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?