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.