Editorial by Chuck Douglas
The success of the Public Safety Building is in part due to the dedication of the taxpayers who had voted down previous higher spending levels for the building. By not rushing into something three years ago at $7,700,000 the taxpayers have been able to get a building at approximately half that price.
An example of the change is that the 30 lockers that were in the original proposal for female firefighters are not in evidence in the current plans for the public safety building. When you only have one female firefighter it is very hard to justify 30 lockers for women. These and other frills were taken out of the building design and that led to the increase in support.
Kudos also go to Selectmen Colleen Hunter and Budget Committee Member Jeff Knight who worked so hard to bring together a good team of taxpayers as well as users of the facility.
Many were amused by the quick turn around by the Selectmen from the Community Building being a “60 year old unstable tear down” to a “structurally sound building well worth saving.” What a difference a bond vote makes in the condition of the building! Kudos also go to John Heise, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, who forged a good coalition to reduce the school and the town budgets and initiate changes to the healthcare system that will hopefully blunt the huge increases looming for insurance costs for our town and school employees.
The defeat of SB2 for the school budget is not the last that issue will be heard of. The falloff in the vote at town meeting from the vote on the safety building of 428-108 for a total of 536 voters reflects the fact that later votes at night are going to have fewer voters. For instance the renaming/renumbering ordinance only had a total vote cast of 159. Thus almost 400 people had left the meeting by 10:30 when the renumbering/renaming ordinance came up for discussion. That is why people feel that you get a more representative and broader vote under SB2 than you do when things come up at 10:00 or 11:00 at night on a week night.
One negative at town meeting was the game playing by town legal counsel, Paul Fitzgerald of Laconia, who raised an issue concerning Petitioned Warrant Article # 20 for $449,000 in highway funds to be used to reduce the cost of the public safety building. While he was asked at the last minute by one selectman to inject himself into the debate it would have been better policy to have at least called me on behalf of the petitioners to suggest need for a change.
This sharpshooting at town meeting is what one longtime voter called “a triumph of manipulation over transparency.”
In the future if there are issues with warrant articles town counsel should bring them to the attention of the interested parties before town meeting so that time is not wasted with floor amendments and the meeting could proceed in a more regular order. This paper hopes the selectmen will not allow a repeat of that stunt to occur in future years because town counsel reports to them.
A recommendation for future town meetings is to have a podium at the front of the hall so that citizens presenting petitioned articles could be on a level playing field with the town officials who have the advantage of speaking directly to the entire hall. This would make for better communication than having to stand halfway up the room on either side.
Again, whether one agrees or disagrees with a given petitioned article, the democratic process should put everyone on a level playing field. Despite these concerns both meetings were well attended and well behaved. Bow should be proud that the level of discourse was not personal or vindictive, but thoughtful and constructive.
