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?