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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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

 

Controlling tuition shouldnt be pitted against paying faculty

To The Daily Sun,

The New Hampshire Community College system (CCSNH) is often called an essential component to our state's economic future. Several years ago SEA/SEIU Local 1984 supported CCSNH's break from being a state agency to becoming its own entity that, with support from the state, could better fulfill its mission as an academic institution that provides our residents with a quality, affordable, and accessible education. Doing so ensures we have a skilled workforce for our state's businesses and that our workers can compete in today's global economy.

This endeavor has been a tremendous success as CCSNH pursues the best options for the jobs of the future in that ever changing economy.

That success is largely due to the qualified and committed staff and faculty who make the Community College System work. They have kept up their end of the CCSNH mission by providing a high quality education to our residents.

The faculty educates students from the high school graduate to the mid-career changer. As instructors, they teach students with widely different levels of education, from non-traditional college students to traditional students looking to transfer to a larger college after two years, to older individuals looking to continue their education and gain new marketable skills.

Yet, as a state we are not fulfilling our part of the mission and are failing the students, faculty and staff. Our state leaders have been content with supporting our community colleges with the lowest level of state funding in the country, the highest in-state tuition and a faculty that sits in the bottom fifth of compensation nationally. Despite commendable efforts from Governor Hassan to increase funding for CCSNH, our Legislature has not responded well enough and we still languish near the bottom in state support and at the highest for in-state tuition costs.

While freezing or lowering tuition at our community college is critical for our residents to get ahead, it should not be pitted against being able to attract and retain a quality group of educators. While we attempt to hold down costs for our students, we increasingly shift toward utilizing adjunct rather than full-time faculty and the full-time faculty are seeing their workloads increase dramatically. All of these components threaten an institution that continues to deliver for our state, but over the long run will not succeed if we continue to place more strain on an overworked, under resourced staff.

The solution in not raising tuition, or continuing to do more with less. The path forward is one that holds up our end of the bargain and ensures the next state budget is one that can support a well-funded Community College system.

Richard Gulla

President SEA/SEIU Local 1984

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 186

Selectmen hijacked site study & turned it into a $6.5 mmillion plan

To The Daily Sun,

How did we get from a $17,500 site study to a $6.5 million Community Center complex?

As Moultonborough voters are faced with Article 2 at Saturday's Town Meeting, some of us are asking, how did we get from a $17,500 site study for a potential recreation building to a $6.5 million bond for a 20,000-square-foot all-purpose community center complex?

At 2014 Town Meeting, a small number of residents present voted to carry out the site study, to follow up on the Blue Ribbon Commission's now outdated recommendation to "pursue development of a facility that includes an indoor gymnasium, Recreation Department office, program and storage space that would be on existing school land or property adjacent to school facilities." The vote on Article 13 was 171 yes and 68 no, carried by 103 votes.

So when did this site study for a potential recreation building morph into a huge community center?

Looking beyond the slick presentations we've had pushed on us since early January to justify the community center, it's important to understand that the Selectboard made the decision to expand the scope of the project at a work session on Sept. 3, 2015.

At that September work session, which did not allow any public input, the Selectboard agreed to pursue a new community center building that would incorporate all the functions now at the Lions Club. This was contrary to earlier meetings during the summer where a modest recreation facility was discussed. Now that we know that gym usage numbers have been misrepresented, was this a deliberate move to disguise facts and market an unneeded recreation gym as a multi-use community center? Was this expansion of scope appropriate?

Did the Selectboard hijack Article 13 (site study for a recreation gym facility) with their decision to pursue a community center complex? We're being told to approve a $6.5 million bond and trust the Selectboard to work out the details later.

I urge voters to come to Town Meeting on Saturday, March 12, 9:30 a.m., Moultonborough Academy auditorium and vote "no" on Article 2.

Nancy Wright

Moultonborough

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 327