Dale Dormody

To the editor,

The two major issues facing Gilford this year — SB2 and the decision on a new library — are similar in that there are strong opinions and emotions on each side of each issue — for and against. Those in favor and thoseopposed each feel deeply about their position, their cause. When these strong feelings result in more compelling arguments, or help support serious and factual reasoning, they can further the public debate. Conversely, when they result in attempts to label the opposition's opinions as somehow less than worthy because they come from 'a town employee', or a 'relative of a town employee', or a 'regular library user', or 'a member of the Gilford Taxpayer association', or whatever — they detract from their cause, rather than support it. Over the past weeks we've had the opportunity to see the full spectrum, both positive and negative, from open and polite debate in public meetings to the "Oink-Oink's" of newspaper columnists.

So as the date of town meeting approaches, how does a resident who is not closely involved with either side go about getting the clear,fact-based information they need? Hopefully they have taken advantage of the many public meetings where the issues have been discussed in detail. If not, there are still a few places to find some unbiased facts.

Let's start with SB2. The most thoroughly researched and well-written summary of SB2 that I have found is in a lengthy report from the University of New Hampshire's Institute for Policy and Social Science Research entitled 'SB2 at 5: Bonds, Ballots, and the Deliberative Session'. Before reading this report, I was leaning towards SB2 — who could be against something that opens up the process to a larger number of residents and voters? As I read, however, I learned that while SB2 does go some distance towards that goal and has positive points, it is saddled with what the Institute calls a 'fatal flaw'. Specifically, the law allows attendees of deliberative sessions to — with a simple majority — make substantive amendments to what will ultimately be presented to the voters.

The Institute's factual research showed that a very small minority of residents attend deliberative sessions — far fewer than the number who attend town meeting. Yet that incredibly small number of people — as few as 10 or 20 — could conceivably kill a bond issue by removing all funding from it, leaving the 1,000 or 2,000 voters who show up on election day with no real decision to make. Instead of broadening the number of voters who make decisions on major issues, SB2 actually allows the opposite to occur. I would suggest that Gilford residents read this report. For those to whom this is important, it's not written by a Gilford town employee, or a Taxpayer Association member. It's clear, it's unbiased, and it's based on factual research.

Now the library. I think the best place to learn about the current library situation is by visiting the place. Find out where statistics on the growth of library usage come from and how they are calculated. Ask about whether the number of outstanding library cards includes inactive users. Check out the conditions. Look through their collection of materials. See where meetings are held. Find out how much space is taken up by computers, and CDs, and videos. Review the proposed new bulidingconstruction costs and the associated property tax impact. And then make up your own mind with information not solely based on input from either side, including those who haven't set foot in the library in years.

After reading SB2 reports and doing my own research, I decided to vote against SB2, and for the library. But that's just my opinion. I respect yours, and hope that whatever it may be, it is based on the facts.

Dale Dormody

Gilford