To the editor,
I am compelled to respond to several articles that ran in the last week or so in both The Sun and The Citizen, because it has become obvious that the local media just cannot get the facts straight, or more likely, the people that have been interviewed is skipping the facts to push a political agenda born out of bitterness. Yes, once again I am talking about fire trucks!
About 10 days ago, Gilford's Engine 2 was towed, leaving Gilford without a primary attack engine, as Engine 4 is still up in Tamworth having the pump installed. This could have been avoided if the Fire Engineers and the selectman just obeyed the will of the voters and repaired Engine 4 after the warrant article for its replacement was rejected at the March 2012 Town Meeting. Instead they let the truck sit in disrepair for another six months while they played politics with public safety by trying to take a second bite out of the same rotten apple. Had the repairs commenced in March rather than October there would not be an issue today because Engine 4 would be available. Also even if the voters approved a new engine in March the likelihood is that Gilford would not take delivery until this March at the earliest as E-ONE has a 10 month back log and a two month production time on custom chassis pumpers (that's 12 months, Bill).
The paper quoted Fire Engineer Chief Akerley as saying Engine 2 is a 2002 and is 11 years old, and Engine 4 is a 1987 and is 27 years old. But in reality Engine 2 has just turned 10 as it is a 2003 model year, and Engine 4 is a 25 year old 1988 model. When we first started talking about Engine 4 a mere 14 months ago, both Mr. Akerley and Chief Carrier described it as being 23 years old (I have video of this). . . and now, 14 months later, they are publicly exaggerating the age to be 27! Wow! This truck aged four years in 14 months. . . NO. . . but I feel like I've aged quite a bit during that same time period!
Also what was not reported at first, and has only started to dribble out, is that this truck was damaged during the 1.9 mile tow. What has not been reported was that Chief Carrier authorized the wrecker operator to tow this truck in an illegal manor. RSA 266:64 states that all towed vehicle must be fitted with a tow bar, the only exception would be for emergency tow of less than 1 mile, and the law also does not allow for the use of a tow strap, such as was used in this case. When the wrecker operator couldn't figure out how to hook up to this truck he proposed disconnecting the driveshaft and flat towing the truck (with all wheels on the ground), while someone rode in the disabled Engine 4 with the engine running to steer and operate the brakes. Now you don't have to be a truck expert to know how unsafe this is. Mr. Pat LaBonte a man with over 50 years of experience dealing with heavy trucks was present and advised that this was not safe or legal, and could potentially damage the vehicle further if the transmission was to engage and spin the driveshaft. He was right on all accounts; unfortunately his advice fell on the deaf ears of Chief Carrier, who told Mr. LaBonte that as chief, HE would decide what is best. Well the chief's poor judgments has caused severe damage to the anti-lock braking system, air lines and fittings, a universal joint, and potentially even the driveshaft and transmission. Way to go chief!
The chief, Mr. Akerley, and their pet selectman, John O'Brien, had a lot to say in the papers, placing the blame on the voters and indirectly on Mr. LaBonte and me. They claimed that if the voters only listened to the experts we wouldn't be in this situation. Well the problem with that is that a locksmith, attorney, and retired coast guardsman, can hardly be considered truck "experts". And considering Chief Carrier's reckless approach to decision making when it comes to the trucks, I would argue that he is novice at best.
Remember all that talk about how the chief was spearheading change down at the firehouse and they were putting a comprehensive preventative maintenance program in place that includes daily vehicle inspections? Well that hasn't happened! The chief now claims that as emergency vehicles his trucks are exempt from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rules. How do I know? Because that's what he told me a few weeks ago when I inquired how they could have missed a major deficiency that Mr. LaBonte and I discovered on the tanker truck that rendered it unsafe and illegal to operate on public roads. We had to persuade the reluctant fire chief to send this truck to the DPW to be repaired. It's a good thing we discovered that before GFD had three trucks down at the same time.
On another note, Mr. LaBonte and I had a chance to inspect Engine 4 prior to it being sent out to have the pump installed. We are both extremely pleased with the quality of the DPW mechanic's work. They re-engineered the cab mounting system so the cab will now be able to flex independent of the chassis. They replaced the brakes, springs, tires and a cross-member. They had the radiator and heater core re-cored. They relocated an air tank and associated air lines. They re-wired much of the truck and fitted it with all new LED lights. The best part is they spent only about $14K. . . not $70K as Selectman O'Brien falsely claimed. The pump will cost $36K as the Fire Engineers decided on the most expensive option and were not even open to any alternatives that could have saved the tax payers some money. In the end the town will have spent about $50k to rebuild this truck and reverse years of neglect. I seem to remember the estimate being as high as $150k. . . but that came from the "experts".
I truly believe that the town did the absolute right thing by rebuilding Engine 4, when it is done I predict that it will be the best truck GFD has and would be ready for frontline service once again.
Kevin Leandro
Gilford

To the editor,
Terrible news out of Chicago this morning. AP reports story: "Mother looses 4th child to gun violence", reads the caption on Yahoo News. Wonder if the caption should have read, "Mother looses 4th child to criminal gangs?" No I suppose not, that would take the focus of the liberal lefts drive to blame honest, law abiding gun owners as the problem, you know those folks who commit just 0.2 percent of violent crimes.
Much better to look like they are trying to do something then actually do something. That way they have the issue to run on next cycle. Real Democrats must be very proud?
Steve Earle
Hill

To the editor,
In accordance with the requirements of SB-2, Gilmanton held its Deliberative Session on the town budget on Saturday, February 2.
141 voters or 6 percent of the registered voters, about half of the usual attendance at Town Meeting, attended and the session was quiet but productive. Voters were able to hear from the Budget Committee, the selectmen, and the fire and police chiefs and make informed decisions about the town's finances. Some articles were amended to $0 after discussion of whether funds were actually needed.
141 voters decided for all of us what will be on the ballot on March 12.
Please attend the Deliberative Session for the school budget on Saturday, Feb. 9 at 10 a.m. at the Gilmanton School. The school budget needs the attention and scrutiny just as the town's budget did, with the goal of keeping our taxes under control.
Remember that more than 60 percent of your tax dollars goes to fund the school. The current budget has been created by the administrators, none of whom live in our town or are impacted by the projected tax increase.
Be part of the group that determines what will be on the school ballot on March 12.
It's your money.
Joanne Gianni
Gilmanton Iron Works

To the editor,
I enjoyed the letter from on Mr. Rogers in Saturday's Sun. His is typical of the of the "good people against bad guns" mentality. Since he has offered his opinions on the subject, let us explore his thought process a bit.
All of the hysteria against AR-15's began with the hideous Newtown School attack. We were told from the outset that a scary Bushmaster rifle was used so we must get rid of them. That was a the first big lie that has been perpetuated and never challenged. The truth is that the insane shooter used four common handguns for his rampage, the rifle was found afterward in the trunk of his car, unfired. This inconvenient fact did not support the argument for new sweeping gun control laws so it has been ignored. We can't hold this against you Mr. Rogers as you, like most people, want to believe that we are getting the straight story from our government and our news reporters. Most of your other facts are indeed accurate, however based on the Big Lie. People are indeed buying up all manner of guns and ammunition as if preparing for war. Many new gun owners have limited experience with them true, but that does not make them bad people, when their motive is to protect themselves, their family, their neighborhood and their country from attack by common criminals and other enemies, foreign or domestic. These are all legitimate purposes to own military style weapons as described in Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. This is what was intended to be an unalienable guarantee in the U.S. Constitution, that no matter how small of a minority an individual may find themselves in, even if they are the only one who chooses to exercise that option, that no one can take that away from them. And many millions of Americans have submitted to personal background investigations and paid good money to legally own their guns.
So Mr. Rogers, based on your incorrect understanding of the law and being duped by lies and misinformation, you have concluded that no one should own certain types of firearms and therefore the government should "buy them all back", and that will make everything okay again. Let us continue with your line of thinking and how that might play out. And let's use me as an example of the gun owner that I have just described. So the government passes a law which I have understood all of my life would violate my civil rights, and says that I must give up my gun for which they will pay me some money. And what if I tell them no, my guns are not for sale and Ill just keep them but thanks for the offer. Now Mr. Rogers, how far are you willing to go with this? If it were up to you, would you favor having me be raided by heavily armed soldiers or police, and perhaps have me and members of my family shot and killed in the name of public safety? If the government were to declare war on otherwise peaceful gun owners, how many people like me would it be acceptable to kill or put in prison for refusing to submit? Do you really think Americans would tolerate such attacks by our own government or would it light the fuse on a civil war? How many? Would you yourself risk your life and your family to disarm the rest of us? Think carefully on your answer, and remember, I'm just minding my own business, enjoying my hobby and bothering nobody. You are the one that is threatening me.
Alan Moon
Tilton