To The Daily Sun,
I would like to ask Colette Worsman if she owns a copy of "Roberts Rules of Order." Does she know basic procedure? Or, more frightening and dangerous to open, transparent, honest and democratic governance, does she even care? Is she aware that a meeting of an organization, governmental or not, is to be conducted by these very simple rules? And that these are required of governmental bodies specifically to prevent abuses of power? Is she aware of this? Or does she even care?
Bylaws and other governing documents always take precedence over seat-of-the-pants uses of parliamentary power (this is you and your board). If a board has officers who are duly elected by ballot or appointed, this board has the responsibility to hold open meetings, with the exception of executive session. An executive session must be announced beforehand and included on the printed meeting agenda. This is referred to as parliamentary procedures.
Whether a board or convention meeting is run effectively and honestly, it helps to know, or learn, basic parliamentary procedures. Prepare a printed agenda to:
1) Keep the meeting on track.
2) Provide a record of what happened at the meeting.
A clear agenda is the necessary foundation. An agenda should clearly state why the meeting is called, what is to be discussed and what should be accomplished during the meeting time, who will attend, and the time.
Then follow the list of topics. The person who is running the meeting has the responsibility to be prepared, keep things on track, and must be sure everyone who wants to be heard is heard and has the opportunity to contribute. This means not just those who you know support you, and it means more than cutting off those who disagree with you with a dismissive "Thank you for your input." That is like the prerecorded phone messages that tell a frustrated customer left on hold that "Your business is very important to us."
I attended a County Commission meeting where the possibility of building a new county jail was discussed. I was surprised and quite frankly shocked to see how this "meeting" was conducted. This is when I observed how Ms. Worsman runs a meeting. Forget "Roberts Rules of Order." Parliamentary procedures just weren't followed. I left the meeting shaking my head in disbelief and disgust. When it was convenient for Ms. Worsman to follow parliamentary procedure she did. Then when it suited her pre-determined needs she adapted procedures that were totally contrary to any legitimate parliamentary rules of order. Sometimes when I watch the way she "conducts" County Convention meetings, I suspect she is just winging it, as no process of correct parliamentary procedures are followed or allowed.
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 09:47
To The Daily Sun,
Jon Hoyt: just reciting Democrat talking-points (March 19) isn't a meaningful counterargument to my letter of March 15. Some of your comments, e.g., that people can't have children until after retirement, are just silly.
President Obama and Vice President Biden seem to agree with you and me that a good job is better than welfare, so it should be okay that Bono also agrees.
You misrepresented my statement. I correctly said, "Conservative policies encourage investment ... because they create jobs allowing people to escape poverty and pursue their dreams."
Progressives try to fool people by misapplying the term "investment" to government spending, but progressive policies actually discourage job-creating investment.
President Obama's progressive policies, including frequent releases of numerous oppressive and unpredictable regulations, slow and unreliable permitting, and other unexpected costs, make starting or operating a successful business much more difficult.
Because of Obamacare's odious requirements, businesses will struggle to stay below, or get below, 50 employees.
The Arch Coal Company invested approximately $50 million implementing federally approved plans creating 250 jobs before the Obama administration changed its mind and yanked the permit. Who will invest in the face of such unpredictable actions?
Today's miserable job growth is the result of people making rational decisions in the face of all the obstacles to success that President Obama has put in place.
If they really want the best for people, why don't progressives put less effort into locking people in welfare and more effort into eliminating the policies that kill jobs and opportunities for struggling people?
Our $17 trillion debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities exist so politicians can spend on grateful recipients without making current taxpayers (voters) suffer the full cost.
Conservatives oppose deficit spending by Democrats and Republicans. We oppose special privileges for anyone (businesses, unions, the rich, officeholders and their friends, other special interests, etc.).
Progressives condemn these too, so why don't they join conservative efforts to stop them? Why didn't progressives do something about them in 2009 when they totally controlled Washington? Or is progressive condemnation just more talk/lies?
I believe the bigger political divide is between Washington and the grassroots, not between the Democrat and Republican grassroots. The real inequality is between most people and those with Washington connections: Politicians, rich donors, special interests, and family members.
I believe the grassroots want the best for everyone, but they have often been duped by great-sounding promises into electing people who primarily want the best for themselves.
To really help struggling Americans, we must elect people who will eliminate job killing policies, not people who only make false promises.
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 09:32
To The Daily Sun,
We have been watching the attacks on two important members of the County Convention, Colette Worsman and Jane Cormier. Both ladies have conducted themselves with grace and decorum in the face of a bastion of childish hysteria.
The "officials" attacking them are using the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the mentor of Hillary Clinton. In his "Rules for Radicals" he teaches the following ways to destroy an opponent, Pick the Targets, Freeze the Targets, Personalize the Targets and Polarize the Targets. When progressives don't get their way, they often turn to the courts as most of their shenanigans would never be approved by the voters.
Colette and Jane are simply doing what is best for the taxpayers and the county employees. Any other approach is simply unsustainable. We applaud them for their courage and steadfastness.
In the matter of the untruths being hurled at Rosemary Landry in Meredith, Rosemary is a close personal friend of ours. She has integrity and is not the kind of person to make things up to make a point. The voters in Meredith were denied by time constraints the opportunity to decide for themselves who should be elected to the Selectboard. Because Rosemary pointed this out she has been Picked Out, Frozen, Personalized and Polarized.
Progressives always do this to their opponents because they think like children, not responsible adults.
Phil & Chris Wittmann
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 09:25
To The Daily Sun,
I recently read that lack of oxygen can cause brain damage. I became a long-haul trucker after my Army career. It was easy to drive long distance. However, it became necessary to stop, walk around and clear my head. I soon remembered telling a friend that worked in a office atmosphere that sitting on your brains all day, wasn't work, it made it hard for his brain to get oxygen.
I have determined that some of the letters to the editor are written by senior citizens whose working career consisted of sitting down all day. I have seen some great letters past couple days. Great job by Mr. Valengavich and Mr. Maloof. I have asked Mr. Meade what he would say if the Keystone pipeline passed by his house on the way to a refinery as it does homes in Nebraska. No response. The folks in Nebraska don't want it any more than the folks in New Hampshire want Northern Pass or wind generators.
The Fox News "contributors" in the Lakes Region, mostly senior citizens, use this as a talking point as it's not in their back yard. The response by Mr. Meade is, and I quote: "Instead of adding to pipeline that already exists, creating thousands and thousands of new jobs, not cooperating with closest neighbor with who we share coast-to-coast border, instead of reducing our cost of fuel, we get played by our president in favor of his environmentalist friends. The politics, Ms. Loesch, of it all stinks, and we the people have to pay for it."
The crude oil from Canada is headed for Port Arthur, Texas, to be refined and exported. (Read article printed in Daily Sun, Dec.20 2013.) Ms. Loesch writes the stock market has over-doubled. It has, and every American who has money in stock market, 401(k), savings, including myself, and Mr. Meade have benefited by it. Mr. Meade says because the feds pumped a trillion dollars of free money a year banks and financial interests a year. What Mr. Meade and other wing-nuts on the top end of the money don't tell you is how much they benefited by it.
I have read for years how the rich create jobs. I ask you again, Mr. Meade, how many jobs have the rich created with all those federal dollars the past five years? Mr. Meade again chastises Ms. Loesch for stating that the unemployment rate has dropped. Mr. Meade fires back saying we now have the "lowest labor participation rate in over 35 years. I will write another quote by Pat Buchanan in Daily Sun dated March 27, 2013: "3rd point, to accommodate its K street bundlers, the GOP embraced globalism, empowering corporate America to shed its U.S. labor force, move its plants to Mexico, Asia and China, bring its foreign-made goods back to the USA free of charge and pocket the difference.Profits, stocks, dividends soared. But the Reagan Democrats of industrial America who paid the price in lost jobs and shuttered plants from the $10 trillion in trade deficits America has run since George H.W. Bush have now gone home to the party of their fathers, and they are not coming back."
It is one thing to write your letters to editor using your "talking points and and opinions." But to use them to criticize someone else as if your word is gospel with no proof of information is shameful. I have more to come. But to the "Fox News contributors," I say summer is coming, along with crows. Fire up your barbecue pits. Oh, don't need moonbats, Kool-Aid, rose-colored glasses, or any tea.
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 09:21
To The Daily Sun,
Your front-page headline on March 22 screamed, "Local Man Snared by Obamacare" and the first paragraph "dared anyone . . . to question how the act jeopardized his (Tom Garrity's) health and finances." But only readers who persevered to the last paragraph of the story on Page 9 learned that Mr. Garrity found a private policy with "costs comparable to his original policy."
Like Mr. Garrity, my wife and I were covered by a plan in the small group individual market. But, under the Affordable Care Act, we were eligible to sign up for a new Anthem policy which could save us $9,000 in annual premium and out-of-pocket costs (without any taxpayer subsidy). To keep my continuity of care at Massachusetts General Hospital, I stayed with my old policy, while my wife (whose doctors practice at Dartmouth-Hitchcock) purchased an Anthem policy on the Exchange. Our annual savings still total about $6,000.
The anti-Obamacare television ads being run by the Republican PACs are misleading, but no one expects them to be honest. But The Sun should hold itself to a higher standard. Coverage of important public issues should not be sensationalized.
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 09:14