To The Daily Sun,
The Moultonborough Selectboard is now going after the Moultonborough Recreation Advisory Board (RAB). There's one Selectboard member, especially, who is leading the charge to remove two citizen volunteer members; they've been members since 2007, under various Board of Selectmen (BoS).
The reason given is the two members are not "pro-recreation" enough. Translation: this Selectboard member is still angry about the Selecboard's failure, to push through the recreation gym Taj Mahal of $6.4 million of taxpayer dollars, and not getting the support of these two members. This Selectboard member is the same man who owns the MoBoSpeaks Bog (sic) and talks about "the bully pulpit." Unbelievable!
Here's a quote from the town website regarding the RAB purpose: "The principal function of the Advisory Board is to serve as a communication bridge between the recreation director, the Board of Selectmen and the community and to promote programs and services to encourage support from our community through input and participation."
That statement, apparently, is only true if the Selectboard doesn't get its nose out of joint! What is even more curious, the Recreation Department is comprised of town employees, with the Selectboard as the boss. Why does a boss (BoS, pun intended) need a third party to manage its employees?
This Selectboard member is offended that a citizen (yours truly) made a suggestion at the last Selectboard meeting to review, and possibly amend town ordinance #21, that deals with town officials and employee ethics and code of conduct:
Town Ordinance #21
SECTION 1 This ordinance shall be known by its title of Code of Conduct for town officers and employees.
SECTION 2: This ordinance is adopted under the authority of NH RSA 31:39-a, entitled "Conflict of Interest Ordinances."
Further, State Law: 31:39-a, Conflict of Interest Ordinances, says, "The legislative body ... may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts of interest for local officers and employees ... or establishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest shall require removal from office."
The suggested amendment was to include verbiage that elected officials and town employees are to refrain from creating/hosting social media-like blogs to promote their personal agendas. There are venues for discussing town matters by public officials, such as public meetings, and are to be utilized accordingly; reasoning in RSA 91-A the Right-To-Know law.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 627