Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Roger Grey & friends left blood on the floor of Sanbornton meeting

To The Daily Sun,

There was blood on the floor at Sanbornton Central School after the annual Town Meeting. The knife was drawn early in the evening and in a surprise amendment that passed without due deliberation by the body, proposed by one of the Budget Committee members and friends, a planned move to cut raises and support for the library. I believe that it was such a surprise that reasonable common sense and judgment passed us by.

Out of all of the budget items, Roger Grey and his cohorts chose the one spot that would be more painful and in the long run create the least savings to the taxpayers. That $40,000 cut could have been taken from the capital reserve, or equipment expenses, or some other inanimate program, but they chose where it would bleed the worst, cutting at the town employees. This will result in turnover, lost effort, lost morale, and all of the other problems related to poor management-employer relationships and lack of good faith.

This was a motion designed to appeal to frugality. Unfortunately, it also lacked forethought and wisdom.

This voter revolt was organized on principle, not pragmatism, and Sanbornton voters, strapped by New Hampshire's tax dilemma, decided to their own detriment to pass it. They were led to hurt themselves. The silence of some members of the Budget Committee who had deliberated and approved these raises is troubling.

That amendment damaged this town, and the ripple in this pool of blood will be expensive in more ways than one.

Andrew Sanborn


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 387

Wouldn't have been a record turnout if voters weren't prepared

To The Daily Sun,

This letter is intended to amplify an article in the March 14 edition of The Laconia Sun.

When I entered the Moultonborough Community Auditorium (sign above entrance) for the Town Meeting on March 12, I expected and was prepared for an extended debate on Article 2, the $6,491,000 proposal for a community center.

Shortly after debate began, one voter motioned to "move the question" and the legislative body (the voters) affirmed the motion ending debate and starting the voting.

After the vote defeating Article 2, several selectmen alleged a "conspiracy" to "stifle debate" and alleged that the Town Meeting had been "hijacked." Everyone needs to know that there was no conspiracy. No one knew that a motion to call the question would be made early in the debate that would preclude further discussion. The margin on motion to end discussion was substantial.

Initially, with others, I wondered whether a lengthy debate would have made a difference in the 63.2 percent "no" vote. In my opinion, it would not have. After all, this was not a contest of debate teams with a surprise topic that judges were determining a winner to. At the Town Meeting, minds were made up. On Candidates' Night, held less than a week before, the question was asked as to how many voters had not made up their minds on the article, and not one person raised their hand.

The voters at the Town Meeting were similarly firm in their decisions. There would not have been a record turnout if voters were not prepared to vote their convictions.

Had Moultonborough been an SB-2 town, there would have been no debate, as the proposal would have been as set forth on the printed ballot, a simple "yes" or "no."

As other voters, I came prepared with a statement regarding my objections to the proposed Community Center that it was (1) too large, (2) improperly sited, (3) would preclude the recommended concept of a village green for the Taylor property, and (4) disrupt Route 25 traffic, if access were provided for parking at mid village. I prepared four amendments to correct those deficiencies and notified the moderator prior to the meeting. I previously stated in letters to the editor that I was conceptually not opposed to a properly sited, modest Community Center.

The several selectmen who were critical of the early motion to end debate, should have directed their complaints to the moderator, who under the rules, had the authority to defer consideration of the motion.

Finally, I would like to comment on the ill-conceived selectman's motion to reconsider, seconded by another selectman, which appeared intended to obtain a re-vote after a substantial portion of the voters had left the meeting. While there was some debate as to whether the Municipal Finance Law would preclude a same-day vote to reconsider, I moved to amend to add the seven-day requirement, as a vote the same day with substantial numbers of voters gone would have been unconscionable. I added to the seven-day delay, a requirement for publication of a re-vote in the Town Web Site and a local newspaper.

That amendment prompted the selectman who had initiated the motion to reconsider, to summarily withdraw it.

Eric Taussig


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 404