To The Daily Sun,
A local Moultonborough company, CruCon Cruise Outlet Plus, recently had a grand opening, at which their employees officially greeted the community, providing a tour of their operation. I believe the event was significant because it represents how we can attract commerce and jobs to our area. This marvelous company has attracted career-minded employees, many of whom, are just starting their families. In a short time, the company has grown to more than 100 employees, with $160 million in gross sales.
Employees expressed to me their delight that the company is situated in an ideal location with its beautiful lakes and mountains, and easy lifestyle. Through technology, a company like CruCon can operate just about anywhere. Through the telephone and the Internet, the company books cruises to anywhere in the world, on any cruise line.
Using this company as an example, we can attract other growing businesses. One way is to establish an Enterprise Zone in our district that provides businesses with certain incentives to relocate, such as tax breaks and help in finding investment. Businesses can also offer services to each other. Called "B2B," — business-to-business creates a strong middle class that invigorates our entire economy.
In my race for State Representative in Moultonborough, Sandwich and Tuftonboro, I am not running against any individual. I'm campaigning against an extreme philosophy that sees no role for state government or any public agency in helping people or businesses succeed.
As a former entrepreneur and businessman, I know how important government is to the success of any enterprise. A CEO knows it's important to relocate to a business-friendly area. A builder knows the importance of public construction projects. An independent tradesman knows the expense of medical care. Even a piano teacher knows that terrible winter roads can prevent her students from getting to their lessons. These are the types of things that should concern your state representative.
Candidate, NH. House of Representatives
Last Updated on Tuesday, 01 July 2014 10:23
To The Daily Sun,
Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier from Idaho, is on American soil after nearly five years in the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Seemingly invisible for all that time, he has been the subject of media intense concern since his release and return to the United States.
Media ignorance and governmental avoidance have plagued POW/MIA advocates for decades, and offered us challenges that were and are huge impediments to our fulfilling our pledge and a tragic disservice to those we attempt to serve.
For those who know the Northeast POW/MIA Network and many who joined us in our drive to make Bowe's return a reality, may I first extend my sincerest and most heartfelt appreciation? I don't know how many of you were encouraged by the concerns and information we presented, but, please, understand that we were offered nothing by the U.S. government in this instance and, based on decades of POW/MIA activism/advocacy, anything we might have been given would have been scrutinized very carefully and required corroboration by multiple sources before being accepted as fact.
The family's request for privacy was honored every step of the way, but limited opportunity for direct communication, also, made this journey much more difficult. Our efforts were apolitical and coincident with the founding goals of this organization: The return of all live American POW/MIAs, repatriation of the remains of those who have not survived, and comprehensive explanations for cases where the previous two options do not exist.
Once Bowe was listed as a Prisoner of War, our responsibility was clear, and we pursued it with vigor, and an American soldier came home.
Bowe made it home amid a barrage of information from every possible corner. To date, separating fact from fiction remains a herculean endeavor. He faces an exhaustive journey the result of which remains unknown. But one fact is certain: His life and those of his family and loved ones have been altered forever.
I will never know what part the Network played in this entire process, but I remain firm in my belief that we adhered to the dictates of our organization and I neither regret our involvement nor offer any excuses. Our stance remains solid and unaltered. Should another American in uniform find himself/herself in enemy hands — and I hope they won't — our response will be one of focused, unrelenting resolve.
Giving up is not a choice.
Donald C. Amorosi, President
The Northeast POW/MIA Network
South Glens Fall, N.Y.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 01 July 2014 10:20
To The Daily Sun,
HR Bill 7311 is legislation that allows all the illegals to come here and to stay here. This was written by a Chris Smith (R-N.J.). Who signed it? It was G.W. Bush (R) who signed three bills, starting in 2002 with the Homeland Security Act, expanded it in 2005 and expanded it again in late 2008 when he was leaving office and "nobody" would notice it. These all helped with the resettlement and protection of immigrants to the point where we cannot make them leave. Both the House and Senate passed these bills. The House by a voice count so nobody will know who vote for or against it, and the Senate it was a unanimous "yes" vote.
The confusion with Obama was because of the green cards and instant citizen provisions he had for younger kids, age 7, that were here and stayed. Now everyone thought they would get the same treatment, so they come and we, by law, have to keep them until they are 18.
The 2008 version was called the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. Wilberforce was an early 1800s English antislavery advocate. It also provided $80 million to investigate and prosecute those that traffic in the commercial sex acts from 2008-2018. It was supposed to reduce our deficit by $2 million, by 2008 estimates. Luckily for the Dems, it was passed under the GOP or can you imagine the screaming by Izza.
But in reality both sides are to blame but I feel there is more blame by the GOP than by the Democrats just because they wrote and signed it.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 01 July 2014 10:10
To The Daily Sun,
After stumbling across the letters section of the paper the other day, I happen to notice the letter entitled "Time to reduce administrative costs for Gilmanton School' and felt compelled to comment.
For one, I am the homeowner to which this letter refers. My husband and I bought this property in 2002 and have made improvements to this circa 1836 home ever since. Our love, blood, sweat and tears have gone into this home, but it is our time to move on ... to build the dream home we have always wanted. In that light, I feel compelled to assuage any concerns that may have arisen due to this letter in question, specifically the "fancy" and "expensive" part.
My husband and I have remained steadfast in providing a wonderful space for the school employees at a very reasonable cost and, although my husband takes great pride in the carpentry work he does, he would likely not describe the work done here as fancy. We have worked hard to maintain our home and take great pride in our gardens and landscaping, but to go to the extent to call it fancy, well I suppose that may be subjective, but just plain not true. Yes, we are trying to sell, but please do not make this an opportunity to throw your hard working school employees under the proverbial bus.
As far as security issues, we haven't the faintest idea what that is about. We live here, so if there is or ever were a security issue, we would know about it. The office is provided locks for all the doors and windows, including an extra lock for the superintendent's office. We have inspected the things that need inspecting, and lighted emergency signs and fire alarms are hardwired into the building. I have two small children and it is well within my and my husband's best interest to keep them safe.
The SAU office moved into the space occupying the first floor of our home shortly after we purchased it and made significant improvements to accommodate the office in 2002. I understood at the time, the SAU employees needed the extra space in order to function properly and efficiently. The cramped quarters at the Town Hall proved inefficient and underserved the needs of the work environment. It is also my understanding that options to house the office at the school were evaluated as well and found it also to be lacking in space.
Additionally, I understand that presently, a Space and Needs Committee is at work in order to meet the overcrowding issues at the school. With that said, I cannot see how moving the SAU office to that location makes any logistical sense. Whether you agree or disagree with the presence of an SAU office for the Gilmanton School, from what I can see, hear and take in, it is certainly needed.
And lastly, while I understand the concerns tax burdens have on many citizens, it would be against everyone's best interest as a community, to start eliminating needed services our tax monies provide without first fully understanding the role of a particular service. To simply say it is unneeded is inherently unfounded. This stands true in terms of what our school provides as well as our what our roads crew, fire and police force provide.
Sara Woods Kender
Last Updated on Tuesday, 01 July 2014 10:06
To The Daily Sun,
Recent letters have referred to my comments at the June 16 public hearing regarding the legality of the request for bonding by the Belknap County Commissioners. At the hearing I read to the delegation the portions of the RSAs that prohibit bonding for the purposes intended. My comments were quickly followed by another representative who said she favored the advice from the bond counsel over mine and then by Commissioner Philpot who said that "the bond counsel did not object to the bond request". The vote followed and failed by a 7-9 vote.
I was skeptical and didn't think any bond counsel would endorse the use of bond funds for the purposes stated in the bond request. So I have obtained a copy of the advice by the bond counsel. There are nine items of advice. They are limited to requirements for appropriate notices of the public hearing, minutes of public hearing and and commissioners' meetings, debt limit certificate for county, and certificate regarding county's outstanding debt. They do not address at all the proposed uses of the bond funds. It appears that the bond counsel was not asked if the planned uses of the bond funds were legal. So the statement that "the bond counsel did not object" is accurate (but misleading).
Determination of legality of uses for bonds is not complicated. It is spelled out in simple language in the law. RSA 33:3, Purpose of Issue of Bonds or Notes: This RSA says "a municipality or county may issue bonds or notes for..." (a lengthy list of types of uses) "...of a permanent nature..." . It goes on: " ... A municipality or county shall not issue bonds or notes to provide for the payment of expenses for current maintenance and operation, ...".
Leasing a temporary building for three years is not "of a permanent nature". Paying over 10 years for a use of something for three years is not only poor fiscal management, it is illegal.
In many forums in which I've been involved at federal, state, and municipal levels, this topic has come up many times, often by a new legislator. It has generally been accepted that "permanent" is satisfied by ensuring that the item bonded has a useful life longer than the term of the bond.
RSA 33:3-c, Issue of Bonds for Preliminary Expenses: In great detail, it allows for certain planning and design items, which would include that being proposed, a schematic design; however, it also says that the bonds "shall mature over a period of not more than five years unless they are issued at the same time as bonds or notes for the public work or improvement for which such expenses were incurred...".
In other words, it is okay to use bond funds for planning and design work if it is part of the bond that is approved to finance the facility itself. This procedure is done frequently. But preliminary design by itself, to get the conceptual design, must be done out of operating funds. That is what Belknap County has done to date. But if it is necessary to augment the accepted conceptual design done by Ricci-Greene, to perhaps reduce the estimated cost, it has to be funded with operating funds or with bonds from the overall project funds.
It's very easy to see the entire RSAs. Google NH RSA 33:3.
But no proposal by the commissioners for these purposes came up during the lengthy operating budget deliberations from December 2013 through March 2014. (according to newspaper reports, the ideas in the June 2014 bond request were already established in late 2013).
It is disappointing that the commissioners would propose something without reading the relevant law that authorizes bonding. It is disappointing that seven representatives, including two lawyers, would vote for it in spite of having the law read to them just prior to the vote.
NH Representative, District 3
Last Updated on Tuesday, 01 July 2014 09:59