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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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

 

Gilford superintendent should not be influencing voters

To The Daily Sun,

State law, RSA 659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees states:

I. No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties.

II. No public employee shall use government property or equipment, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering.

III. For the purposes of this section, "electioneer'' means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office.

IV. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Why is this important? Because, this is the law that Gilford Superintendent Kurt Beitler has been consistently and knowingly violating. During the Gilford School Deliberative Session Mr. Beitler made several public comments designed to "to influence the vote of a voter on a question."

While speaking on the petitioned warrant article that seeks to shift the development of default budget to the Budget Committee rather than the School Board, Mr. Beitler stated, "in my opinion this petitioned warrant article would remove much need checks and balances." Yeah, that was stepping over the line into the very definition of electioneering by public employees as he made these statements publicly and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools.

I made Mr. Beitler aware of this statute during a phone conversation we had approximately a week prior. I warned him to stay professional and not to sway into the politics. He ignored my request. Immediately upon the conclusion of the Deliberative Session I approached him and showed him the text of the law that he just violated. He spoke with the district's attorney Gordon Graham who told me that Mr. Beitler is not a public employee by the definition of the law as he was appointed to his position by the School Board. RSA 273-A:1 defines what is a public employee. It exempts employees appointed by the "Chief Executive" (a mayor or governor). The same statute states that a School Board is an "executive Body" not a "Chief Executive."

Kurt Beitler is indeed a public employee as defined by RSA 273-A:2 and he is subject to the Electioneering by Public Employee laws. Gordon Graham is known for his creative, yet faulty interpretations of the law, and he is wrong again.

The day following the Deliberative Session, State Rep. and Budget Committee Chair Norm Silber, himself a very accomplished attorney, wrote to Mr. Beitler explaining that he violated this statute and requested the he cease and desist such activity. Mr. Beitler has now doubled down, making his same misguided opinion part of a public document that was passed out during the Public Hearing on the Citizens Petitioned Warrant Article, and posted on SAU 73's website. Using government assets to publicize this opinion, even at the request of the School Board is a direct violation of the Statute.

The School Board should immediately censure Mr. Beitler and these repeated infractions of the law should affect his future employment. But the real problem is that the School Board approves of all of this. It is time for real leadership at the School Board!

Kevin Leandro

Gilford

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 376

End of plowing for private roads would hurt town’s tax base

To the Editor:

On Feb. 16, the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen announced that it had received an Opinion of Counsel indicating that they may be compelled to terminate plowing of so-called private roads.

The statement from the board chair, only found in the board's minutes of that meeting, states, "Having consulted with our town attorney, it is our understanding that the law does not allow for the use of public funds to pay for plowing private roadways. This is also the opinion of the attorney for Laconia, which is also investigating the issue. The board is actively exploring current statutory options that may be available, and, in cooperation with the City of Laconia's attorney, the legal staff at the NHMA and others, the possibility of seeking the creation of new legislation that may permit the use of funds for such a purpose under certain circumstances."

Due to the likelihood that the town would terminate snow plowing on town-identified private roads after this winter, I sent a letter on Feb. 2 that asked 11 questions. In the interest of full public disclosure, I am reproducing below the questions and troubling answers provided by the vice chairman of the board:

1. I hereby request the full opinion of counsel pursuant to RSA 91-A:4 1-a IV as the Chair has read the substance of the opinion and thus waived any attorney/client privilege.
A: On the advice of counsel, the opinion letter will not be released.

2. When did the BoS receive this opinion?
A: Jan. 23, 2017

3. Please advise who created and maintained the Index of Roads found on or about Jan. 15, 2017; when it first was created and who developed it (List of Private and Town roads)?

A: Date created is not noted and therefore unknown, we believe former DPW Agent Scott Kinmond organized it in its current form.

4. Please advise if the dimensions (feet and miles) in the Index of Roads reflects linear length or lane mileage length (in other words are wider roads shown as double length)?

A: Not sure, appears to be in linear length.

5. Is it the intention of the town to plow roads during the winter of 2017-2018?

A: Unknown at this time.

6. Why if the town and its counsel believe state legislation is required to continue plowing so-called private roads, did counsel and the town not release the opinion and seek legislation for the 2016-2017 legislative session, instead of waiting until February 16 to disclose the opinion of counsel? As the board should know, the deadline for introducing proposed legislation for the current session of the legislature has passed.

A: The deadline had passed before the opinion was received.

7. What relationship to counsel's opinion on plowing private roads was the BoS's proposal to amend BoS Policy 2 (enhanced recommended minimums for private roads)?

A: None

8. Why does the town label certain roads as "private" on road signs, yet on others not indicate such even though they are listed as "private" in the Index of Roads?

A: Don't know. What signs are you asking about?

9. Please provide the cost of plowing so-called "private" roads for the winter of 2015-2016?

A: $95,280. This does not include the cost of highway department plowing, sanding, salting and winging back labor and materials.

10. If the town is legally precluded from plowing so-called "private roads, will the town still provide, fire, police and ambulance service to residents and property owners on such roads?

A: Yes, whenever conditions allow.

11. Why won't the town consider providing plowing services to all Class 6 and "private ways" pursuant to RSA 231:59a as a solution to this problem (repair of "class VI roads and "ways")?

A: The board is considering all options as solutions to this problem.

As the sparse and unsatisfactory answers to these questions will impact all residents and property owners, it should be noted that if the town ceases to provide "private road" plowing services, the ability of residents and property owners on such roads to obtain mortgage financing and insurance would be significantly impacted. If emergency services are curtailed or eliminated to more than half the roads in Moultonborough (see answer to Question 10), there will be substantial reductions in the tax assessment value of the vast majority of highly assessed waterfront properties on private roads that funds a substantial portion of the town's tax base.

Eric Taussig

Moultonborough

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 219