liberal wag that Republicans have a “War on Women.”  Kate starts off with saying that “it was not until 1920 that women nationally had the right to vote.”  What she fails to mention that it is only through the dedicated efforts of Republicans that a woman’s right to vote ever came about.  For years, Congressional Republicans put forth a Constitutional Amendment to allow women the right to vote, and each time Democrats voted it down.  When it finally got through Congress, the majority of the states that passed the Amendment had Republican legislatures and Governors.  The majority of states that voted it down had Democrat legislatures and Governors.
     To support her argument against Republicans, Kate conflates a woman’s right to decide her own health care choices with an employers’ right to provide benefits to their employees. No one denies that a woman should have the right to decide whether to use contraceptives. However, that doesn’t mean that an employer must be forced to pay for that choice if it violates the employer’s religious belief.  That is what the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision was all about.
     Kate is purposely trying to confuse voters on this issue and, unfortunately, some people don’t understand the difference between the right to choose and the right to not be forced to pay for something that violates your religious beliefs.  Hopefully, enough thoughtful people understand the difference and see through Kate's charade.

Crabapple Artwork

     The recent vandalism on the pillar at the entrance to Swasey Park followed vandalism at a cemetery in Exeter.  Both were committed by youths.  In the case of the former, the mother gave a conflicted accounting of her daughter's activity.  On the one hand she commented that her daughter was only expressing herself in art, while on the other hand she admitted, after learning the crab apple "artwork" did not rinse off in the rain, her daughter should not have done what she did.
     Vandalism, the defacing of property, shows a lack of respect for what belongs to the public.  Clearly the mother has sent a mixed message to her daughter.  To assume vandalism is acceptable if it can be washed away misses the point entirely.  Defacing public property or the property of others is a criminal activity.  It is unclear what the daughter's special needs are, but it does seem appropriate for her to perform some community service as amends for her act of vandalism.
     On a final note, it is disturbing to read that individuals stood around as the young girl defaced the pillar.  Did it not bother them that public property was being vandalized?   

Focus on the real issue - accountability

     Friday’s Exeter News-Letter had a front page, feel good story about an Exeter firefighter’s battle with his excess weight. While his perseverance to lose weight is admirable, the real story should have been: Why was he allowed to be a firefighter weighing 342 pounds?

     He admitted that he could not climb a ladder in full turnout gear during an emergency.  Doesn’t anyone else see that this man could have put people’s lives at risk?  If he couldn’t climb up the ladder, how was he supposed to help someone else climb down a ladder to safety?  The safety of a fire fighting team relies on each individual being completely fit to meet the demands of the job at hand.  While this particular firefighter should have taken personal responsibility for his weight issue and inability to meet the requirements of his job, the focus here is on Fire Chief Comeau and the Town Manager.

     Where was our Fire Chief? Where was our Town Manager? Didn’t they see what was painfully obvious to any casual observer? At 342 pounds, this person should not have been on active duty. Are there any others in the department that have similar performance problems? The Chief will probably try to use this as an excuse to get the physical exam money he was refused by the Budget Committee last year. This has nothing to do with an examination by a doctor.  It has to do with personal and departmental accountability.

     Someone in management should be taken to task for allowing this gentleman to have put himself and others at risk.  The Chief is yet again trying to sell taxpayers on the need for a sub-station to reduce engine response time.  He should be concerned about his firefighters being fully qualified to do the job when they arrive on the scene.

New Economic Development Director

     You all should take the time to meet Darren Winham.  Had the opportunity to meet him and speak briefly not too long ago.  He seems bright and energetic and is aware of the issues that are felt to discourage business development in Exeter.  It also seems he has a good handle on the personalities of those who are viewed as hurdles to such development.  One can only hope he has the necessary support to affect change where it is appropriate and needed.  The jury is out and the prospects of a positive outcome are in the balance.

Sidewalks

     It is encouraging to read of plans to replace sidewalks on a 400 foot stretch of High Street in the vicinity of the dam.  Replacing sidewalks in conjunction with adjacent roadwork does make sense.  While it has been decided to use concrete for the new sidewalks because concrete lasts longer than asphalt, one is left to wonder if that is an economic decision.  That is, was there a cost/life cycle analysis done to compare alternatives?   How much longer is "longer?" With 35miles of sidewalks in "good to poor" condition, the difference in materials costs is substantial.
     It is also good to read that Town Manager Russ Dean proposes spreading sidewalk replacement over a number of years to minimize the impact to taxpayers.  Hopefully the discipline will be there to actually implement the plan each year.

No news is no posting

     Have faith when time goes by and no new postings.  When there is something worth passing along there will be a posting.  Otherwise the blog will be silent.  Things should pick up as we get into budget review and issues for the March ballot.

Millions of outside money to defeat Brown

     While not strictly Town business and within the purpose of this blog, it is felt you need to be made aware of a serious intervention in the New Hampshire political scene.  Tom Steyer, a billionaire from San Francisco, is spending $100 million in money to support Shaheen's and six other Democratic senator's re-election bids.  This money will be used to pay young operatives who, at this very moment, are out ringing door bells of a targeted group of independent voters between 18 and 30 years old.  As you know we need the votes of independents to defeat Shaheen.  It is also being used for the hideously negative ads attacking Scott Brown.  Politics just gets meaner and uglier.
     This blog will not be addressing issues outside the Town, but it is important to draw the attention of those opposing Shaheen's re-election to this effort.  For more information go to NextGenClimate.org.  It is very disturbing to have an outside group actively trying to buy the vote of independent New Hampshire residents.  Here we see again the hypocrisy of the Democrats who charge that Brown is a carpetbagger, while they bring in money from a California, liberal billionaire.  Disgusting and shameful.  And Democrats have the gall to slam the Koch brothers while they have the almighty George Soros, et al.

Keep your eye on the budget process

     The cycle for the Town budget has begun.  Your Budget Recommendation Committee will soon be hard at work for our benefit.  Their work is clearly cut out for them to ferret out the hidden peas and to try to make apples to apples comparisons as the Town Manager again plays his sleight of hand games.
     As has been his habit he moves items from revolving funds to line items to muddy the waters and items from line item to warrant to obscure a real budget increase.  The budget increase at present appears to be 3.4%, but is it really?  Too bad a default budget has not been presented as it would give one an apples to apples comparison.
     Stay tuned to this blog and we'll do our best to sort the budget out for you. 

There is a pattern here.

    
 

     Briefly, here's an update on replacing the waste water treatment plant.  DPW hired a consultant to study various "regional" options.  A draft report has been generated with the only options listed as one where Exeter would shut down our current plant and send our effluent to Hampton or Portsmouth.  This draft report included no study of the economic impact on Exeter.  In fact, the option of Exeter building a new plant and servicing Newfields to increase our customer base was not even considered.  Why aren't other options included in the report as was done by the quite complete River Study Committee's report on river restoration and dam removal?
     Now we learn that a "final" report will be presented to the Board of Selectmen in late October.  In addition, while the W&S Committee was advised they would receive a presentation of the report last Wednesday, it did not happen.  Members were told if they wanted they could attend an October 3rd, 7:30 a.m. meeting at the DPW.  Very early and no television coverage for citizens!
    The final report is scheduled to be presented to the Selectmen the end of October. What is truly disturbing is that the W&S Committee, advisers to the Selectmen, won't be meeting until 2 weeks after it is presented to the Selectmen.
     So, here again we see a few members of a committee try to ram through a $5 million project without any discussion of alternatives, analyses, or, frankly, time for the Board of Selectmen to fully educate themselves to vote on whether to approve the proposed project.  The public is again being essentially shutoff from being educated on an expenditure that they will have to fund.
     Aside from the aforementioned dam removal project, we have too often been presented with a multimillion dollar project for which more alternatives have not been examined and included in discussions.  The fire substation is but another example.  It would seem that the Town Manager sets up committees to provide legitimacy for proposals for which the public has had little to no input.  It is also evident during public comment at Board of Selectmen meetings that public input is not desired.

 

Once again to the well - The fire sub-station

     Once again Fire Chief Comeau is pitching the sub-station project at an estimated $2.3 million.  The only thing that has changed for this project is the passage of time.  The case for this expenditure seems no more compelling than it was when it was first proposed a number of years ago.  He cites studies and some statistics.  One could question if the studies were done to support the conclusion, or whether they are truly without bias.  One could also question the proper response time.  Those on the west side of town likely find their response time not much different than those on the east side.  At least not orders of magnitude different.
     What is needed are public meetings where the pros and cons can be discussed and those affected by the project or the cost of the project get their say.  A project of this magnitude needs to be explained to those who would pay the bill.  This is particularly true when one considers the costs now facing taxpayers for the dam removal and river restoration, the waste water treatment plant upgrade, sidewalks and continued work to eliminate inflow and infiltration issues with our sewer system.
     Once again those requesting that the townspeople foot the bill for never ending projects must be held to a needs versus desired criteria.  Our pockets do have bottoms.

Downtown trash cans

     Jim Peschel, in his recent letter to the editor, had it right when he suggested that the Town Manager meet with the owner of Stillwell's to find a solution for the trash problem outside their place of business.  Exeter is not Portsmouth, it is a small town.  It is clearly within reason for our Town Manager to leave his office and walk the short distance to Stillwell's.  It is also within his authority to work out a solution to the trash issue.  At over $100,000 in annual salary (plus generous benefits), it would be refreshing to see Russell Dean deal with some issues personally rather than to hand them off to someone else.  In this particular case he is handing it over to the new Economic Development Director??!!
     It appears to this citizen that Dean considers himself above such petty issues.  Rather he hands it off to someone hired to bring new business to Exeter.  How does handling a minor trash issue bring new business to Exeter?  As a stretch one might offer that it is building community relations.  Really?
     Dean seems to be short on personal initiative.  This is altogether evident in his lack of developing new initiatives to bend the cost curve downward and save taxpayer dollars.

It must be such an inconvenience

    It is apparent that Selectman Chartrand needs to pay more attention during the Board meetings.  He is fond of praising the Town Manager and staff at every chance he gets.  However, he went a little too far the other night.  In justifying his vote for a contract to be awarded without having all the contract to review, Chartrand said that the DPW’s projects always come in on time and on budget.  He obviously doesn't pay attention.
    The Jady Hill project comes to mind. DPW had to use a lot of the 15% contingency (rainy day fund) because they got most of the way through the project without a required easement and had to redesign and add additional piping to handle the stormwater.
     How about DPW’s estimate for the Raynes Farm barn roof? All of the bids came in above the amount authorized by us at Town Meeting. So the Board (including Mr. Chartrand) voted to take funds dedicated to other maintenance projects to complete the roof. It is clear Dan Chartrand isn’t paying attention at the meetings and he already has told us why. He has told us several times recently, “I have a business to run.”
    Well Mr. Chartrand, there is one way to solve that problem. RESIGN! Being a selectman is an honor bestowed on only a few individuals and it should not be taken this lightly.  If Chartrand can’t devote all the time necessary to do the job properly, then he should step aside and let someone who is willing to spend the proper amount of time do the job. We deserve nothing less.

Here we go again.

     For those who do not subscribe to the Exeter New-Letter and have not heard through other channels, the Town is planning to pursue a $6.9 million set of projects.  And, yes, the substation and baggage building at the train depot are included.  No decision made on whether to have a separate warrant article or to include sidewalk upgrade in the budget.  Jennifer Perry has decided to replace with concrete as, in her words, it lasts longer.  It costs a great deal more, too.  Have to wonder if the low wear and tear of sidewalks warrants the increased cost.  With a proper base, asphalt ought to serve us well for the long run.
     Nothing has changed to support the construction of a fire substation on Continental Drive.  At an estimated $2.5 million one would expect a very sound argument, supported with well researched and documented facts.  We need an unbiased, third party to examine the need.  Need is the operative word.
     Enough has been written here about the baggage building upgrade.  It is not needed, is overkill and other less expensive options solve the problem of waiting for the train in inclement weather.  No documented, factual case has been made for it increasing train ridership.  It's a nice to have, not needed project that should be low on the priority list.  We are still faced with some very large expenditures for the great dam removal and upgrade of our waste water treatment system.

Board of Selectmen Behavior - Commentary

     For the Board of Selectmen to best represent the interests of Exeter residents it should be comprised of non-partisan individuals who strive to study the issues sufficiently to uncover the facts and render a decision/vote based on those facts and what is in the best interest of the Town.  They are elected to supervise the Town Manager and provide adequate guidance and oversight to ensure he or she is managing affairs in an ethical, equitable, cost effective and efficient manner that sees to the needs of Town residents.  It is not the Board's role to rubber stamp everything the Town Manager does or proposes to do.
     What we have seen most recently is an example of three Board members, Chartrand, Belanger and Gilman not behaving in a manner consistent with the foregoing.  It raises one's suspicions when these three consistently vote as a block, particularly when they go against strong public opinion and the prevailing facts.  Public opinion matters when it comes to how these representatives of the people act.  When they vote in support of the Town Manager at the expense of the public and in the most recent case of many non-union town employees, they need to be called to task.
     These three Board members have twice voted for a pay plan that has been shown to be badly flawed and in the final analysis is not needed.  By his own irrational vote to approve, Chartrand said any flaws can be taken care of in an appeal.  The reasonable person (including Selectwoman Surman and Selectman Clement) would insist that the plan be submitted free of obvious flaws and injustices. To put the burden on the employee to appeal is bad management.  One should also recognize that the appeal process would include the Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen who have already shown by their vote that there is nothing to appeal.  Would the appeal then go to court costing taxpayers attorney fees and court costs?
     It is way past time for Chartrand, Gilman and Belanger to discontinue what appears to be collusion and show that they are sensitive to public opinion rendered at public comment and begin to act in the best interest of residents and their pocketbooks. 

A plea to recall the pay plan

     Last evening during public comment, Harry Thayer and Bob Eastman, both well-respected Exeter residents, spoke out against the recently Board of Selectmen approved 2014 Pay Plan.  These gentlemen are both noted for doing the necessary research and thoroughly studying issues before they speak publicly.  Both have found serious defects in the pay plan and asked the Board of Selectmen to recall it and to spend the necessary time to clean up its many deficiencies. 
     It is difficult to understand Selectman Chartrand's reasoning for voting to approve the plan.  He stated that if there were any defects they could be taken care of in the appeals process.  This leaves the burden on employees to make a case for correcting deficiencies that are all to apparent to those who have studied the new pay grades included in the plan.  The intransigence of the Board in recalling this plan is causing unnecessary morale issues amongst those affected.
     From a taxpayer's point of view one has to question why the Town Manager decided to raise pay grade levels that were clearly in line with those of similar sized towns.  The 2009 pay plan has kept pace in the competitive environment and in many cases finds Exeter employees paid much better.  Why a new pay plan and why one that is so obviously defective?  We need answers and actions from the Board of Selectmen to correct their grievous error in approving it.

More on the Pay Plan

     Some are beginning to show an interest in this subject, but more should be concerned at its impact.
     First, the study is not market based.  If it was, it would show that Exeter is very competitive when it comes to the same or similar positions in surrounding communities.  How many Town of Exeter employees have left to take up the same position in another town in the Seacoast or other nearby community?  None.  So, why is the Town Manager raising the ranges on salaries of non-union employees?
     While it would be enlightening to know the 2014 impact of potential raises, if any, resulting from the new pay plan, there is not enough data available to the public to do so.  The Town Manager stated there was money in the 2014 budget to cover these raises, but it seems there is enough slack in his budget to cover a number of "extras."  Again it should be noted that the 2009 pay plan, through COLA adjustments, was doing a good job of staying current, so why the need for a new pay plan?
     It should also be noted that none of the Selectmen read the full pay plan report because none had a copy.  So, they were asked to approve something, in a very short time frame, for which they had no knowledge.  Does this remind you of anything?  (We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it."
     Finally, there seems to be a blurring of the line between "Director" and "Manager."  When one looks at the various groupings one sees the two sharing the same group.  Clearly they are not on the same level of responsibility.  Is the former being used to elevate one's stature?
     This is an ill conceived plan and needs to be rescinded and its deficiencies corrected.  Better yet, the 2009 plan should be reinstated.

Exeter-Stratham Sewer Tie-in

     There has been silence on this topic for some time.  Silence does not always mean inaction, but there is one item for which there has been none.  Bob Kelly of the Water & Sewer Advisory Committee admitted that they took money from the Water and Sewer budget, line item consultants, to fund the study of regional options.  However, they have not commissioned the study on the economic impact despite being authorized by the Selectmen. 
     Clearly if talks are to continue with Stratham on the potential for them to share our waste water treatment plant, this study must be done to determine what affect their having a sewer system in their Gateway zone would have on current Exeter businesses and commercial development.  Why is the Committee dragging its feet?

Suspicious activity regarding river restoration

     It has been learned that Selectwoman Gilman and member of the Heritage Commission may be taking steps to derail a project approved by the voters - dam removal and river restoration.  She wishes to replace oversight by the River Study Committee with that of the Heritage Commission as it relates to the Section 106 process.  While the latter should be a participant in the process, it does not serve the public's best interest to remove the former from oversight responsibilities.
     The Section 106 process is primarily an examination of projects where there might be an impact on historic sites.  If historic properties are found, the project cannot proceed and essentially the parties enter negotiations to reduce its impact.  This can lead to increased costs and delays which carry with them their own costs.
     Gilman, on her own, has prepared an historic inventory/study of Franklin Street and the immediate area and is submitting (or has already done so) her report to the State to seek State Historic status.  Did you know she was doing this?  Is she doing this representing Exeter residents or a small core of like-minded individuals?  Is she trying to derail the project against the will of the voters?  The cost of dam removal and river restoration is costly enough without driving the costs even higher.
     We need some transparency on her actions as she has not in any broad fashion communicated her actions and intent to the public.  It is exactly these "back room" activities that causes residents to be suspicious of Town officials' activities.  They are usually found to benefit a small minority of folks to the detriment of the majority.  Personal agendas have no place in official Town business.

Who should decide the membership of the Budget Recommendation Committee

     Last evening during public comment in the Board of Selectman meeting, Dennis Brady gave his view of having the Board of Selectmen decide the membership of the BRC rather than having the voters decide it through the ballot.  While volunteers can be considered under either scenario, the latter gets them on the ballot while the former could find them rejected.  Brady made the point that great care should be taken anytime a move is made to take away the rights of a voter and giving them to an official body.  The RSAs support voters' rights and give them a major voice in deciding local matters.  Having the Board of Selectmen decide on the membership of the BRC is wrong.
     Selectman Chartrand vehemently pointed out that the Board of Selectmen were not behind the proposal and that it was coming from a few members on the BRC.  While maybe not behind the proposal it is highly likely that certain Board members favor such a move and would not discourage it.  Selectwoman Gilman pointed out that any change would have to be approved by voters.  Since only about 18% to 20% of registered voters turn out in March, her comment isn't very encouraging.
     For the more aware town resident it is quite apparent that there is a practice in town to stack committees and commissions with those showing favor to specific agenda.  Voters should be concerned when they hear that there is a movement to take away a voter's right and place it in the hands of the Board of Selectmen who have supervisory control over the Town Manager who establishes the very budget that the BRC is to review.  Conflict?  You bet.

More on pay plan

     One would think that for something as important and far reaching as Town Manager Russ Dean's new pay plan would be thorough without defect and would receive the approval of all the Selectmen.  Instead what we saw last evening was a plan with a number of unanswered questions, challenged by those who had in depth knowledge of the existing 2009 plan, thus could make an educated (and well researched) comparison.  The most troubling item where Selectmen Chartrand and Clement disagreed was over the grade level for certain positions.  Clement had a concern that some were too low and some were too high.  Chartrand's answer to this was, "We'll let the appeal process sort that out."  That means, put the burden on the employee to correct a potential deficiency that management chose to ignore.  As Selectwoman Surman said, "Shouldn't management do the job right the first time" in putting forth a plan where adequate review and discussion has taken place to address all deficiencies?
     It was evident from his body language that Chartrand was tiring of the discussion and his rush to vote ignoring public input and that of the other Board members came as he put forth a motion to approve the plan as submitted.  And, as expected, it passed 3 to 2. 
     Bob Eastman made a well documented statement that the 2009 plan has been working and that his in depth analysis and comparison to other NH towns of comparable size found our employees to be well compensated.  So, why the need to change?  In fact, the change will take place mid year this year instead of in 2015.  Why?  Because, apparently anticipating approval, the 2014 budget included money to cover the results of the pay plans enactment.  Taxpayers again seem not to be part of the consideration by certain members of the Board and the Town Manager.

Go one step further

     As has been written here more than once, constructive comments are most welcome on this site.  Many comments are of such a nature that they would benefit more town residents if they were taken one step further.  Letters to the editor in the Exeter News-Letter and the Carriage Towne News are an effective way of engaging others.  It is highly recommended that those media be used to help this blog spread the word on items taking place within our Town government that may not otherwise be known.  Exeter is a wonderful town in which to live.  However, it takes awareness and effort on our part to maintain a transparency that is not always afforded by those who are in charge and making decisions on our behalf.

Late Breaking News

     This message needs to hit the grapevine and get wide town coverage.  Town Manager, Russ Dean, is taking steps to change the way the Budget Recommendation Committee (BRC) is constituted.  In a ruse to make it like the other Committees, he is recommending a warrant article to seek voter approval to have the Board of Selectmen pick members for this committee.  They are now chosen by voters by a warrant article.  This system works just fine and gives a far better chance for someone to serve.  Having the Board of Selectmen make the appointments leaves room for cronyism and stacking the committee to favor the Town Manager.  Maybe this is what Dean has in mind. 

It is suggested that the BRC head this move off at the pass.  We need at least one committee that is independent and free of manipulation.

Russ Dean's new pay plan proposal

     At the last Board of Selectman meeting, Town Manager, Russ Dean, dumped a new pay plan on the Selectmen telling them they needed to approve it to be retroactive to July 7th.  No explanation, no questions asked.  He did offer that for the half year it would cost an additional $5,000 above budgeted pay raises and $10,000 for an entire year.  He gave no explanation where in his budget he had built in slack to cover these costs.  Oh, wait.  Forgot about the $250,000 extra money in the budget that the Selectmen let him keep when looking to lower the 2014 budget.
     There is a pattern here where Dean continues to ask the Selectmen to approve unbudgeted expenditures.  Also on Monday night he asked the Board to approve spending an additional $3,350 on the Reynes Barn roof, an item that was buried in the 2014 budget, the previously floated warrant article having been defeated by voters.
     On the subject of the pay plan one might ask why a new one?  Have employees, in general, reached the maximum in their salary range necessitating a new plan?  Are our employees being fairly compensated compared to similarly sized towns, or is an adjustment needed?  It certainly would be refreshing if Dean spent as much time using some creativity and innovation to find ways to save the Town money to offset all the increases he conjures up.

Endrun to thwart development

     It is most disturbing to read that Selectwoman and Chairman Julie Gilman is attempting to have the State declare Franklin Street part of the historic district.  The planning process is well underway for a developer to ultimately build a "pocket neighborhood".  By all accounts it would be a tasteful addition to downtown.  One of our town's well known real estate business owners and Planning Board member has stated publicly that there is a demand for downtown living quarters.
     Gilman is using as her argument that Franklin Street was used to build homes to "...house workers from the mills and little individual manufacturers that were along there."  Using that criteria one could say the entire Town of Exeter is an historic district as Native Americans likely set up fishing villages here.  There is nothing historic remaining on this street.
     It's time for being candid and showing some honesty.  Changing the rules in the middle of the game with a developer is costly for the developer and sends a negative signal to future developers and landowners who cannot be assured the rules won't be changed on them to thwart their plans.  If Gilman is successful in obtaining the State's approval the voters will have the final approval.  Speaking out at public comment at a Board of Selectman meeting would seem in order To curtail her ill advised efforts.  Town officials continue to throw out conflicting signals to future developers.  And taxpayers are on the hook for a newly hired Economic Development Director.  Where is the leadership that puts a stop to this monkey business by Boards and Commissions that pursue their own personal agenda? 

Town Management Missteps

     It has not gone unnoticed by the more observant that Town Manager, Russ Dean, has made a number of costly decisions and not provided adequate oversight that has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The more costly is the recently announced $250,000 in legal fees that he has racked up.  Add to this the failure to collect property taxes, the $1 million in under billing wherein less than 50% is collected and the failure to update impact fees to reflect current costs.  He also disclosed that he had $250,000 in budget cuts that his department heads identified that could have been used to reduce the Town's portion the tax rate.  However, they remained in the budget to provide a slush fund.  At the last Selectmen meeting another issue came to light. It was admitted that under Russ Dean's administration the Town has failed to follow existing inter-town agreements and collect revenues for almost a decade.
     Isn't it time for Selectman Chartrand to cease praising the Town Manager for the "great job he is doing" and to begin to question these management lapses.  The Town Manager's annual increase is based on merit.  Managers in the corporate world would find themselves in trouble with a track record like his.

Here comes the train station again

     Some months ago a posting appeared on this blog on the subject of purchasing and renovating the old 700 square foot baggage building for use as a welcome center.  This renovation would include providing for restrooms, a kiosk for ticket sales and a waiting area.  While the original cost was set at $403,200 ($282,240 covered by a federal grant leaving $120,960 to be covered by taxpayers) a subsequent engineering study put it at $700,000.  (A big unknown, was the purchase price for the structure.)  Nothing has changed in the past months except Bob Hall, chairman of the train station committee, once again asking that the Board of Selectmen place in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) $403,000 for the purchase and renovation of this building. 
     So, how does he reconcile the difference between the $700,000 (which may be low) and the $403,000 he is seeking?  Is a federal grant still available and can it be increased to account for the higher estimated cost?  Where in the priority of spending on projects already in the CIP does this project rank?  And more to the point, is this project an overkill?
     Riders who have responded to questions on the use of the train station cite weather and parking as the issues to be resolved.  It would appear that only a handful of commuters could fit into the proposed welcome center at best.  Can a suitable weather enclosure be built at the platform?  Would the infrared heaters that have been mentioned be adequate?  Are restrooms even needed given they are provided on the train and commuters have just recently left their homes?
     The "build it and they will come" attitude of some has not been backed by any surveys or facts.  How would riders get from the train station to downtown to partake of a meal at one of our few restaurants or to shop in our boutique shops?  For that matter, if train ridership is projected to grow 4% to 6% a year, where are these additional riders going to park?  How much would it cost the Town (read that as taxpayers) to provide additional parking?  And it has already been determined that charging for parking to help offset the cost of maintaining the parking area (such as snow removal) is not popular amongst commuters.
     Does something need to be done at the train station to provide weather protection?  It would seem so.  Have all the alternatives to address this one central issue been examined and presented to the public?  It does not seem so.  So, why this overreach on the part of a few train station enthusiasts?

New Economic Development Director

     In spite of significant opposition, the new position of Economic Development Director was approved in the budget and the position has now been filled.  It appears from the Exeter News-Letter article that the gentleman is fully qualified to fill this position.  Hopefully he will have the wherewithal to successfully find and secure new commercial business to increase our Town's tax base.  However, what remains to be learned is how much freedom of motion he will have to do this.
     We have a strong personality in the person of Town Planner, Sylvia Von Aulock.  Her past actions make it clear she is highly selective on what commercial businesses should be considered.  Light industrial does not even appear to be on her wish list.  It would seem best for town residents if the new director could work within the Master Plan and prevailing zoning regulations to do his job and not under her influence.
     It would also be useful for him to identify up front those impediments he sees to really making Exeter open to business development.  Then it would be up to the existing Boards and Committees, along with public input, to address these issues or to fully explain why changes cannot be made.
     The jury is clearly out whether this business development exercise will be successful.  It is hoped the Board of Selectmen will provide thorough and timely oversight of this new individual and adress any hurdles he is experiencing in doing his job.

Candidates visit at Festival

     These candidates will be dropping by the Republican booth this Saturday at the indicated times.  They will be available to meet and to ask any questions you may have of them.

US Senate: Scott Brown
US House: Frank Guinta - 10:30
                  Dan Innis - 11-12
                  Brendan Kelly
NH Governor: Walt Haverstein - 1:30
                        Andrew Hemingway - 11
Exeter State Reps:Frank Ferraro - 10-12
                              Bob Goeman - 1-3
                              Nelson Lourenco - 12-1
                              Paul Nicholson - 11-1
                              Brian Griset - 10-3
Stratham State Reps: Pat Abrami - 1- 1
                                     Joanne Ward - 10-1
Rockingham County Attorney:
                Michael Dicroce - 3
                Michael Zaino -

American Independence Festival

     It seems fair to question the logic behind Julie Williams' decision to exclude the Exeter Sportsman's Club from having a booth at the festival as they have in the past.  While she did stipulate that if they adhered to a specific theme the decision could be revisited.  It just feels like something else is at play here.
     It is no secret that the ESC has faced constant resistance from some in Exeter to even exist as a gun club.  Many who advocate gun control have spoken out against the ESC and one cannot help but wonder if this is just another less than transparent attempt to exclude them.  Were it not for militias made up of citizens bearing arms, the Revolutionary War could have easily gone down as a defeat for a fledgling nation.  The ESC is as much a part of the festival as any craft booth.  Their exclusion raises doubts as to the motives of those who would exclude them.  What do you think?

Interesting information

     Mr. Morgan, superintendent of SAU-16 schools spoke at the Board of Selectmen meeting last Monday evening.  His primary purpose was to report on the high marks our schools got for safety and how well it did on a recent "active shooter" drill.  He commended the Exeter Police and Fire Departments on the support given in this endeavor.  This is good news for parents, teachers, staff and children.
     Upon closing he passed along his thanks on behalf of the 6,000 students and 1,200 employees of our SAU-16 schools.  That yields a ratio of 5 to 1 which is an interesting figure to have for comparison purposes.  Not sure whether this is a reasonable ratio, but thought it worth passing along to those who did not hear the remark.

Solar panels galore

      In spite of hard facts showing that solar panels do not save enough electricity to pay off the capital investment, I've been told that Selectman Chartrand and Selectwoman Gilman are actively pushing the use of solar panels at other municipal sites in Exeter to complement those at the DPW.  They are not a wise investment and responsible use of taxpayer money.
     While it will be argued that some of the cost to taxpayers will be offset by grants, one should question why any taxpayer's money (which includes grants) should be used to purchase and install these panels when it has been shown by Frank Ferraro that those currently in use at the DPW are actually costing the Town money and they will continue to do so, only at a higher rate, for their entire life.  Ferraro, an engineer and executive at a major company, routinely evaluated capital investments and is well qualified to have examined the $115,000 purchase and installation of the existing solar panels at the DPW.  Why is his information being ignored?  Another example of "We know best and need no input from others" attitude.
     Keep tuned in and Publius will keep you posted on this boondoggle.

It's water over the dam.

     While we did not get the Fish & Wildlife "Sandy" grant the Town is seeking a $100 thousand Aquatic Resource Mitigation (ARM) grant with a deadline of August 18th and a $200 thousand EPA 319 Water Shed Assistance grant with a deadline of July 11th.  Admittedly these are small compared to the aforementioned grant, Paul Vlasich stated the Town will pursue other grants that are or may come available.  In the meantime, he said he would proceed with the project for which the Town has applied for and received a 10-year bond.
     The bond, principal and interest, will be paid for on the basis of work completed.  Thus, it is not paid back as equal monthly payments over ten years.  Don Clement stated that the impact on our tax rate cannot be accurately computed as there are too many variables, with the Town valuation being just one.   A comment on this blog does provide input on this subject.
     A side issue is the contract with the Mill for providing them water.  This still needs to be resolved according to Vlasich.

Great Dam Removal - The "Sandy" Grant

     The following is taken directly from the Fish and Wildlife website within the Department of Interior website:
June 16, 2014 – Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell today announced $102 million in competitive matching grants to support 54 projects along the Atlantic coast. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the grants will fund science-based solutions to restore an estimated 6,634 acres of wetlands and marshes; 225 acres of beach; and 364 acres of riparian buffers (vegetation lining streams), which help strengthen coasts to withstand future storms and sea-level rise. Other projects include dam removals and culvert replacements, which will open 287 miles of streams to fish passage while reducing flood risks to communities. Many projects will be complementary to similar U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts already underway along the Atlantic coast. The projects also will provide an economic boost, creating hundreds of jobs in local communities.
     Our fit within that criteria could not have been better.  So, the question is, "How did we word our grant application?"  Why did we lose out?  Some one from the Town should be inquiring of the grantor why we did not make our case.  Let's call it an important learning exercise.  And, by the way, some of those awarded grants seem a bit outside the criteria.  Political involvement is suspect.

Maintaining the integrity of this blog

     Once again readers are reminded that The purpose of this blog is to inform Exeter residents on events and undisclosed information.  It is not to debate political philosophies. It is not to promote ideals- Democrat v. Republican.  It is not to debate conservatism, socialism. libertarianism, liberalism.  Comment is limited to one per posting with no back and forth.  If you have comments on the issue, stay focused on the ISSUE.  Help keep this blog educational, factual and informative.

Great Dam Removal update

     Heard a rumor around town that on June 16th,last Monday  night, the Town was aware of the Great Dam grant application status but didn't want to tell the public.  Some checking was done.
     Official word. According to the U.S. Department of Interior and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation websites, earlier Monday, that same day, the results were issued to the press naming the successful applicants. Of note is that usually applicants are informed in writing PRIOR to the press release.
     Only one project was awarded a grant in NH. It wasn't us. (Congratulations to Dover) 54 projects were approved, running down to Virginia. Virginia, New Jersey and Delaware were the big winners, but so was Boston Harbor..
     Not receiving the 75% grant hurts bad enough, but a number of approved grantees received greater than 75% that was supposedly the limit. Some of these grants, receiving over 90% funding, were for coming up with plans!
     In reviewing the awards, taking the combined total dollar amounts over 75%, many more grants could have been approved. There was enough that even our project would have been able to receive the complete 75% funding. It appeared from the list that a lot of money went to States that have some close Congressional races coming up this November. I guess Carol Shea-Porter couldn't swing it, that is, if she was asked and tried.
     Now the first question is, "Was there something wrong with our request?"  The next question is, "What is the status of our NOAA 50% grant and what other additional grant requests have been submitted/been approved?"  The final question is, "Why didn't Mr. Chartrand or Mr. Dean answer Mr. Griset's question about the grant last Monday night?"  It is disturbing to think that the taxpayers are being kept in the dark given the importance of the issue.

Stop breaking the law.

    

     It seems like Selectman Chartrand just doesn’t get it. The law about public meetings is very clear, and last night, Dan decided to ignore it again.  The Board of Selectmen met for an early meeting with the intention of going on a field trip to visit the DPW. Chairperson Gilman was absent, so Vice-Chair Chartrand presided over the meeting. 

     When they finished with the regular meeting, Chartrand asked for a motion to adjourn the “business portion” (his words) of the meeting.  Nancy Belanger made the motion, but Don Clements was concerned about the legality of adjourning the "public sessions" and reconvening for a “work session.“ Chartrand ignored Clement's concerns and insisted that they adjourn because they were going to be late going to the DPW. He was more concerned about the time than about what was proper and legal. Chartrand called for a vote and declared the meeting adjourned, although it wasn’t clear who voted for or against adjournment.

     Frank Ferraro rose to offer some friendly advice supporting Clement's observation that the Board should keep the meeting open and just announce a move of the location. That way, the Board would not be violating the public notice law because there was no public notice for the “work session.” Chartrand thanked Ferraro and said that the TV was off and they would consider it the next time.  In other words, Chartrand was more concerned with the time than what the law required.

     Look, undoubtedly some will say this is no big deal and that this constitutes nitpicking.  This might be true if it was not a pattern of behavior we have witnessed.  This isn’t the first time that Chartrand has violated the public notice provisions of state law. He clearly has shown disdain for having to follow laws that he feels are too inconvenient.  Even when a two-term Selectman and past Board Chairman points out the law.  Perhaps Chartrand should take one of the courses offered by the LGC on the public’s right to know.   Residents rights are protected by law to ensure they are privy to all public meetings of this and other boards.  Even the recent simple act of attempting to move public comment to end of the Board of Selectman meeting has the appearances of discouraging public input.  When actions such as these are not challenged, the instigator is emboldened to continue.  And this seems to be the case with Chartrand.