[User:]

Wondering if anyone has noticed that Cindy and Dennis are very obviously missing in the discussion about school board candidates.....They just love to openly ask questions on these forums yet have stayed away from this topic......oh wait...

Please feel free to go back to the same time period last year. They had no problem what so ever taking turns beating me over the head....

What is it they have up their sleves? Ensuring status quo, perhaps and adding to it?

[Name:]

Wondering if anyone has noticed that Cindy and Dennis are very obviously missing in the discussion about school board candidates.....They just love to openly ask questions on these forums yet have stayed away from this topic......oh wait...

Please feel free to go back to the same time period last year. They had no problem what so ever taking turns beating me over the head....

What is it they have up their sleves? Ensuring status quo, perhaps and adding to it?

[User:]

Not if our collective voting has any weight against that of the rest of the community. The status quo will hopefully be fading away.

Let the majority rule,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Unless it is a failed warrant article,,,,,,,,then it is status quo once again bundling it into some other default budget !

Presto chango,,,,( A little shell game if you please ) " TA DA"

See we really did vote it in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the back door !

[User:]

You keep saying things have been added to the default budget. Legally, the default budget can only be a continuation of the prior years budget except for a few defined exceptions. The operating budget that is approved by the voters can contain additional items.

[User:]

Your are right as rain.

Everybody argues their exceptions and excuses.

Somehow common sense definitions are arguably still as difficult to understand as are their intentions.

Clinton argued his righteousness claiming to not understand your definition of the word "THE " Did you not feel a twitch in your brain when you heard that defense ?

No F***ing means No.

Not just while we are looking, not until you find a way to get around the intent, the legality, of having a vote on the subject in the first place.

Not because you are omnipotent and have a good heart.

Not because of any excuse you can justifiably come up with to change the voice of the majority. It is the town of the majority not ones personal ego trip.

When a warrant article fails, how it become a reality in anyone's eyes is strictly up to the powers beyond the Majority.

Yes I am still miffed about our history of implementations but the point is still about the status quo's political circumvention.

So I am glad you do not see things with my eyes, that makes for ideas from two sides of a fence.

Enlighten me as to why I should not be focused on what I see as collusion.

[User:]

My point was that things don't just get snuck into the "default" budget - that is illegal. Legally, the BOS\SB can add whatever they wish to the operating budget for the taxpayer to vote on.

As far as things that previously failed in a warrant article - my belief is that circumstances change. What was once a want, may now be a need. As far as the track goes, many argue that maintenance of a town asset should have never been a warrant article to begin with. I don't know the circumstances surrounding the football team - that was before my time, but is apparently a sore spot for many. I don't know of any other WA items making it into the budget.

How about the culvert on the southern end of Albuquerque? I believe it failed on a warrant article last year, but circumstances have since changed - and there's a 10 ton weight limit on that section of Albuquerque now. Fire trucks aren't even allowed to travel on it as far I know. You could make a strong argument that fixing that culvert is now most definitely a NEED. Do we not fix it until it passes a warrant article?

[User:]

[User:]

Although no may mean no forever to the residents of Litchfield, that is not what the law states. No means no for that particular year. So if a warrant article is presented on a ballot for the 2010-2011 year and is voted down, that means that no money can be spent on whatever the purpose of the warrant article for the 2010-2011 year. After that, it is perfectly legal to propose a line item in the following year's budget for the purpose that failed on the warrant.

I understand your frustration, but in order to drive the point home you would have to change the law. Keep in mind, that when this law was passed, it was Litchfield that proposed it. So perhaps the problem is with the representation at the legislative level (at least at that time).

Constantly keeping the no means no past issues in the forefront is not proactive or productive for the town or school district. It's only impact is that it fuels fires. In my opinion, there are enough fires that have been started - it is time to begin putting them out.

[User:]

Derek;

First off thank you for the questioning of my positions.

One needs to revisit ideas from time to time to believe in yourself and ones own views.

After reading Frank's response I would like to focus my reply to the concern of;

[User:]

Jester;

Lets put out one of my personal fires.

AB

With respect to the prior argument about maintaining town property.

How is it that the track is town property at the school, yet the schools seems not to want a document ( AB ), recognizing that the schools belong to the people ?

Should the schools then repair their own buildings and grounds ?

Help me put out the fire and understand the benefit to me, the taxpayer by the advantageous positioning taken in the removal of AB.

Where does this action focus schools directive ?

[User:]

[Name:]

[User:]

[User:]

The budget is a bottom line budget. The bottom line is the bottom line is the bottom line. The individual pieces aren't differentiated in the default...except one time purchases and contracts or certain legal requirements (ie sped). ALL other items -such as a mid year salary adjustment - aren't part of the calculation - by law.

[User:]

Cindy

Not sure how you came to your bottom line conclusion. The RSA states:

Default budget'' as used in this subdivision means the amount of the same appropriations as contained in the operating budget authorized for the previous year, reduced and increased, as the case may be, by debt service, contracts, and other obligations previously incurred or mandated by law, and reduced by one-time expenditures contained in the operating budget. For the purposes of this paragraph, one-time expenditures shall be appropriations not likely to recur in the succeeding budget, as determined by the governing body, unless the provisions of RSA 40:14-b are adopted, of the local political subdivision.

and

The governing body, unless the provisions of RSA 40:14-b are adopted, shall complete a default budget form created by the department of revenue administration to demonstrate how the default budget amount was calculated. The form and associated calculations shall, at a minimum, include the following:
(1) Appropriations contained in the previous year's operating budget;
(2) Reductions and increases to the previous year's operating budget; and
(3) One-time expenditures as defined under subparagraph IX(b).

I was always under the impression that "appropriations" meant individual line items, not the bottom line.

[User:]

[User:]

Cindy

Don't bother for me, unless the voters give the default budget makeup to the Budget Committee, the issue is moot.

Bill

[User:]

Have you folks noticed that the viewing numbers of this posting have dramatically jumped in the last 24 hours.

Any early predictions on the voting ?

[User:]

See now everyone how Cindy knows exactly what is 'legal' and how to fit things in where she needs to.

This is the doublespeak of old we are all used to.

She wants everyone watching one hand while the other is busy at work. It IS how slight of hand works.

She wants us all watching the bottom line so that.....no one notices whats going on in the middle.

Things slid in and out because.....

[Name:]

See now everyone how Cindy knows exactly what is 'legal' and how to fit things in where she needs to.

This is the doublespeak of old we are all used to.

She wants everyone watching one hand while the other is busy at work. It IS how slight of hand works.

She wants us all watching the bottom line so that.....no one notices whats going on in the middle.

Things slid in and out because.....

[User:]

if you don't like the law, change it. The default is a bottom line dollar amount determined by law. It has nothing to do with what any board member wants or doesn't want.

[User:]

So there you go ladies and gentlemen.....stick that in your hat!

This is the fundamental difference between Cindy and I. I would NEVER use the law against the people.

I will say it again...

Just becasue something is legal, in no way makes it right.

Cindy would use the law to pervert the very ideals within it. She is the classic example of liberalism at its best.

Use the law for things lawmakers never could have imagined or intended.

Manipulation of the law to serve ones needs over the best interests of the common citizen is repugnant, yet, I am sure you sleep quite well with it.

[Name:]

So there you go ladies and gentlemen.....stick that in your hat!

This is the fundamental difference between Cindy and I. I would NEVER use the law against the people.

I will say it again...

Just becasue something is legal, in no way makes it right.

Cindy would use the law to pervert the very ideals within it. She is the classic example of liberalism at its best.

Use the law for things lawmakers never could have imagined or intended.

Manipulation of the law to serve ones needs over the best interests of the common citizen is repugnant, yet, I am sure you sleep quite well with it.

[User:]

[User:]

Ahhhh....great reference Derek!!

I so love how words are so easily perverted....Bravo!

Farce! Where have we heard that before? HMMMMM.

It must be election time that brings it all out.

Last year we seem to have been in the very same place.

Have you and Ralph been speaking. He spoke of 'no conspiracies' the other night....and here, you make reference to paranoia.

Just the opposite. I am not the one paranoid. For I have nothing to lose. I WANT change. You guys have had your chance to lead and now we all need a new direction.

[Name:]

Ahhhh....great reference Derek!!

I so love how words are so easily perverted....Bravo!

Farce! Where have we heard that before? HMMMMM.

It must be election time that brings it all out.

Last year we seem to have been in the very same place.

Have you and Ralph been speaking. He spoke of 'no conspiracies' the other night....and here, you make reference to paranoia.

Just the opposite. I am not the one paranoid. For I have nothing to lose. I WANT change. You guys have had your chance to lead and now we all need a new direction.

[User:]

T minus 2 and counting.

[User:]

I'm sorry but I have to -------

Double-speak? Just curious - Would you consider double speak to be when a person says or does one thing and then turns around and says or does another?

Because I seem to recall that same situation with the generator discussions. Jason, I do recall you giving the school board and the district a hard time about the generator hook up bidding process. It dragged on for quite a while. I remember you saying that the ice storm of 2008 was an extremely rare occurence and Litchfield will never see another similar situation.

Well, we may not have had an ice storm, but there was a very significant event and a shelter was needed. But because you assisted in stalling the process for so long, the generator was not hooked up prior to the recent event. Then you said at a recent board meeting that you couldn't understand why the generator hadn't been hooked up before and why the bidding process took so long.

I do understand that there was some confusion over the scope of work for the bid, but I'm sure that wasn't the whole problem.
And just for the record, I thought that name calling and insults were no longer a part of this forum? I also thought that people were going to be more civil - yeah right!

[User:]

Jester;

That would take most all of the curiosity out of this forum.

Surely you jest !

[User:]

Jason not to jump in on a conversation but did you write that you got a mid year raise? Why aren't the salaries for town employees frozen like the rest of us? I haven't heard of anyone getting a raise, most people are just happy to still have a job. Wouldn't it be best for the town if (other than what was passed in warrant articles this week) all salaries be frozen?

[User:]

I think the mid-year raise is reference to someone who got a mid-year raise a year or two back within the school district ...

[User:]

yes...it was a reference to how it is possible to make financial decisions with the framework of only watching 'the bottom line' .

[Name:]

yes...it was a reference to how it is possible to make financial decisions with the framework of only watching 'the bottom line' .

[User:]

2600