Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > General Issues
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Blogs Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-12-2016, 06:26 PM   #1
CAVU
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 98
Default Moultonborough Community Center

Anybody know if the vote was Yes or No
CAVU is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 07:32 PM   #2
whalebackpoint'r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 77
Default

Defeated 348 no, 220 yes. Motion to reconsider also defeated.
whalebackpoint'r is offline  
Old 03-12-2016, 08:35 PM   #3
CAVU
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 98
Default

Ok, good, thanks!
CAVU is offline  
Old 03-13-2016, 12:27 PM   #4
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

I do not think we are supposed to post links to blogs on this website, so Google Moultonborough Speaks. That blog is run by one of the Selectmen in Moultonborough. Interesting reading. The proponents of the Community Center (Article 2) stated ad nauseam that all they wanted was a final up or down vote. There was a final up or down vote in accordance with the rules of the Town Moderator and the proponents of the Community Center lost by a lopsided 348 NO to 220 YES. Article 2 needed a 2/3 vote to pass and it did not even get a simple majority. Now the proponents are whining that the process was flawed because there was an affirmative vote to “Call The Question”. I voted in favor of Calling the Question and no on Article 2. It was the decision of the legislative body to terminate debate because no further information was needed. It was the further decision of the legislative body to soundly reject Article 2. The subject of the Community Center was the subject of several Town sponsored dog and pony shows and endless discussion in various media. To see at least two of the 5 Moultonborough Selectmen along with others now complaining that the process was not fair is very sad. What is next – perhaps an argument that the secrets ballots for Article 2 were the wrong color? It is time for the proponents of the Community Center to put on their big boy pants and accept defeat and stop whining and insulting those who voted in favor of Calling the Question and against Article 2.
I have no problem with the Webmaster moving this thread to the Issues section.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-13-2016, 01:23 PM   #5
wifi
Senior Member
 
wifi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 1,321
Default

It is about time people wake up to the run away spending and bonding going on in town.
wifi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 03-13-2016, 03:17 PM   #6
phoenix
Senior Member
 
phoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: phoenix and moultonboro
Posts: 1,041
Default

god news it was a lot of money
__________________
it's tough to make predictions specially about the future
phoenix is offline  
Old 03-13-2016, 03:19 PM   #7
phoenix
Senior Member
 
phoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: phoenix and moultonboro
Posts: 1,041
Default

sorry good news no divine intervention expected
__________________
it's tough to make predictions specially about the future
phoenix is offline  
Old 03-13-2016, 04:46 PM   #8
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

No divine intervention expected ... BUT, some recognition of duty to legislative body voting!
longislander is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 07:44 AM   #9
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default Wow

The following are direct quotes from the Moultonborough Selectman who runs the blog Moultonborough Speaks:

“Judging by the massive misinformation campaign in letters and emails, they clearly did not have the courage to put out their "facts" for a fair debate. Instead, they took a much less honorable way, which was to win at any cost.”
“In this case, the cost was the democratic process, with vibrant, open and honest debate. The real losers in this case are the citizens who came with that expectation and left feeling cheated and needing a shower to wash away the funk left behind.”

Nice way for a Selectman to describe a large group of voters who voted against Article 2. Fair inferences: "did not have the courage" = cowards; "less honorable" = dishonorable; “funk” -- insert your choice of a four letter word. Glad to know this now.

The above was not published on Moultonborough Speaks despite being submitted on March 15th. I guess Moultonborough Speaks only speaks for itself. I will not even get into the questionable “facts” put forth on the blog in favor of Article 2.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 07:57 AM   #10
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Let me apologize to the webmaster for not being as familiar as I probably should be, on posting. I can add some relevance to this thread, however.

The question of "reconsideration" on Article 2 is clear in the statute:

" IV. Upon favorable approval on the motion to reconsider the vote on a bond or note issue under paragraphs I and II, actual reconsideration of the bond issue shall not take place until the expiration of at least 7 days from the date on which the original vote on the motion was taken. Notice of time and place where such reconsideration shall take place shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least 2 days before the reconsideration vote."


RSA 33:8-a

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../33/33-8-a.htm


The motion to reconsider, itself failed. The law is clear. The moderator's rules can be overruled by a simple majority vote of the registered voters there.

The statutes, however, can not be overturned by the voters.


Unfortunately, impeaching some members of the Select Board, was not a consideration. If not impeachment, than a malfeasance claim.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 08:51 AM   #11
Billy Bob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tiera Verdi Fl & Moultonborough
Posts: 198
Default

What part of the citizens not wanting to build another municipal building in town that is totally inappropriate to the size of the town are they having a problem with ?
The taxes on the seasonal lake homes seem to make these folks think they have a endless supply of money to buy any toys they want .
Billy Bob is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 09:03 AM   #12
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,456
Default Not this time

The vote to defeat the bond article was likely. It didn't matter how much misinformation was advertised or that public discussion at the meeting was halted by a political parlor trick. There was plenty of correct information available to those that looked for it and many public meetings. If anyone thought the bond article was going to pass, they need better pollsters.

I don't recall the vote tally to squelch public discussion, but it was a majority. If it wasn't a 2/3 majority, as required to "call the question" by Roberts Rules of Order, then the moderator made an error.

Some at town meeting had prepared statements, and are disappointed they did not get a chance to present their views. The unintended consequences of the political parlor trick (and possible error by the moderator) is that the question will come up again. The trick also damaged any chance in the near future for interest in making M'boro a SB2 town, as it is clear that political tricksters are in town, willing and able to exploit SB2 procedures.

The select board did not sell its community center plan to the voters this time, but clearly believe the town needs more gym space and meeting rooms. A solution requiring a 6+ million bond was a bridge too far.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 09:07 AM   #13
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

According to the minutes of the 2016 Moultonborough Town Meeting here is what happened after the votes on Article 2 were counted.

Selectman Shipp made a Motion to Reconsider, apparently believing that if passed, such a Motion would result in a re-opening of the debate that day. There was confusion, to put it kindly, generated by the Town Moderator and Town Counsel, who stated that the reconsideration would take place that day. Shortly thereafter, Town Counsel reversed his position, apparently having read that Statute that Long Islander cites, and stated that the reconsideration could not take place for 7 days. Selectman Ship then withdrew his Motion to Reconsider. Then a voter made another Motion to Reconsider. The Town Moderator stated that such a Motion could only be made by a voter who was on the prevailing side of the underlying vote (namely a voter who voted NO on Article 2). Why this standard did not apply to Mr. Shipp is unclear. The Town Moderator asked the voter who made the Motion to state which side he had voted on and the voter refused to answer. The Town Moderator then proceeded to act as if the Motion were properly made. Another voter then challenged the position of the Town Moderator with respect to the standing of the voter to make the Motion of Reconsider and the legislative body overturned the position of the Town Moderator, so there was no Motion to Reconsider. Another voted than moved to restrict reconsideration, which passed.

What does all this mean, apart from the performance of those who are supposed to know what they are doing in terms of running the Town Meeting, is that like Hydra, the “Community Center” will not go away and will continue to be a divisive issue despite the assertions of the proponents of Article 2 that all they wanted was a final vote, which they got.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 09:12 AM   #14
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Billy Bob makes a good point, and I can attest hearing (from folks in power) that comments of the lakefront taxpayers are indeed "cash cows".

There is also a clear realization they most of them cannot legally vote in NH.

Winni83 makes a good point as well. Having been (past tense) an avid reader/poster of the Moultonboro Speaks blog, it has descended into a personal soap box, that does not allow for response, albeit civil. There are some token adds, to some threads for the appearance of debate.

It has become a censorship, rather than a device of civil public discourse.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 09:48 AM   #15
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

As Lakegeezer points out there was plenty of info.

The vote to "Call the Question" is not a parlor trick. It is a recognized legal event to end debate on issues that have had enough discussion. Article 2 filibuster would still be on, if not mercifully ended. No minds were going to be changed by further grand standing.

Robert's Rules are not part of the issue. That mechanism is not used, nor recognized by Moultonborough in its town meeting. The Moultonborough moderator uses what the the New Hampshire Municipal Association (counsels to municipal lawyers) suggests ... be fair, and subject to judicial review.

The moderator's rules can be overruled by a simple majority vote of the voters there. That is in the moderator's rules.

The 2/3 rds and "seconded" in the moderator's rules would more than likely be viewed as "oppressive" in court. If there is court action, it is highly doubtful any court would require another town vote, for moderator rules that can overruled by the voters, or the voters failing to make a "point of order". The Select Board would only bring more embarrassment upon itself.

No parlor trick. Astonishment that a Call the Question has caused so much consternation. There were several other Call the Questions executed subsequently in the meeting. Parlor trick, or folks becoming more learned, less ignorant? Maybe more should be encouraged!

It is not an SB-2 procedure. Under SB-2, the vote would have taken place in secret, and all of the warrant article would have been checked off at once in a few minutes. Minds did not need changing. As Lakegeezer mentions, there was plenty of info. Some claiming they needed to hear more, because they did not like the outcome of the vote, is incredulous!

If this vote was controversial, wait to see if a 50 registered-voter petition for July, comes about, when the snowbirds are back, gets submitted.

A petition: To see if the Town will vote to eliminate the Moultonborough Recreation Department ...

With no appropriations in the petition, no requirement for Superior Court approval. No 2/3rds majority needed; simple majority prevails. Would save the town @ 1/2 million dollars /year.

Now folks can get angry ... or very nervous!
longislander is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 12:31 PM   #16
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

And now the Moultonborough Blogger is going after his constituents by name.

See his latest post on his blog. He ends his post with a quote from Winston Churchill:

"Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.” "

How ironic.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-16-2016, 01:07 PM   #17
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

More pearls of wisdom from the blog:

"Time to Move Forward

Town meeting has ended. No more comments on Article 2 will be posted. We do have many other things to work on this year.
Posted by Moultonboro Blogger at 8:19 AM
Tuesday, March 15, 2016"

"There is quite a bit of hypocrisy out there though."


Indeed, there is!
longislander is offline  
Old 03-17-2016, 05:23 PM   #18
newposterguy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 5
Default Time for fresh blood on the BOS

Unfortunately, many who voted for two current members of the BOS were under the impression that they were against spending an exorbitant amount of tax payer dollars on a Rec Center that no one was able to show a real need for. I am sure voters would have been more interested in approving renovating or working with what the town already has, but no, a $6.5 million dollar facility was insisted upon.

I am thinking there are some BOS that will face challengers next year based on their outrageous behavior, particularly the one who runs a blog and calls out constituents by name. Disgraceful!

It is his blog and he can post what he wants and shut down dialogue as he sees fit. The voters will remember, and his reputation has been permanently stained by his name-calling and tantrum throwing.
newposterguy is offline  
Old 03-17-2016, 08:04 PM   #19
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 309
Default More on juvenile tantrum throwing by selectman

I was able to watch tonight's BoS meeting, and it is clear that some of them stubbornly insist that the meeting was hijacked. Mr. Bartlett seems to be the only voice of reason on the board. My hope is that next year, at election time, voters will not forget that some candidates will promise one thing, then do the exact opposite. We get what we deserve if we don't vote carefully.

Last edited by Sue Doe-Nym; 03-17-2016 at 08:05 PM. Reason: grammar error
Sue Doe-Nym is offline  
Old 03-17-2016, 08:27 PM   #20
TheProfessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
Default

I don't know anything about this other then reading above.

I don't know what happened at that town meeting other then it sounds like it was contentious.

I don't know why some get dramatically excited over this. Apparently this was voted down 2 or 3 times before. Why would some come to think the town has changed since the last vote years ago. From what I read the older types are moving into town while family types are not moving in as much.

UNH did a study a few years ago about the aging of New Hampshire residents. And that has serious ramifications on all things local.

Interesting that some who are in favor of less government come out all in favor of more government at the local level. Noting that this new gymnasium complex was not on the school budget but on the town budget. Yet proposed to be constructed right next to the school. Seems like some form of hocus pocus to get the schools a new gymnasium. Yet the school did not ask for it.

Some of these issues should be a simple vote up or down. And not play any semi-Roberts Rules twisting the whole issue.

Is there a video of this town meeting anywhere? I'd like to see what caused all of this heated give and take.

I did view the video of that citizen down in Alton or wherever who was not allowed to speak at the selectmen's meeting.

I think that all of these towns should video tape all meetings and let those who can't don't make these meeting view all.
TheProfessor is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 07:24 AM   #21
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default And the knives are out

At last night’s Selectmen’s meeting Mr. Punturieri, whose name may be familiar to those of your who have seen his blog, initiated a discussion which resulted in Josh Bartlett not being re-appointed to the Moultonborough CIPC, the Town Capital Improvement Program Committee. This is the group which is charged with planning for the “orderly implementation and financing of a capital improvements program”. Mr. Punturieri stated as his reason for the opposition to Mr. Bartlett the statements that Mr. Bartlett made at Town Meeting on Article 2. The vote to not re-appoint him was 4-1, with Mr. Punturieri replacing him and with Mr. Wakefield being appointed as an alternate. The video of the meeting is on line at the Town Website and I recommend it for viewing. This decision is solely that of the Board of Selectmen, with no public input or say. Mr. Bartlett handled the situation well, while noting his objections to what was being done.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 08:22 AM   #22
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

The supposed "enlightened reasoning" for Bartlett's ouster, was because he had commented he doesn't believe the town taxpayers, should have to pay for recreation, and for the... "wants (not needed)" ... crowd. Gives new meaning to pettiness!

We live in the middle of a recreation-rich region, but that's not enough. Let those who can't vote, pay, for the "wants"!

Paying for your own recreation is a foreign thought, in Moultonborough governance.

The CIPC is an advisory committee, and the Select Board does not have to follow the recommendations of this committee. CIPC had "recommended against" the Gym. You didn't hear the Select Board preaching that, except for Bartlett.

Bartlett preferred to stay on the CIPC. The rest of the Board has decided to punish him. Some of us would counsel him not to let it bother him.

Puntiereri and Wakefield are up for reelection next March.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 09:11 AM   #23
wifi
Senior Member
 
wifi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 1,321
Default Red Herring

Quote:
Originally Posted by longislander View Post
....Let those who can't vote, pay, for the "wants"!......
The norm in the whole US is that owners of property that isn't their primary residence cannot vote. It is not unique to Moultonboro nor NH, it was something people knew when they bought their 2nd or third or... property, it is the way it works all over. Otherwise, people like Trump would have thousands of votes.

As far as the selectman's behavior is concerned, it doesn't seem very fair, except the part of being a 4-1 vote. I'll be sure to watch that video to see if there is a ram among the sheep (ST quote).
wifi is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 09:25 AM   #24
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,501
Default

Meredith has a great big community center that got built and opened exactly ten years ago, so that makes it ten years old today!

I know there are many people from Moultonborough who pay the $30/3-month fee to play pickle ball from October to May inside the 3-court gym in the Meredith Community Center so's it could be there are other Meredith activities available to Moultonborough people.

Like, why go spend millions for a community center when you can come use the one in Meredith for a fairly low price?

Moultonborough has the best outdoor tennis courts in the area with four outdoor courts, and a small hitting backboard. Meredith has six outdoor tennis courts and a small hitting backboard but it is not as scenic as the M-boro courts.

Or, you can play pickle ball in Laconia, at the Laconia Community Center next to the Rite Aid for a two dollar drop-in price, and those two hardwood courts are the best indoor courts in the area. A sanded maple hardwood pickle ball playing surface seems to have more energy than a synthetic plastic floor.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 09:25 AM   #25
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

The 1 in the 4-1 was Josh Bartlett, the person being removed.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 09:39 AM   #26
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,760
Default

I'm surprised the webmaster of this forum has allowed this thread to continue. Some of the people who are commenting here aren't allowed to post anymore comments on the Moultonborough Speaks Blog so they come over here and continue the conversation.

I was going to make some comments about this topic but felt a little hesitant to do so because I didn't think it would last this long.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 09:46 AM   #27
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

"The norm in the whole US is that owners of property that isn't their primary residence cannot vote. It is not unique to Moultonboro nor NH, it was something people knew when they bought their 2nd or third or... property, it is the way it works all over. Otherwise, people like Trump would have thousands of votes." (millions not thousands)

Agree about the cognition, of voter residency, requirements. However, that does not give license, to some that are registered voters, to "abuse" that reality.

I bought my MoBo property in the early 1970's; became a resident in 1996; retired in 2013. I've been paying taxes to MoBo all of that time, not to mention the other communities I lived in. Where is the entitlement, by law, or by persuasion?

I love the region, but have never felt I owed MoBo anything, more than legally required. We enjoy one of the lowest tax rates in the state, notwithstanding, the select few, that have the cash cow mentality.

I won't respond on the political aspect of the comment. The way I vote is my business. Any political commentary I would suggest the Moultonboro Speaks blog. I will advise, however, it will be one sided!
longislander is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 10:31 AM   #28
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

Of course if the Webmaster chooses to shut down this thread or move it to the issues Section, that is his right. However, the reasons this thread has continued are that (a) the Moultonborough Speaks blog was censored (I can personally attest to and prove that); and (b) the Moultonborough Speaks blog with respect to Article 2 was shut down (for reasons which are clear to me, but others can draw their own conclusions). It seems to me this website flourishes because, except in extreme circumstances, it is not censored and in general permits discussion on a variety of topics.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 10:40 AM   #29
newposterguy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 5
Default I watched the live stream

The audio was very poor, but not poor enough to hear that Josh Bartlett was removed from the CIPC because he doesn't want to spend tax payer money to fund other people's wants. Those who spoke up in opposition to the change were more or less shut down.
newposterguy is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 10:56 AM   #30
webmaster
Moderator
 
webmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
I'm surprised the webmaster of this forum has allowed this thread to continue. Some of the people who are commenting here aren't allowed to post anymore comments on the Moultonborough Speaks Blog so they come over here and continue the conversation.

I was going to make some comments about this topic but felt a little hesitant to do so because I didn't think it would last this long.
Please elaborate on what you expect me to do and why. These are comments/opinions on a Lakes Region public issue at a public meeting and the names being mentioned are public officials. Should I ban people because they are restricted on some other site? How would I even know that?

If any information being posted in not accurate others can reply and correct it.

Rusty, I'm really curious about your reasoning for censoring this Lakes Region topic.
webmaster is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 11:18 AM   #31
phoenix
Senior Member
 
phoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: phoenix and moultonboro
Posts: 1,041
Default

being a Moultonboro tax payer and summer resident I want to know as much as I can about what went on so don't see any reason for Don to shut this down
__________________
it's tough to make predictions specially about the future
phoenix is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 11:20 AM   #32
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by webmaster View Post
Please elaborate on what you expect me to do and why. These are comments/opinions on a Lakes Region public issue at a public meeting and the names being mentioned are public officials. Should I ban people because they are restricted on some other site? How would I even know that?

If any information being posted in not accurate others can reply and correct it.

Rusty, I'm really curious about your reasoning for censoring this Lakes Region topic.
In the FAQ section of the forum there is a section that gives the Guide Lines for discussions allowed.
One of them is this: "Remember that you're on the Winnipesaukee Forum & PhotoPost
Only post messages, pictures and comments that are directly related to Lakes Region topics and activities. No sports, religion, politics or chit-chat please."

I don't have a problem with allowing "politics"...and IMO this topic has turned into "politics" due to some comments being made about the leadership of a certain selectman.

Thanks for asking the question and I hope I have given you a logical explanation.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 11:32 AM   #33
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

Just FYI, the Moultonborough Speaks blog permitted anonymous posting -- not just under a blog name, so in my mind it was not being restricted, but outright censored because of opposition to the blogger's position. It is the Selectman's blog and he can run it as he sees fit. However, you can debate the wisdom of a sitting Selectman running a blog like he does. There were, and continue to be, anonymous posts on that blog, with no registration.

Last edited by winni83; 03-18-2016 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Spelling
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 11:52 AM   #34
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
"I'm surprised the webmaster of this forum has allowed this thread to continue. Some of the people who are commenting here aren't allowed to post anymore comments on the Moultonborough Speaks Blog so they come over here and continue the conversation.

I was going to make some comments about this topic but felt a little hesitant to do so because I didn't think it would last this long
{


Rusty, with due respect, "those folks" commenting here, that have commented on the other blog, ARE ALLOWED, and are probably missed from commenting, there. Many, in the last few weeks, have commented, but have not had their comments posted. Some would call that censorship! I, for one, sent a personal email, to the blogger who I HAD considered a friend, to post rules for all to abide by. NO response!

I've had many folks, recently, plead, to stay off that blog. I informed them that I had already made that decision. Albeit, this blog's monikers have not shown up on this blog, it does not mean we haven't been reading it. You'll note, dates on the column on the left!

A lot of us have chosen to boycott that blog, and not even read it.

NH town governance is not politics.

This thread had a quip about "Trump". I would support your comment about politics, if you complained about that! I suspect the webmaster, noticed, and is keeping an eye on this thread, so that it will not detract into the "rules" you allude to.

I also, however, share the webmaster's query, about your motivation to, perceivably, quash this discussion!




___________
longislander is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 12:12 PM   #35
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 359
Default

There is NO reason in my simple mind for non resident taxpayers to NOT be allowed to vote in town elections, on town budget items, and vote at town meeting. A separate list of non residents could be maintained so as to prevent double voting on issues like presidential or state officials. But to disenfranchise a large number of folks because of non residency when they are paying 75++% of the bill is not fair or reasonable. Time for folks to get real. But we all know the answer....will never happen because current voting folks do not want anyone to ruin their gravy train of money. BUT, there will be a time when all the lakefront subsidizers will get angry enough to form an association to challenge what is happening in Moultonborough. Just wait...it will happen, maybe sooner than some think. These folks can be reasonable to a certain extent, but when there is outright greed by a limited number who cannot support the true need with sound facts, then folks will begin to get more organized. Maybe we should turn the tables and let the residents fund 75% of the town budget....you will hear the squeals all the way to the moon.
tummyman is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 12:27 PM   #36
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

I understand the frustration of tax payers who are not registered voters. I was one of those in Moultonborough for 33 years until becoming a voting resident a few years ago. However, I believe that in order to accomplish what you propose, a change in state law would be necessary. It does not seem to be an issue that can be changed by a municipality. See below:


NH RSA 654:1 Voters; Office Holder. I. Every inhabitant of the state, having a single established domicile for voting
purposes, being a citizen of the United States, of the age provided for in Article 11 of Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire, shall have a right at any meeting or election, to vote in the town, ward, or unincorporated place in which he or she is domiciled. An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile
before the person actually moves.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 12:38 PM   #37
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Addendum to voter registrations and right to vote:

New Hampshire Municipal Association

https://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/655
longislander is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 04:43 PM   #38
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
The audio was very poor,
The town bought a wireless mike for the podium a couple for weeks ago, and is still playing around to correct levels. Started requiring folks coming to the podium for the camera, now that the meetings are streamed.

I use earphones, plugged into my computer, and find the audio is much better
longislander is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 05:51 PM   #39
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

From the 2014 Recreation Needs Assessment And Planning Report prepared by the Department of Recreation Management and Policy, University of New Hampshire submitted to the Town of Moutonborough in January, 2015 and paid for by the Town of Moultonborough:

“There is strong and principled opposition among town residents on the question of a new indoor recreation facility, and the voices of these residents were heard the most during the public input portions of this project .While every effort was made to engage all residents in some facet of this process – focus groups, public input meeting, community survey, and various public meetings on the project - the majority position that was heard during this process was against building a new facility.” [At Pages 34 and 35].

In light of these independent findings in a study by Ph. D’s paid for by the Town, is it really credible to argue that the vote of 60% against to 40 % for Article 2 was either: (a) a surprise; or (b) the result of “hijacking” or parliamentary “tricks”? Perhaps the legislative body is more intelligent than certain people had thought.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-18-2016, 06:52 PM   #40
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

This may be my last post to this subject and will peruse the other topics.

I've always liked the restaurants threads.

The Meredith News has a good piece:

http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...ty-center.html
longislander is offline  
Old 03-19-2016, 08:54 AM   #41
Packardrider
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2
Default MoBo Selectman's meeting

I find it interesting that Selectman Mr. Wakefield suggested that 'We get the CIPC in a room behind closed doors and find out what they really think". That implies two things:
1. That Mr. Wakefield was suggesting that the CIPC Members do not want Mr. Bartlett to continue on the CIPC.
2. Mr. Wakefield seems to want to violate the open meetings laws and convince people to say what he wants them to say. He should check the RSA 91-A statutes.

"People in a Democracy get the kind of government they deserve."
Packardrider is offline  
Old 03-19-2016, 09:20 AM   #42
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 309
Default

Russ Wakefield's comment is not substantiated by the facts. Knowing the CIPC members and having reviewed the minutes, there is little support for a $6.5 million project. There also is no evidence that there is any problem with Josh Bartlett. Keep in mind, when Josh was elected to the BoS Paul publicly stated that he wanted Josh to take his place on the CIPC.

It is no secret that there is a lot of animosity between Russ and Josh that goes back many years, if not decades.
Sue Doe-Nym is offline  
Old 03-19-2016, 10:35 AM   #43
Greene's Basin Girl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 1,455
Default

There are many taxpayers who are not in Moultonborough when the town meeting is held. I am always in Florida during March so I do not have s vote. The outcome of article's that are up for a vote could be very different if all taxpayers could vote absentee.
Greene's Basin Girl is offline  
Old 03-19-2016, 10:43 AM   #44
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Well ... maybe one more post in this: CIPC

The Community Center was, I believe, the only item not recommended by the CIPC. Josh was/is not the Lone Ranger in not recommending. He is/has been a voice of reason.

I probably shouldn't divulge I was the individual who pointed out the number of $14 million dollars was actually $10 million. The town planner, who "maintains" the spreadsheet was out on med-leave.

Here's the report:

file:///C:/Users/Joseph/AppData/Local/Temp/a.%202016-2021CIPFinal9-15-15.pdf
longislander is offline  
Old 03-19-2016, 03:20 PM   #45
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Post Script to :

Quote:
There are many taxpayers who are not in Moultonborough when the town meeting is held. I am always in Florida during March so I do not have s vote. The outcome of article's that are up for a vote could be very different if all taxpayers could vote absentee.

The only way, legally, in NH, for absentee ballots to vote on ALL warrant articles, is by becoming an SB-2 town. It allows for all warrant articles to be voted on, in secrecy, including absentee ballots. The Gym/Center cannot/could not be put on the ballot under the present form of Annual Town Meeting, nor any other issue, not required to do so, by statute.

The "Australian ballot," used for the MoBo Tuesday vote, can only be used by statutory requirements; e.g., elections of officials, land-use articles, like zoning etc.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-20-2016, 08:27 PM   #46
mishman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 77
Default what's really behind the drive for a rec center?

I have read as much as I can about the proposed rec/community center and several things stand out (in no particular order)

1. It seems there is genuine interest by at least a small group (including some elected officials) to build this to attract young people to the community however there is no guarantee that one will follow the other. If you attract a business to town, the new employees will bring their families. Jobs come first, not the frosting of a community center.

2. Part of the fiscal rationale for committing the dollars for a $6 million community center is the oft-cited mention that a bond for a school building will be retired in a few years and that the debt of the community center could take the place of the expiring bond. It begs the question though, if the bond is expiring soon, won't that provide tax relief to the town?

3. There have been several votes about this issue and so far, a majority are not in favor of incurring a $6 million debt plus operating expenses to build a new community center. The latest vote was clearly opposed by a large margin. It is doubtful that no more than a few minds could have been changed with a longer debate of the merits.

4. Now there is talk about bringing this issue back again for another vote. At what point do the supporters of this measure read the writing on the wall. The town's taxpayers don't want an expensive community center. Some of us would prefer lower taxes and a pay to play approach to recreation.

5. All that said, Moultonborough is a nice town with friendly people and a lot going for it already. It seems what we need is more financial restraint on the part of our elected leaders. I would like to see the local roads repaired and the school budget downsized to reflect the much smaller student population.

6. One last thought, I am all for SB 2. As a resident and taxpayer who sometimes is away at town meeting time, I deserve the right to vote on these important issues.
mishman is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 08:54 AM   #47
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

This was made available by MoBo citizens very recently (today?):

Recording of the actual meeting. Article 2: Call the Question video 1 @ 25:30 Motion to Call Question

The announcing of the vote, video 1 @ 33:00 Vote Count: 286 to 165 on Calling the Question

Video 2: 55:10 Announcing Article 2 voting results: 220 Yes; No 348 ... Art. 2 fails; moderator asks for a count of voters checked in, which is 573

Chaos begins subsequently

Moultonborough Town Meeting 2016 Part 1

http://youtu.be/Djp8Bg-5nUg

Moultonborough NH Town Meeting 2016 Part 2

http://youtu.be/IqhVXNzQEZw

Moultonborough NH Town Meeting 2016 Part 3

http://youtu.be/1yVjLUIgT1Q


RSA 33:8-a

IV. Upon favorable approval on the motion to reconsider the vote on a bond or note issue under paragraphs I and II, actual reconsideration of the bond issue shall not take place until the expiration of at least 7 days from the date on which the original vote on the motion was taken. Notice of time and place where such reconsideration shall take place shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least 2 days before the reconsideration vote.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../33/33-8-a.htm

What part of the statute, didn't the town counsel understand?
longislander is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 12:01 PM   #48
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

What do you think of a Selectman who posts on his blog on 3-16-16 that:

“Town meeting has ended. No more comments on Article 2 will be posted. We do have many other things to work on this year.”

And then posts on 3-21-16 yet another comment on Article 2 detailing his “100%” agreement with the comments made by Mr. Shipp in today’s Citizen, including the entire Citizens story in its entirety and them permits a person to comment:

“Jerry has done a fine job as our town and before that school district moderator. Crowd control was difficult and not an enviable task. There is an angry crowd in the background that would like nothing better than to drive all young families out of town.
They are now stirring up a hornets nest even when the issue is well over. Our town has become a very sad and angry place. Don't blame the select board, blame the angry crowd of negative haters.”

Yet declines to post a comment asking for clarification as to who can post on this topic.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 12:30 PM   #49
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Smile

Quote:
Yet declines to post a comment asking for clarification as to who can post on this topic
It looks like the only ones that can post are those that agree with the blogger.
You're not supposed to be capable of offering, and have posted, on that blog (not this forum), a different opinion. Censorship ... or "it's my blog and I'll decide!"

There probably were/are some agree folks ... apparently on both sides!

The anger should not be what is being mulled over, but the catalyst, of the anger, should be contemplated. Anger is a human phenomenon. What drives folks to act in certain ways may be more puzzling ... and trigger anger!

Gotta go out and shovel the little bit of snow we got, today.

Beats the shoveling of the other "stuff" that the MoBo BoS have been dropping from the sky!

longislander is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 12:54 PM   #50
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winni83 View Post
What do you think of a Selectman who posts on his blog on 3-16-16 that:

“Town meeting has ended. No more comments on Article 2 will be posted. We do have many other things to work on this year.”

And then posts on 3-21-16 yet another comment on Article 2 detailing his “100%” agreement with the comments made by Mr. Shipp in today’s Citizen, including the entire Citizens story in its entirety and them permits a person to comment:

“Jerry has done a fine job as our town and before that school district moderator. Crowd control was difficult and not an enviable task. There is an angry crowd in the background that would like nothing better than to drive all young families out of town.
They are now stirring up a hornets nest even when the issue is well over. Our town has become a very sad and angry place. Don't blame the select board, blame the angry crowd of negative haters.”

Yet declines to post a comment asking for clarification as to who can post on this topic.
I have looked at the blog here and there and commented very infrequently. It certainly seems like someone is "taking his ball and going home".

Someone who has spent as much time railing against that status quo in town; as the blogger has, perhaps should understand the power of dissent...

I posted a comment there and it was allowed.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 02:00 PM   #51
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Vitabene's post

Quote:
I posted a comment there and it was allowed.
Apparently, his response!

Quote:
." You have completely misunderstood ..."
Quote:
March 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM
Last post as of right now, @ 2:00PM!
longislander is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 02:21 PM   #52
MeredithMan
Senior Member
 
MeredithMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Meredith & Sudbury, MA
Posts: 389
Default Just an observation....

I don't live in M-boro, so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter much, but here's my observation. We lived in several different states as a result of job transfers while our kids were toddlers to late teens. As a family with kids considering new towns, our first priority BY FAR was the quality of the schools. Next on the list was proximity to our jobs and infrastructure, such as grocery stores, docs/dentists, restaurants, etc. A community center, and the amenities that it would offer, was nowhere on our radar screen.

If M-boro, (or any town, for that matter), wants to attract younger families to town, then they need to have top quality schools and be attractive to businesses.
MeredithMan is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 02:36 PM   #53
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,018
Default

That was my post- I still use the name of my old boat here, but online most other places use Red Hill. I think I understood OK, but who really knows.

Regardless, the main reason that I have heard that young people are not living here is the cost of housing- we know that Mboro has some of the lowest taxes around, so it must just be geographics/ supply and demand? I also wonder if most people truly look at the total cost of ownership (mortgage/ taxes/ commuting costs, etc) when evaluating.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 03-21-2016, 04:53 PM   #54
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

Well, Mr. Shipp and Mr. Punturieri are now posting to the Moultonborough Speaks blog. Perhaps other members of the BOS under assumed names?

Pretty soon there will be a Right To Know request -- who knows.
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-22-2016, 08:45 AM   #55
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Well, Mr. Shipp and Mr. Punturieri are now posting to the Moultonborough Speaks blog. Perhaps other members of the BOS under assumed names?

Pretty soon there will be a Right To Know request -- who knows.
Yesterday 02:36 PM

Russ is on record as stating anyone going on the blog is an idiot. Does Russ go on the blog as "Anonymous". HHHMMM ...

Don't know about RTK, but a malfeasance complaint might be in order!
longislander is offline  
Old 03-22-2016, 10:11 AM   #56
jbolty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 212
Default

I have not followed this issue at all and am late to the party but wasn't there discussion not long ago about the high school being under utilized? Why build something else?
jbolty is offline  
Old 03-22-2016, 02:23 PM   #57
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Study commissioned last year:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByT...5qb2p0VjA/view


enrollments history:
page 16:
2005 to2015 (year)
658 to 502 pupils

Projected:
page 13:
Projected: 3 year Weighted Average Method
2016-2025 (year)
496 to 425

Projections are probably on the high side.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-23-2016, 11:30 AM   #58
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 749
Default Government, leadership, and voters

Unfortunately, it is easy for a small group of people to push an idea in a small town. Developing the town, making a town green/center, are all the buzz. The problem is, there is no guarantee that things that worked in other places will work here. In fact, there is no guarantee that things done in other places were the CAUSE of any improvements where they were tried. There are often many things going on that could have caused improvements but no one bothers to figure it out.

It is also unfortunate that people that simply do not want to foot the bill for the high costs of these efforts are branded as "trying to drive young families out of town" and other such derogatory labels. People in the political arena have made everything so nasty. If you oppose me, you must be BAD. Well, I'm sorry but each voter has the right to question all decisions made and vote what their preference is. There does not need to be bad intent, just disagreement. Frankly, the outcome of government decisions (everywhere) doesn't have that good of a track record so having grave doubts about the plans proposed by government is a healthy attitude for a voter to have. If government proposals fail, it falls on the shoulders of government leaders who failed to make their case to the voters. You would think they would know their constituents better than to push things that have little chance to pass.

And if it is a small well organized group opposing such efforts, what of it? A small well organized group is pushing the Community Center. What gives them the high ground? They don't have a free pass to propose large expenditures and have them rubber stamped. Other voters have a legitimate say and they did. A government leadership body that doesn't respect the decisions of the voters has no business in office.
jeffk is offline  
Old 03-23-2016, 05:56 PM   #59
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Today's Meredith News:

"At the beginning of the meeting, the selectmen discussed committee assignments. Selectman Paul Punturieri requested that Bartlett not serve as selectmen's representative to the Capital Improvements Planning Committee(CIPC), saying his opinions at town meeting against taxpayer money being spent for recreation did not reflect the philosophy of the selectmen."


"I think one of the jobs of the CIPC is to look at wants versus needs," Bartlett said. "If you disagree with me, if they think the board of selectmen is an ATM machine or Santa Claus, fine; I probably disagree."

Bartlett said he did not oppose recreation services, but he was philosophically against using taxpayer dollars for it.


http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...al-issues.html
longislander is offline  
Old 03-24-2016, 10:41 AM   #60
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 309
Default

Josh Bartlett would probably have done better at town meeting to have addressed article 2 specifically rather than go off on a tangent about his philosophical view on taxpayer funded recreation. The article had so many flaws that he should have stayed on topic and pointed out the many problems with the plan.

Also, since when are selectmen supposed to advocate the view of the board when serving on a committee or board? This is a ridiculous idea that was probably used as an excuse to dump Bartlett from the CIPC.
Sue Doe-Nym is offline  
Old 03-24-2016, 11:30 AM   #61
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default Special Town Meeting ????

I was wondering how long it would take for this to raise its head out of the rat hole -- See RSA 31.5 I (a):

"No money shall be raised or appropriated or shall any appropriation previously made be reduced or rescinded at any special town meeting except by vote by ballot, nor unless the ballots cast at such meeting shall be equal in number to at least 1/2 of the number of legal voters borne on the checklist of the town entitled to vote at the annual or biennial election next preceding such special meeting; and such checklist, corrected according to law, shall be used at any meeting upon the request of 10 legal voters of the town. This section shall not apply to money to be raised for the public defense or any military purpose in time of war. In case an emergency arises requiring an immediate expenditure of money, the selectmen may petition the superior court for permission to hold a special town meeting which, if granted, shall give said meeting the same authority as an annual town meeting. "


Query whether getting " least 1/2 of the number of legal voters borne on the checklist of the town entitled to vote at the annual or biennial election next preceding such special meeting" is even remotely possible. I wonder whether any of the Selectmen are behind this.

Moultonborough Speaks at 10:57 AM:

"The BoS have gotten a few references in recent days to a possible " special town meeting"to be called by a petition of 50 registered voters. A special town meeting is any Town meeting other than the annual meeting.
I am unaware of the the specifics or if it is just bluster, but it is the right of registered voters to do so.

RSA 39:3 states in part: "In towns with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants upon the written application of 50 or more voters or 1/4 of the voters in town, whichever is fewer, and in towns with 10,000 or more inhabitants upon the written application of 5 percent of the registered voters in the town, so presented not less than 60 days before the next annual meeting, the selectmen shall warn a special meeting to act upon any question specified in such application."

According to the NH Municipal Association, there is a caution: "Money articles (i.e. articles requiring the appropriation of funds) can’t be voted on at special meetings unless at least half the town’s voters show up, or unless the selectmen have petitioned the Superior Court."

Special meetings are not often called by citizen petition, but in the event they are, the process and conduct of the meeting is really no different than the way an annual Town meeting is held. While the RSA above states that the Selectmen "shall' call the special meeting if properly petitioned, if the article to be voted on conflicts with a statutory provision or is not legally enforceable, it could be problematic."
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-24-2016, 12:22 PM   #62
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

The Special Town meeting "rumors" was especially trumpeted after the rancor at the March 12th meeting. I can personally attest to that.

It had "been heard" that the BoS were seeking ways to "reconsider" the vote.

Since the town strife is more about the "Gym" portion of the Center, not the Community" portion, there was a "shot across the bow" to the Select Board. Since the Recreation Department has been the "bone of contention" in this town fight, and the source of turmoil, a caveat was "rumored".

So, if a Special Town meeting is called (no appropriation): To see if the Town will vote to eliminate the Moultonborough Recreation Department ...

No Rec. Dept. ... No third gym needed!
A 50 registered voter petition for a Special Town meeting REQUIRES the BoS to warrant the Special Town meeting (NH law). As long as there is no "appropriation" (money issue) there is no legal requirement for Superior Court approval. If there is appropriation, then Superior Court approval must be had. The concept is the Court wants to make sure at least 50 % of the voters are aware of the money issue, and are allowed to vote on it.

The Speaks blog is only parroting what has been sent to the BoS, several times, and the blogger is a Select person. The info is sent to the BoS at no charge

Quote:
Special meetings are not often called by citizen petition, but in the event they are, the process and conduct of the meeting is really no different than the way an annual Town meeting is held.
Sure! I remember when I brought it up a couple of years ago, when I successfully petitioned the town for the fireworks ordinance. The BoS had never heard of it.

No problem with the blog posting. It only means their guard is up and they are getting worried that Special Meetings (plural) might be called this summer when the snow birds get back. Their absentee ballots do not allow them to vote on warrant articles. They will not need absentee ballots in the summer when they are back. The BoS will get an earful, directly!

It has already been suggested to some circles, to let the present anger die down a bit, and wait. Petitions gathered in, say, May, for a ,say, July Special meeting/meetings might. be more productive.

If I remember the MoBo Town Clerk's rendering of the absentee ballots, there were over 400. That means the potential of an additional 400 voters at the Special Town meeting, that couldn't make the March meeting.

longislander is offline  
Old 03-24-2016, 01:40 PM   #63
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

What "threats"???

From the Selectman's blog:

2 comments:
Anonymous said...
How does this work? Under RSA 31.5 I (a), don't more than one half of the voters on the checklist for the most recent annual meeting have to cast ballots? And the right of the Selectmen to petition the Superior Court for permission seems to be limited to emergency situations.
March 24, 2016 at 12:03 PM

Moultonboro Blogger said...
To clarify and quell any rumors, this post is in reference to " threats" by citizens to petition a special town meeting. The BoS have no intention to call a special town meeting for any reason. If such a petition were to be presented, I am certain the BoS would seek the counsel of an attorney for proper legal advice.


March 24, 2016 at 1:29 PM
winni83 is offline  
Old 03-24-2016, 02:49 PM   #64
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
don't more than one half of the voters on the checklist for the most recent annual meeting have to cast ballots?
No!

Only if appropriations (money) is petitioned.


NHMA
9. Any 50 Voters Can Call a Special Town Meeting.
“In order to petition for a special meeting, you need 50 voters’ signatures on a petitioned warrant article, submitted to the selectmen. The selectmen must call the meeting, unless the annual meeting is only 60 days away or less, in which case they can just add your petitioned article to the annual meeting warrant (RSA 39:3).”

https://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/600

Special Town Meeting with Court Permission
“Under RSA 31:5, a special town meeting to appropriate money may only be held in two circumstances. Either 50 percent of all voters on the checklist must attend the special meeting (which is not likely to occur), or the superior court must grant permission for the meeting in advance. The court cannot grant this permission unless it finds that an "emergency" exists.”

https://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/377


"Moultonboro Blogger said...
To clarify and quell any rumors


I interpret that to mean the BoS will not try reconsider Article 2, and do not want a petition to eliminate the Wreck Dept.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-25-2016, 07:47 AM   #65
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Last evening's Moultonborough Select Board work session was another exercise in stifling the opposition to the "The Town's got to pay for my recreation" junta.

Two select board members were telling another member how to vote. He wanted to abstain and they strenuously objected.

The meeting was streamed:

http://www.townhallstreams.com/locat...h/events/29306

The episode is @ 31:00 minutes in.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-25-2016, 07:55 AM   #66
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

The player may not come up.

Try:

http://www.townhallstreams.com/locat...ltonborough-nh

Go to left and scroll down to the March 24, 2016 Selectmen's work session @31:00+
longislander is offline  
Old 03-31-2016, 10:04 AM   #67
TheProfessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Regardless, the main reason that I have heard that young people are not living here is the cost of housing- we know that Mboro has some of the lowest taxes around,
ZONING.
Zoning, zoning, zoning.

Each year many towns pass new stricter zoning laws and restrictions.
All with good intentions. Nice. All seem to wish that these towns remain beautiful New Hampshire towns. The beautiful old farmhouses, pretty old barns, and save the trees. Trees, trees, trees.

Also, don't change the town AFTER my McMansion is finished. I want my McMansion but I don't want any more new McMansions to "ruin" the woodsy scenic views I have. Just one example of many others.

Don't build any homes on the mountains. Don't want my view of the mountains obstructed by some new house. Private property is private property. Whether on lowlands or highlands. But let's restrict the highlands. Have the government/people pass laws to prevent hillside construction thus lowering the value of some private property. That's OK. Right?

Let's zone all vacant land so that no new businesses can construct or move in. And some wonder why there are few good paying jobs available locally. Cruz Con is OK as that is a nice pretty building. But we don't want any new ugly buildings - whatever that means.

Here in my town, the minimum zoning for a home is one acre. You can't build a home unless the lot has one acre. OK. BUT, then the town/people ADD a caveat. The lot must be one acre of "buildable" land. More restrictions. So that one acre that your grandparents were saving cannot now but built on as it has a 20 feet by 20 feet "dip" in it that may "hold" some water in the Spring time. That "dip" may be construed by some as wetlands. Making that one acre lot Not buildable. An extreme example. yes, but that is where some are heading.

So some wonder why younger families are not moving into these small towns. Some towns now have committees seeking solutions to workforce housing or affordable housing to bring in families. Yet other will scream that we don't want any low cost housing as it brings in "poor" people or the undesirable people - whatever that means.

So each year some questions why the towns population is aging and why the school population is declining. All the while questioning why the per pupil costs go up. But this post is not about schools. This post is not about schools. Stated twice on purpose. Take that school debate to another thread or another forum. This post is about the big picture of the towns we reside in.

Back to the Recreation Complex.
The Town Meeting does restrict the number of participants. Some like this just for this fact. Bring in an organized few and the $20,000,000 (twenty million) dollar budget passes by 27 votes. Yes, this is fine. Except many can't sit thru a 3-6 hour meeting. Many can't show up for other reasons.

The only answer is SB2. One day, all day, voting. Including absentee voting. Each item will pass or fail on it's own merits.
More citizens voting is more democracy. The more people voting is better isn't it?
TheProfessor is offline  
Old 03-31-2016, 11:53 AM   #68
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Zoning at local level v. statute; pluses and minuses
Effective June 2017

"Additional Dwelling Units"

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...txtFormat=html

What does the town want?

Younger families .... what younger families? NH is no different than the rest of the country. The boomers are called that for a reason. Population demographics are the only reality, and are dynamic to the whole population.

If the town in question is Moultonborough, you have a reason to question sanity. There's one selectman with his private soapbox, censored to all who disagree with his omniscience. You've got another selectman who should be the Recreation Director. Two more "select" persons (select all right) who have to check with which way the wind is blowing before acting. And one with common sense, who is ostracized and belittled by the junta.

In total agreement about SB-2, and would add, an Official Budget Committee, not Advisory, is needed. It won't happen in Moultonborough. Most folks do not understand what SB-w2 actually is/does. The junta will never allow either to erode their "power".

There's another option that allows for snow birds, and others that cannot make the March town meetings, and have not been able to vote on town issues. It's the "Special Town Meeting" required to be called by the Select Board when 50 registered voters file a petition. Leave out any "appropriations" (budget stuff) and it does not need Superior Court approval. If you put appropriations in the petition, then the statutes require the Superior Court to ascertain at least 50% of the eligible voter be able to vote. Never going to happen. Moultonborough has @ 3,700 -3,900 registered voters. There's no way a couple thousand are going to be there. No appropriations, then it's like any other town meeting.

So, make the un-appropriated 50 registered voter petition. If funding is needed, let the Select Board bring it up at the next Annual town meeting in March, or find funding elsewhere. LET THEM WORRY ABOUT THE FUNDING. They'll have to come back to the Town for approval.

Also, before someone asks. SB-2 cannot be voted on at a Special Town Meeting. It must be done the Annual Town Meeting.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-31-2016, 11:57 AM   #69
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

I should have mentioned "Additional" is equivalent to "Accessory"

I should have added that the Special Town Meeting should be petitioned for a summer month, or such when the snow birds are back.
longislander is offline  
Old 03-31-2016, 02:18 PM   #70
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProfessor View Post
ZONING.
Zoning, zoning, zoning.

Each year many towns pass new stricter zoning laws and restrictions.
All with good intentions. Nice. All seem to wish that these towns remain beautiful New Hampshire towns. The beautiful old farmhouses, pretty old barns, and save the trees. Trees, trees, trees.

Also, don't change the town AFTER my McMansion is finished. I want my McMansion but I don't want any more new McMansions to "ruin" the woodsy scenic views I have. Just one example of many others.

Don't build any homes on the mountains. Don't want my view of the mountains obstructed by some new house. Private property is private property. Whether on lowlands or highlands. But let's restrict the highlands. Have the government/people pass laws to prevent hillside construction thus lowering the value of some private property. That's OK. Right?

Let's zone all vacant land so that no new businesses can construct or move in. And some wonder why there are few good paying jobs available locally. Cruz Con is OK as that is a nice pretty building. But we don't want any new ugly buildings - whatever that means.

Here in my town, the minimum zoning for a home is one acre. You can't build a home unless the lot has one acre. OK. BUT, then the town/people ADD a caveat. The lot must be one acre of "buildable" land. More restrictions. So that one acre that your grandparents were saving cannot now but built on as it has a 20 feet by 20 feet "dip" in it that may "hold" some water in the Spring time. That "dip" may be construed by some as wetlands. Making that one acre lot Not buildable. An extreme example. yes, but that is where some are heading.

So some wonder why younger families are not moving into these small towns. Some towns now have committees seeking solutions to workforce housing or affordable housing to bring in families. Yet other will scream that we don't want any low cost housing as it brings in "poor" people or the undesirable people - whatever that means.

So each year some questions why the towns population is aging and why the school population is declining. All the while questioning why the per pupil costs go up. But this post is not about schools. This post is not about schools. Stated twice on purpose. Take that school debate to another thread or another forum. This post is about the big picture of the towns we reside in.

Back to the Recreation Complex.
The Town Meeting does restrict the number of participants. Some like this just for this fact. Bring in an organized few and the $20,000,000 (twenty million) dollar budget passes by 27 votes. Yes, this is fine. Except many can't sit thru a 3-6 hour meeting. Many can't show up for other reasons.

The only answer is SB2. One day, all day, voting. Including absentee voting. Each item will pass or fail on it's own merits.
More citizens voting is more democracy. The more people voting is better isn't it?
Not sure if the Professor is referring to Moultonboro zoning or not but perhaps he/she should know what they are. Last time I checked the residential zoning allowed construction on a lot containing a minimum of 40,000 square feet or LESS than an acre. The lot must however conform to certain soil types and slope requirements. These conditions are not new and in no way an effort to prohibit new building. The soil types are necessary to allow for on site septic requirements and the slope restriction is generous but does not allow impractical building lots. This zoning appears to be more generous than where the Professor lives.

On a totally different topic, it appears that the Moultonboro Blogger aka the selectman with a soapbox for personal use only, has started again on his agenda for the CC/Gym that was dealt a huge defeat at the recent town meeting. He now is pushing for the rec dept agenda and states that usage numbers have been supplied by the rec dept director. Blogger knows for a fact that his statement is totally false as evidenced by Al Hume's comment plus numerous other instances where the rec director has not been held accountable. He is correct in stating that a lot of misinformation has been thrown around but he cannot bring himself to admit that he has been one of the ones most responsible for the misinformation. His power point presentation given months ago about the proposed facility included a slide that said that based on the UNH survey the MAJORITY of residents did not want a new gym, etc. Why then is he so angry that his pet agenda was soundly rejected?
Sue Doe-Nym is offline  
Old 03-31-2016, 02:51 PM   #71
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Actually Moultonborough zoning is at minimum lot size, page 3 of :

file:///C:/Users/Joseph/AppData/Local/Temp/ZONING%20ORDINANCE%20Final%20adopted%2003-11-15.pdf



" Larger lot sizes may be required in accordance with the characteristics of each lot. Square footage is set forth as the minimum per dwelling unit required, and no less than 40,000 square feet shall be permitted for each lot, whether or not the lot contains a septic system.
The Town is divided into residential/agricultural zone and three commercial zones, as defined in ....

As stated, blogger is at it again. This weeks Town Administrator report shows the blogger and the Rec. Director, discussed the towns summer programs. I guess he's appointed himself as the recreation guru.

He wants Al Hume off the Recreation Advisory Board. Al doesn't bow down and kiss junta feet. al should ell him them what to kiss!

As Sue Doe-Nym, rightfully point out, blogger made up the "stats" for his presentation and then expanded his creativity for his second presentation.

Motto: If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance ... baffle 'em with bull****!
longislander is offline  
Old 04-03-2016, 08:26 PM   #72
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default

This is what my Selectman has to say about those who disagree with him and put their disagreement and opinions in a public forum.

"Anonymous said...
Don't know where to put this. The blog has become a kinder, gentler forum of late and that is a good thing. Don't be discouraged by the handful of blowhards. You are greatly appreciated.
March 31, 2016 at 9:49 PM

Moultonboro Blogger said...
The blowhards have apparently not yet finished their smear and lies campaign, just moved it elsewhere because they are not allowed here. They just can't seem to accept any responsibility for the consequences their actions have caused. The idle threats, the accusations, the ignorant comments, pretty sophomoric. Mostly they are becoming the butt of running jokes. A sad bunch.
April 3, 2016 at 7:47 PM"

Election time next year, with the right to cast absentee ballots when voting for the Selectmen who are up for reelection, namely Messrs. Blogger and Wakefield, should be interesting.
winni83 is offline  
Old 04-03-2016, 09:25 PM   #73
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Moultonboro Blogger said...
The blowhards have apparently not yet finished their smear and lies campaign, just moved it elsewhere because they are not allowed here. They just can't seem to accept any responsibility for the consequences their actions have caused. The idle threats, the accusations, the ignorant comments, pretty sophomoric. Mostly they are becoming the butt of running jokes. A sad bunch.
April 3, 2016 at 7:47 PM"
What is he taking about? He is the blowhard in chief!
Does he actually believe all the bloviating he does on his personal soapbox?

Smears ... lies ... idle threats ...

He's gone off the deep end!
longislander is offline  
Old 04-03-2016, 09:31 PM   #74
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 145
Default Wrongislander???

I would treat the comment as a badge of honor.

Moultonboro Blogger said...
Only took about 4 minutes "wrongislander". Gee, wonder who that could be?
April 3, 2016 at 8:31 PM
Post a Comment
winni83 is offline  
Old 04-03-2016, 09:45 PM   #75
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

It's nice posting here, on a blog that has published rules, and allows comment, with no preconceived requirement to bowing to the blogger.

Strange phenomenon, not having a webmaster, blogger, be the prime commenter, and preaching perceived realities. Others see the same as dilutions!
longislander is offline  
Old 04-04-2016, 07:56 AM   #76
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Looks like the only posting, on the so-called MoBo blog is the blogger's!

Something about a Napoleonic complex.


Consecutive comments on the same thread:

Quote:
Moultonboro Blogger said...

The blowhards have apparently not yet finished their smear and lies campaign, just moved it elsewhere because they are not allowed here. They just can't seem to accept any responsibility for the consequences their actions have caused. The idle threats, the accusations, the ignorant comments, pretty sophomoric. Mostly they are becoming the butt of running jokes. A sad bunch.
April 3, 2016 at 7:47 PM

Moultonboro Blogger said...

Only took about 4 minutes "wrongislander". Gee, wonder who that could be?
April 3, 2016 at 8:31 PM

Moultonboro Blogger said...

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
April 3, 2016 at 10:12 PM

Post a Comment "
longislander is offline  
Old 04-04-2016, 01:25 PM   #77
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Anonymous said...

Blogger, please expound on the "consequences of their action". What do you mean? The majority of the people at the town meeting wanted to vote.
April 4, 2016 at 12:01 PM


Moultonboro Blogger said...

A premeditated move to call the question denied the public the opportunity to have a democratic discussion of the issue and for others to expose the misinformation that was spread about town. Win or lose the vote or whether the majority wanted to vote or not, public discourse was quelled by a well organized group. The people responsible refuse to accept the consequences and fiasco that followed.
April 4, 2016 at 12:21 PM

Someone was allowed to ask a question on the blog, and an opportunity for
quite a response.

I may be repeating myself, but ...

I was the "well organized group" that Called the Question. I had notified the Town Moderator and the BoS, as well earlier, that I would not be submitting an amendment to Article 2, as previously emailed to them. The wife and I had received news, that we might not be able to attend the Town meeting due to unforeseen family issues.

I left the Town Meeting right after I got up, and made the motion to Call the Question, and voted. I was congratulated and thanked by numerous folks on the way out. Folks that I don't know. I noticed, in the parking lot, there were many leaving, as well, having voted.

I had not even premeditated the motion. I had expected to get there, vote and get out.

What happened was, one by one, the BoS started to give (on stage) lengthy, written speeches about why everyone should vote yes. At the third BoS member (of 5) I was standing at the mike ready to end the agony of the audience.

The majority of the audience, obviously, agreed, the motion overwhelmingly passed.

I had no idea it would cause such a "hissy-fit" by our illustrious BoS!

The consequence and fiasco ...????????????? The public prevailed!

The misinformation was/is spread by the blog and its lemmings.
longislander is offline  
Old 04-04-2016, 02:17 PM   #78
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 309
Default

Wait until the Blogger sees what a real "premeditated" move is come next March. Many people have a long memory about the misinformation dumped on them by the Blogger and can't wait to show their real opinion in the voting booth. Most likely Joel will be running again and he should have no trouble getting elected.
Sue Doe-Nym is offline  
Old 04-04-2016, 02:37 PM   #79
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Most likely Joel will be running again and he should have no trouble getting elected.
Joel did a good job. He spent many years as Chair of the BoS. There's a reason he decide a couple of days before election to run as a write-in and got many votes.

Election results:

http://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Page...s/2288_001.pdf
longislander is offline  
Old 04-05-2016, 10:50 PM   #80
Ski Bum
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4
Default

Interesting thread. Joel's had his turn. Time for new blood and new ideas. What's the story with the Moultonboro Speaks blog? Has someone else taken it over?
Ski Bum is offline  
Old 04-06-2016, 07:33 AM   #81
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Interesting thread. Joel's had his turn. Time for new blood and new ideas. What's the story with the Moultonboro Speaks blog? Has someone else taken it over?
The blog is still "Owned" by the same individual. There are a lot of us that have stopped posting, and scan it, now and then to see what king of inside info he'll post. He is still a Select Board member.

There may be a problem with his perception of "select", however. He doesn't tolerate, nor accept opposing views. He may soon, however, to try to revive the participation. He'll post a token different view. It might be his own "anonymous" post to his own blog, incognito! Ya Right!

He may be confusing "select" as some kind of anointment from God.

The use of "I", "me", "mine" may be an indicator of issues.
longislander is offline  
Old 04-06-2016, 08:34 AM   #82
Packardrider
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2
Default Remember

Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Packardrider is offline  
Old 04-06-2016, 01:57 PM   #83
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Talk about flipping mindsets for convenience.

Here's the MoBo blogger today, on his blog:

Quote:
My answer is the same as I stated at candidates night in 2014: the majority of citizens in Moultonboro do not want SB2 and I would not support it.
Here is what his position was when he was championing it (from Foster's, by the same reporter who now covers MoBo for the Meredith News):

Quote:
Resident Paul Punturieri made a presentation on behalf of the Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance in favor of SB2.
I was not personally involved in that town battle at the time, but it didn't take much to get a pulse, on the lies and untruths about what SB-2 is and does, since. He should have stuck to truism. Then again, he wasn't part of the town power base back then!

I do not believe SB-2 would pass in Moultonborough, just as an Official Budget Committee (as opposed to the present Advisory Budget Committee) would not pass, either. Not because the mechanisms will not work fine for MoBo, but because the present power base would sabotage any effort to pass them.

There's no great necessity for either, anyway. Ignorance is bliss, and the Annual Town Meeting is a favorite get-together for a lot of folks ... what the heck, so be it. Lunch sandwiches, with an apple, a beverage, a cookie is only five dollars!
longislander is offline  
Old 04-06-2016, 04:07 PM   #84
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 160
Default

Looks like blogger is reading the forum!
I'm not allowed on the blog. I use my name and email address ... in the open ... and not afraid of debate.

I just went back to the blog and tried to figure out why he's so upset. I think he is confusing me with:
Quote:
Anonymous said...

Blogger:

Quote from Fosters' Daily Democrat on February 11, 2009:

"Resident Paul Punturieri made a presentation on behalf of the Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance in favor of SB2.

Care to explain your change in position

April 6, 2016 at 3:00 PM
I thank this forum's webmaster for transparency, rather than censorship.

Quote:
So who's pushing SB-2 this time?
April 6, 2016 at 1:33 PM

Quote:
Moultonboro Blogger said...

Anon at 1:33- Did you not read the post? Do you have nothing better to do with your day than find whatever you can as a " gotcha"? If so, I will keep you in my prayers in hopes you will find a purpose in life. I suspect that you are one of the deceivers that continue to spread the lies that I fabricated data or that I flip flopped. In your world, no one can ever change a position or have a change of heart based upon the facts. Maybe a second prayer that you will find enlightenment. Perhaps you could show some integrity and stop hiding behind " Sue doe-nyms". Doubt it was you as she is not an SB2 fan.
April 6, 2016 at 3:27 PM

Last edited by longislander; 04-06-2016 at 04:23 PM. Reason: addendum
longislander is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.47230 seconds