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.

Disdain for the Citizens

     The Board of Selectmen and School District 16 have reached a new low with their demonstration of disdain for the citizens.  They are supporting House Bill (HB) 646, which would allow government agencies to charge for the time it takes to fulfill right-to-know requests that are submitted pursuant to RSA 91A.  The RSA makes it clear that the citizens have a right to information that is not being withheld because it meets confidentiality standards.   RSA 91A provides citizens with easy and affordable access to information held by local and state governments and is a key tool in the protection of citizens from the government.  As the RSA states in its preamble, “Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society."
     HB 646 is supported by the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the state’s School Boards Association and the Exeter Board of Selectmen.  Why do these organizations support HB 646 and oppose the citizens right to have access to records?   The answer is simple, they don’t want anyone to oversee their actions and they don’t want to be accountable to the citizens.  The concept of cost recovery is a scheme to make access to public records so expensive that the average citizen will not be able to afford to participate in the process. Once this is achieved, the pesky citizens will go away and they will be able to conduct their business without interference and oversight.  It is important to remind the individuals in these organizations that they are employees of the citizens, and not nobility, and they should be working to help the citizens and not shut them out of the process.

     .

I thought we were supposed to have 5 selectmen?
   
    A funny thing happened last March, we only elected one selectperson, Anne Surman. In place of the fifth selectperson, we got a rubber stamp.
    Have you ever watched the Selectmen's meetings on channel 22? That void sitting next to Chartrand is an inanimate object that does no homework and does not utter an independent, coherent thought.
    Sometimes it seems as though Chartrand has learned ventriloquism and is speaking through the mannequin sitting next to him. Other times, you just hear the sound a rubber stamp makes agreeing with Chartrand.
    It is a shame that this is what the monolith Democrat party has resorted to - elect someone who will just agree with everything their mouthpiece says, regardless of how bad a candidate she might be.
   Have we given over the future of the town to those who don't trust voters and just want to have the Town Manager run the town?  Is Exeter lost?

Left hand, right hand?

 

    Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?

    We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

    There are so many clichés that seem to apply to our town government.  We hired an Economic Development Director at a cost of about $125,000 per year to bring new or expanded commercial development to town.  The goal is to add non-residential development to help reduce the impact of ever-increasing property taxes.
    The Economic Development Director has been working for months on the Epping Road TIF District, and we are on the verge of voting on it. The expectation is that, by running water and sewer along Epping Road, developers will purchase the commercial property along the road and build multi-million dollar buildings, bringing in scads of tax dollars.
    But wait, while all this is happening, our Town Manager has been negotiating a water supply deal with Stratham that will undermine all the work on the TIF.  How is that, you ask?
    The only impediment to build-out of Stratham’s “Gateway District” is the lack of water and sewer. With Exeter’s water, Gateway District property owners will not be hampered by the septic system setback requirements.  Our water will also supply much needed fire protection water, the single largest impediment to the Market Basket expansion.
     Since Stratham’s property tax rate is less than half of Exeter’s, why would a developer build along Epping Road when they can build in Stratham, have all the water they need and pay significantly less taxes?
     For example, why do you think that Hampton Inn and Fairfield Inn built their motels in Exeter when they could have built them a mile up the road in Stratham and paid far less in taxes? It is because Exeter had what they desperately needed: water and sewer.  If Stratham had even just the water supply, those motels would be sitting north of our town line.
    The proposed $2 million that Stratham would pay to “buy into” our water system is nothing compared to what Exeter will lose in property taxes if developers change their minds about Epping Road and build in Stratham.
    Do our town officials even talk to each other?

    More Budget Games?

     Because there is a lack of guidance on exactly how to prepare the Default Budget, we have long seen our Town Administration play games with the Default Budget to ensure that their Proposed Budget passes. Now, it seems that the SAU Administration is playing similar games with the Cooperative Default Budget.

    The School Board decided to cut Alternative Education from the Budget, reducing the Proposed Budget by about $400,000.  However, they left the $400,000 in the Default Budget.  What gives?

    The Default Budget law says that if a program or line item is discontinued, it should be dropped from the Default Budget just as it is in the Proposed Budget. The SAU Administration didn't do that in this case. As a result, the Default Budget is now $240,000 more than the Proposed Budget.  Was this an attempt to make the Default Budget larger than the Proposed Budget in order to get their Budget passed?

    If you are concerned about these types of games that force us into ever increasing taxes, come to the Cooperative School Deliberative Session on Thursday, February 5, at 7:00pm in the High School.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who's really doing the posturing?
   
    While watching the Selectmen's Budget Hearing last night, I was appalled by Chartrand's insult of former Selectman Ferraro, accusing Ferraro of "posturing." 
    This coming from the selectman who didn't want to offend either side in the dam removal debate, so he said he "needed more time," even though he and the other Board members had had more than six months to study the report; this coming from the selectman who tried to curry favor from his base by posturing at every hearing on the Gun Club; this coming from the selectman who is the inspiration behind the new drinking game in town: every time Chartrand thanks the Town Manager or Town staff, you have to take a drink. (Consequently, there are a lot of inebriated voters sitting at home after every selectmen's meeting.)
    How long will it take for the voters to wake up to this charade? Chartrand has made it known that he will seek re-election. He has also expressed his distrust for the voters by wanting to take away their right to vote on the Town's budget, on warrant articles and on zoning changes. He is part of the small group of people that know what's best for the rest of us and we should just shut up and stay home.
    Do the majority of voters agree with him?

What is this group up to now?

        It is becoming clear that there is a small, but determined, group who desire to control everything that happens in Exeter. They have their very own narrow view of what is right for Exeter and are attempting to force it on everyone else.

   Members of this group sitting on the Board of Selectmen have ignored the voice of the people when voters overwhelmingly approved an article to restore the Town Office Building receptionist. 
      Failing to shape the town in their image by the direct approach, they then tried subterfuge by trying to get the downtown “TIF” passed.  Fortunately, voters recognized this as a thinly disguised attempt to take taxpayer money for those same beautification projects that failed twice before.
      This group is trying to get money for their downtown beautification projects by hiding it in with the money needed to replace the deteriorating Water Street sidewalks.  While the sidewalk replacement project would cost about $580,000, Selectman Dan Chartrand and this group are determined to ask for $1.2 million for this project and "other future sidewalk projects."

      Another recent initiative by this group is to change 150 years of Exeter tradition by trying to change the way the Budget Recommendations Committee is selected.  For more than one and a half centuries, the voters have elected this Committee. Long ago, voters recognized that we needed a broad-based group representing the taxpayers to review the annual budget proposals and make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen.  It seems that the Town Manager and some Board members want to turn this independent committee into a handpicked body that will rubber stamp whatever the Town Manager wants.

      We have also heard Selectman Chartrand voice his distrust of Exeter voters, saying that we no longer need Exeter residents to vote on the budget or zoning amendments or major spending articles.  He believes those decisions should be left in the hands of the Town Manager and a select group of people, called a Town Council.

     Exeter taxpayers need to be alert to this small group's motives and actions that will remove taxpayers from the Town processes.

     Will voters spend the time to attend the Deliberative Session on Saturday, January 31, to push back on these attempts to control our town? Do we need to approve $1.2 million when all that is really needed is less than half that amount? Shouldn’t Selectman Chartrand recuse himself from discussions and voting on downtown projects that directly affect his business?

    It is all in the hands of the voters. Do you really care enough to make your opinion known at the Deliberative Session and the ballot box?



Sidewalks go for the "whole enchilada"

.    It is doubtful anyone would disagree that something needs to be done about the condition of our town's sidewalks, downtown and on Lincoln Street to name two locations.  Furthermore, most, if not all, are beyond repair and need total replacement.  Replacement options include asphalt, concrete or brick, in increasing order of cost. 

     It would appear, over the rational argument by two members of the Board of Selectmen and one citizen at a recent meeting, that the Town will likely proceed with writing a warrant article for a $1.2 million to replace sidewalks on Water Street and portions of Lincoln and Front Streets and a small portion in the vicinity of the String Bridge.  It would specify $580 thousand for the downtown/Front Street/ String Bridge sidewalks, with the $620 thousand remainder reserved for "future" sidewalk work. Two of the Selectmen are arguing for three separate warrant articles: $580k for the concrete sidewalks, $620k for a sidewalk reserve fund and $250k for brick enhancements as is being proposed by a private citizen.

     It is no surprise that Selectman Chartrand again ignores public input and that of other Board members by pushing to go for the entire $1.2 million in one warrant article..  After all, as he has often said, he knows what the voters are thinking and how they will vote.  Sadly there is some truth to the latter.  Exeter is a highly partisan town.  There is a voting block, representing the minority of registered voters, upon which Chartrand holds his view that he can get the necessary support.  The majority do not involve themselves in Town affairs, nor do they vote.  However, in the past, voters have turned down efforts to spend $6 million for downtown beautification.  They might balk at voting for Chartrand's proposed warrant article. 

     It should be mentioned here that Selectman Chartrand has a vested interest, as a downtown business owner, in replacing downtown sidewalks.  He is a strong proponent of downtown beautification.  It would seem he has a conflict of interest in this matter and should recuse himself from this issue. 
     It is high time that the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager give serious consideration to public input and opinion as it reflects what many think is the more reasonable and affordable approach to resolving an issue. 

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.