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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Why does The Sun keep firing away at Gilford Budget Committee?

To The Daily Sun,

Might we start to reach a ceasefire between your newspaper and the Gilford Budget Committee?

In the voting at the 2016 Town Meeting, the Town of Gilford widely rejected a warrant article to eliminate this committee. Most recognize that that warrant article was sponsored by a voter special interest group. Undaunted they are at it again with yet another petitioned article that again attacks the Budget Committee, this year. Lately, in the Dec. 11 edition, you published a letter that asserted that a supervisory union administrator had been asked to testify at a Budget Committee meeting under oath. This is just a typical prevarication as we continue to see employed by some of the same special interest group that tried to eliminate the Budget Committee. I addressed this issue in a previous letter and I again reiterate that the Gilford Budget committee never asked anyone at any of their recent meetings to testify under oath.

But the members of the committee that put their foot down to ensure that such hostile nonsense would not fly are now slandered by innuendo in this letter. It illustrates what these people will stoop to, to have their way with the taxpayers by attacking the very character of the people who are serving on this committee.

Further we have read of one of your reporters implying that there is some quid pro quo going on on the committee over repairs to the Town Hall versus the sizing of the school budget and default budget. But your reporter knows that the town now has a most recent estimate for the Town Hall electrical HVAC retrofits that is significantly lower than those previously objected to by some of the board members. Maybe that board member who disputed the cost of Town Hall retrofits was just trying to save the taxpayers some money, enlighten other members of the board, get a more reasonable appropriation, and not seeking to get something else of an implied personal agenda for endorsing the size of the appropriation.

In the Jan. 15 edition you ran a story that seemed to somewhat disparage the Gilford Budget Committee chairperson. That chair has earned the confidence of the board and been voted chair because of their attention to details, organizational skills, preparedness, knowledge of the statutes, and hard work applied to examining hundreds of items of town expenditures. Just as the special interests are trying to impugn the integrity of the Gilford Budget Committee the chair may have exaggerated his assessment of our education platforms. As far as performance measures go, some are skewed by what percentage of your student body is taking the performance testing. So Gilford may score a bit lower by testing a broader group of students including those with IEPs and others with issues requiring modifications to ensure that they also get a substantially equal and effective education. Taking those performance tests, being part of that inclusion and mainstreaming. Again one member's opinion may not be the general sense of the board on any particular single issue.

In my opinion the majority of the members of the Budget Committee are generally concerned with the quality of the town's total educational platforms. Your competitor publication has recently run a more balanced story delineating all the parts of that platform that support the curricular and extra curricular platforms that the School Board seems intent on gutting. All to provide for more of whichever budget for 2017-18 that is adopted at Town Meeting, to be transferred to employee compensations. The list is too long to be practical to list here.

According to that news story, "This accounts for a total of $191,500 in capital items that have been postponed."

Let us contemplate that we have four buildings in the SAU that need ongoing and ever more expensive preventative, planned and retrofit maintenance. The newest of those buildings is already 15 years old. Let us also keep in mind that monies spent on these costs do not compound themselves once we undertake to accomplish them. Is anyone on the Gilford Budget Committee seeking to reduce any School District employees' total wage and benefits cost package? Please write a story pointing that out. Is it really "all about the kids"?

Could the public please consider that the members of the Gilford Budget Committee are the people you elected and that most, if not all, of them are committed to performing on their oath to be fair and impartial in representing all the voters of Gilford, the other residents, and concerned for the children and young people as to continuing and enhancing the platforms we depend on to provide for their most diverse educational experience.

It is not my place to speak on these issues as in any way representing the Budget Committee's positions. "He jests at scars that never felt a wound." But I do feel wounded by people with a narrow-minded personal special interest or even news reporter's published allegations that are just complete falsehoods or twisting of the issues to create more salacious copy to sell advertising. The members of the committee sacrifice their personal time and forego some of their social life to become informed on the issues as they attend seemingly endless numbers of meetings. They receive no stipend or compensation other than the personal satisfaction of having given that time serving the town, rather than just shooting off their mouths.

Timothy Sullivan, Member

Gilford Budget Committee


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 692

Diversity & multiculturalism continues to win over bigotry & ignorance

To The Daily Sun,

If you have not been reading the news, you may be missing some interesting news on confirmation hearings.

Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson supports the Iran nukes deal, the Paris climate deal, strong membership in NATO, continuance of Russian sanctions, and agreed that Russia was trying to destabilize NATO and European democracies. He agrees with Congress that Russia's actions in the Ukraine and Syria are disturbing. He also sees no need for a Muslim registry and "did not support targeting any particular group."

Tillerson also noted, "The risk of climate change does exist and the consequences of it could be serious enough that action should be taken" although he dodged a direct question on whether he believed climate change was caused by human activity" (Reuters).

Herr Trumpengroper has confirmed Rand Paul's claim that there must be a replacement with the repeal of Obamacare. That should be entertaining. Regarding the DACA Act, (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) Lindsay Graham has co-sponsored a bill with Democrats to extend the protections for these immigrants that arrived as children.

The nominee for Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis is another troublemaker. Senate Democrats could block him, but are instead voicing strong support. Mattis aggressively supports NATO and "denounced Russia as a belligerent actor that must be confronted . . . If we did not have NATO today we would need to create it." (Politico). On the Iran deal, he said "I think it is an imperfect arms control agreement — it's not a friendship treaty, but when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies." On gays serving openly in the military he said, "Frankly, I've never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with."

Gilford's Dunning-Kruger Mascot and rabid Muslim-hater, Steve Earle, is not going to be happy with this. The U.S. Army's regulations will allow Muslim women to wear hijabs. They are also allowing Sikh men to wear turbans. Beards up to 1 inch for religious reason will be allowed with Muslim and Sikh men.

NYPD is now doing the same, joining six other major U.S. cities. SWAT teams and special forces will not be able to take advantage of these new liberties due to wearing gas masks, etc. Other restrictions apply, too. Sikh men who wish to wear turbans, must wear department issued blue ones only.

More changes are coming as diversity and multiculturalism continues to win over the bigotry and ignorance of rabid right-wingers. Herr Trumpengroper' can't stop progress.

James Veverka

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 637