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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.


Board has ample opportunity to inform me I would not be heard

To The Daily Sun,

An open letter to the Gilmanton Board of Selectmen and the town administrator:

To say that I am a little dismayed regarding the board's decision not to follow through with my scheduled agenda meeting is an understatement. The board certainly cannot justify its stand on waiting until Mr. Jean returns by saying something about Mr. Jean "spearheading" and he needed to be present. Apparently, the board knew well in advance that Mr. Jean was going to be absent and was unsure when he would be returning.

The board had ample opportunity to contact me and advise me that I would be removed from the agenda. However, the board let me show up at the meeting, sit through all of the presentations, only to say to me when it was my turn that they wouldn't be meeting with me. This is just one example of the unprofessionalism in the Selectmen's Office.

For the record, of the six agenda items I mentioned, only one document was related to Mr. Jean and none of the others required his presence. As a matter of fact, it was Selectmen McWhinnie and Bishop who took it upon themselves to motion and vote to discontinue audiotaping of the selectmen's meetings. Mr. Jean was not present for the vote.

Secondly, job descriptions are a matter of public record and Mr. Jean did not need to be present for them to be made accessible to me. Whether or not the selectmen are working on new job descriptions is irrelevant, as I was asking for the current job descriptions on file and I am requesting they be provided to me.

My third question was related to missing attachments in transcribed minutes and was solved on Monday night. According to the minute taker, the missing attachments would be added right away.

Fourth item: Mr. Jean's presence was not required to discuss a discrepancy in the minutes as he was not the minute taker. The missing words "and adjourned" speak to a time stamp change and make the minutes misleading without the missing words.

Fifth item: I requested documents be provided from Mr. Branscombe's study of Lakes Region department head salaries. He referenced this research in the minutes of the April 4 meeting (page 5) and Mr. Jean's statewide pay scale document that he had also referenced in the April 4 meeting minutes (page 5). Regardless of whether or not Mr. Jean was present at the meeting, his document should be a matter of record at the Selectmen's Office and not something he is keeping in his bureau drawer at home. Whether or not he was present at the meeting, this document should have been made available to me. At the meeting I clearly asked Mr. McWhinnie for these documents and he refused to answer me. He kept repeating over and over his mantra — "we will discuss this when Mr. Jean gets back."

And finally, by Mr. McWhinnie not providing his study on how to cut 10 percent from the town budget is also a violation of the Right to Know Law. Unless, of course, he actually didn't do a study which I would find hard to believe as he was making repeated attempts (April 4 audio) to get the other two selectmen to agree to a 10 percent cut. A competent selectmen would not have randomly made such a recommendation without the research to back up his lobbying for a 10 percent cut to all town budgets.

Within the last month the selectmen attended two seminars regarding Right to Know Laws in New Hampshire. You must have been nodding off while in attendance because you have violated the Right to Know Law in not providing me with the above-mentioned documents. Even though you chose not to meet with me, these documents, under the law, still needed to be provided to me immediately.

As you repeatedly pointed out at Monday night's meeting, you will not be answering any questions unless someone is on the agenda. I adhered to your rules and met all requirements and was placed on last Monday night's agenda, yet you refused to talk to me and answer my questions (which had been submitted to you in advance). On Monday night I was told I needed to reapply to be placed back on the agenda. My request should still be a matter of record and I should automatically be placed on the agenda of the next selectmen's meeting. It should be noted that the board is currently meeting without Mr. Jean and was making decisions on all matters except mine. I don't think the board would be foolish enough to discriminate against one community member (or maybe they would be), as I have clearly pointed out Mr. Jean's presence is not needed for the board to hear my concerns. Your prompt written response will be appreciated.

Brenda Currier


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 426

Democrats are determined to take more of our liberties & property

To The Daily Sun,
Leftists (progressives, liberals, democratic socialists, or whatever they want to be called to hide their intentions), unrestricted as they are by facts, logic, history, or reality, often ascribe their own nasty characteristics to their opponents, e.g., that the TEA Party is fascist.
The leftists would probably prefer to call the TEA Partiers Nazis, which were perhaps 100 times worse than fascists, or Stalinists, which were even worse, but everyone knows that Nazis are socialist and Stalinists were communist and the leftists like socialism and communism.
The distinctions between fascist, socialist, communist, tsarist, emperor, and other absolute (right-wing or left-wing) dictatorships are only interesting to philosophers and academics tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head of pin. The distinctions are meaningless to the people whose freedoms, property, and lives are arbitrarily taken by government.
Liberty is essential to people desiring to achieve their dreams. The liberty spectrum is from full liberty (do whatever you want) to no liberty (dictatorship). But full liberty isn't stable because without some restraints you have anarchy; some people take other peoples' freedom, property, and/or lives as we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore.
Our nation's founders believed that people had certain inherent rights and that the purpose of government should be to protect those rights: from other people (to prevent crime/anarchy), from other nations (war), and against the biggest threat which is government.
To minimize the threat from government, they created our Constitution that defined a government with only those limited powers needed to protect people's liberties. The people and the states agreed to this limited (unless expanded by constitutional amendment approved by the people's state representatives) government and authorized it to govern in accordance with the Constitution.
Most government officials, including the president, swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath is intended to ensure that our federal government stays limited and fulfills its purpose of protecting the liberties of American citizens.
Unfortunately many politicians violate their oaths and have greatly expanded government powers to empower and enrich themselves. (This corruption has given rise to the popularity of anti-establishment candidates.)
Today's conservatives (sometimes called the "right" or "extreme right") advocate return to the limited government that protects the people's liberties. For this, conservatives are slandered by people who benefit from government infringement on people's liberties.
Today's leftists willingly sacrifice our liberties and property for their own benefit. (Our lives seem safe for now, although the government's leftists admire and aspire to murdered more than 100 million of their own citizens in the last century).
Leftists use government power to enrich and empower themselves, to suppress opposition (e.g., IRS oppression of TEA Party applicants), to control people (e.g., threats of prosecution against global warming opponents) and the use of their property (e.g., $30,000 daily fines for filling in depressions or creating ponds on people's own property).
Leftists want restrictions on the liberties and take the property of responsible Americans; for example, they try to take away our rights to self-defense; they consider our earnings to be the government's money, President Obama said the money we get to keep is government "spending through the tax code;" they try to suppress or outlaw speech they don't like, etc.
Leftists happily harm responsible hard-working Americans to advance their power, e.g., illegal immigration, Obamacare, and policies that destroy good American jobs. But leftists are lax on criminals, coddle rioters and leftist protesters, destroy families, trap people in poverty, and tolerate and often reward badly performing government programs, e.g., school systems, TSA, the VA, and IRS.
While conservatives fight for a return to government that maximizes people's freedom, property, and lives, leftists fight for more government control over people's liberties, property, and lives. As the government gains power, our nation moves further from the constitutional government our founders created to protect our liberties and closer to dictatorship
The results of nearly eight years of President Obama's leftist policies are in; the middle class is poorer, the rich are richer; people's free speech, religious liberties, protections against unreasonable searches, and other rights have been threatened or infringed; people's opportunities have been diminished; people's cost of living have risen; crime rates and terrorist threats have increased; and nations that threaten the well-being of the American people have become stronger.
Hillary Clinton promises four more years of President Obama's policies which will take away more of our liberty and property and take us closer to dictatorship.
Don Ewing

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 391