Month: March 2020

By S.D. Plissken | March 21, 2020

A Milton official got up on his hind legs this past year to misinform the Board of Selectmen (BOS) that they have “The Power” to “prudentially manage” the affairs of the town, and that their use of that Power is unquestionable.

Of course, he was fundamentally wrong, and wrong in several ways. The “American system” is based upon the Lockean principle that sovereignty resides in the people, who lend it only to a government of their choosing, and that they do so for a very few limited purposes. Should that government fail, or otherwise abuse its people, such that it loses its their support, it does not just go merrily along unquestioned. Sovereignty reverts instead to those that lent it.

Both the Federal and New Hampshire constitutions acknowledge this. The New Hampshire one is actually clearer and firmer than the U.S. Constitution in setting forth its terms. Parenthetically, I witnessed this last year – with some displeasure – a New Hampshire judge override a witness who cited their rights as set forth in the NH Constitution. The judge translated for the record the witness’ words – and their meaning – into terms of the less protective US Constitution. There was a presiding “NH” judge denying the very constitution that authorized his actions. That judge needs to be both questioned and perhaps recalled. (Time to elect judges?).

Many have asserted, with some underlying logic, that groups of people can not assert aggregate rights and powers that they do not possess themselves as individuals.

Consider, if you will, the well-known “How Many Men?” progression, or reductio ad absurdum, that illustrates their point.

1. Is it a theft if I take my neighbor’s twelve-pack of toilet paper (“ripped from the headlines!”) – or any other resource belonging to them – at gunpoint?
2. Is it a theft if five or six of us take my neighbor’s resources at gunpoint?
3. Is it a theft if twenty or a hundred of us agree together – let us call it an election – to take my neighbor’s resources at gunpoint, and then do so?
4. Is it a theft if the group votes to take my neighbor’s resources at gunpoint, but allows that neighbor to vote too?
5. Is it a theft if the group, now including the neighbor, votes to take the neighbor’s resources at gunpoint, but gives some of them to some other, less fortunate neighbors?

And so on. Obviously, Step One is an outright theft, but at which step did it cease to be so? How did a group of people somehow acquire the “right” to commit thefts that would be crimes if perpetrated by them individually? Those making this argument – we might think of them as logical purists – claim that this progression to superhuman rights is just “magical thinking.” Groups do not have and can never acquire any aggregate rights above those possessed by them as individuals, and that their actions remain forcible thefts throughout the progression.

George Washington is credited with having observed honestly (he could not tell a lie) that “Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant – and a fearful master.” Effectually, he acknowledged the underlying force employed, warned against it, and went on to use it nevertheless.

If we were to be less pure than the purists, and join George in putting aside moral questions of forcible theft and try to go on nevertheless, what are the limits?

Obviously, the cleanest course of action would be achieving consensus – everyone agreeing unanimously on what needs to be done or spent. No force at all would be required if a consensus could be achieved.

From there, the lesser next option would be gaining some sort of overwhelming majority. However, it must be acknowledged that such a majority would be forcing its will upon a minority. (“Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”).

The constitutions mentioned above seek to limit the types of things that might be forced upon an unwilling minority, even forbidding some altogether. (“Shall make no law” and “Shall not be infringed”). Of course, governments try always to redefine or extend their limits beyond those paper walls. (It remains a well-known legal principle that unconstitutional laws are not laws at all).

Bringing this back down to our particular patch of earth, Milton officials should tread quite lightly indeed. None of them have received anything like an overwhelming majority. (Not entirely their fault). Most hold their offices through bare majorities of a minority of the electorate. Some hold their offices through having received minorities of that minority. And some have been appointed to their positions by others whose own mandates are not particularly strong. These “mandates,” if we may call them that, should not be overstated or extended very far at all.

Given that all of that is true, one might expect them to restrict themselves to managing a minimal government at the lowest possible cost. Grand views of “prudentially managing” the property and lives of others should be entirely out of the question. (“Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want will be powerful enough to take from you everything you have”).

For some years now, Milton officials have gone inexplicably in quite the other direction. They have been voting unanimously for measures and expenses that do not enjoy anything like unanimous support from those they purport to represent, quite the contrary in fact. They just last week discovered their error. (Yes, a bit slow in the uptake). Should they fail to set a truer course going forward, one imagines they might find themselves facing default budgets for years to come.

A reasonable course correction would have them disgorging most of their hoarded “fund balance” as tax reductions. Most of the proposals for which they took it got rejected anyway. After that, they should make certain that it never again resembles a dragon’s hoard, by adjusting the percentage through which it is forcibly taken downwards, way downwards.

Likely, that would require extending their CIP acquisition timelines much further out. (Assuming that a CIP plan that needs a dragon’s hoard to sustain it is not simply dismantled altogether, which is a distinct possibility).

It would require some planning on their part, some actual planning that takes into account what the least among us can afford. Otherwise, it would just be theft.

By Ian Aikens | March 17, 2020

Does voting really count? Why bother to vote? These are questions that came to mind recently when I read the text of House Bill 1309. It would amend current law by adding in the following: “Unless restricted by any provision of law, the vote on a petitioned warrant article shall be binding upon the town” and “Unless restricted by any other provision of law, the vote on a petitioned warrant article shall be binding upon the school district.” So, what’s the issue here? If voters approve a warrant, then it becomes law, right?

Not necessarily. It turns out some towns and school boards are totally ignoring the will of the voters. There are several examples of this outrage, but for brevity, I will concentrate on only two instances here. The Newfound Area School Board dismissed as a “giant hindrance” petitioned warrant Article 5, which passed by a margin of 921 to 625 on March 12, 2019, that would have required large capital improvements to be approved by voters in separate warrant articles. On April 9, 2019, Merrimack voters passed, by a margin of 1,771 to 1,478, Article 8, which “seeks to require the following amendment to the “IKB Homework” Merrimack School Board Policy: “At the discretion of the individual teacher, homework assignments will be (1) collected, reviewed, and graded; and (2) the accumulative average of the semester’s homework grade will be counted towards the student’s total cumulative semester grade.” The school board had instituted a policy in 2017 that homework no longer counted toward students’ grades, and angry parents had presented the warrant article for the voters to decide. The school board ruled that the warrant was only “advisory in nature” and ignored it. A local parent filed a civil suit against the school board, but the New Hampshire Board of Education and New Hampshire Supreme Court both ruled in favor of the local school board. As is often the case, judges defer to bureaucrats over regular citizens.

I see a couple of issues here. The most obvious is who works for whom, and who bestowed the bureaucrats with divine knowledge? If you’re going to have representative government—and preferably a republican form that protects individual rights over mob rule—then obviously elected representatives need to listen to what voters have to say. Otherwise that makes a mockery of the whole process, and no wonder so few citizens bother to take the responsibility of voting seriously. Of course, with any issue, honorable people will disagree on the best way to do things, but majority approval for non-fiscal issues and super-majority approval of taxes are the generally accepted and tried-and-true ways to run a government in a civil society. Naturally, it would be best to have as few as possible of these critical areas in the realm of government and leave them up to individuals to decide their priorities—and fund them themselves rather than expecting their neighbors to fund them—but if you’re going to have government, elected representatives have to consider the folks they represent. If they don’t, you can always “throw the bums out” at the next election, but while they’re still in office, they can cause quite a bit of mayhem.

The school board’s attitude on homework is reflective of the dismal state of government schools these days. The board insists that homework is still required, but it just doesn’t count towards students’ grades. So why would students even bother doing it? No homework—what’s next? No grades? The standards just get lower and lower all the time. Why not let the teachers decide? In my time, homework was assigned to reinforce what was taught in school that day. It was also part of a curriculum that stressed time management, discipline, and personal responsibility. It is true that for the very bright, sometimes homework was more busy work than anything of real value, but in a one-size-fits-all compulsory education scenario, that’s inevitable. That’s all the more reason to expand school choice to accommodate individual needs, interests, and abilities.

But what about the less scholarly-inclined students who don’t fare so well in testing? Homework has always been their avenue to making it through school by boosting their grades. It’s generally accepted these days that testing isn’t always the best gauge of what a student actually learned, so why deny those kids the chance to succeed? Even more important, there’s an important life lesson to be learned by doing homework and having it count towards your grade: hard work is to be rewarded. And isn’t that how it is out in the real world? It’s not always the smartest that succeed the most, but those who apply themselves the most. There have been plenty of complaints already of students’ grades dropping due to the new school board policy, which has left some students at a disadvantage when competing for colleges and scholarships. Isn’t it strange that those who deride testing these days are the very same folks who would force the scholastically-challenged to rely more on testing for their grades? Strange or not, hypocritical or not, school board bureaucrats know better.

It is interesting that the school board was unanimous in deciding to keep the new policy, but the voters were about 55% to 45% in favor of going back to the old system. Clearly the bureaucrats felt one way and a significant portion of “the people” felt differently. Perhaps the bureaucrats truly believed they were doing what was “best” for the students and stuck to their guns. Or was it power lust? The truth of the matter is that there is no “best” way for all students, and any attempt to impose it will always give some students the short end of the stick.

By the way, the new homework policy instituted three years ago dictates that teachers may assign homework, and it must be “evaluated” by teachers, but “evaluated” does not mean graded. In my time, part of a teacher’s job was to actually read and grade homework. That was part of their homework. Should a labor contract dispute come up in the future, how convenient for government teachers to have their time freed up to walk the picket line for higher wages and benefits.

As always, I will see how Milton’s representatives vote on HB 1309, it if it ever comes up for a roll call vote in the state house. Unfortunately, the bill was “laid on the table” this past week, which doesn’t bode well for its passage. Apparently, school board bureaucrats and selectmen aren’t the only ones infected with authoritarianism virus.

---

References:

Bevill, Robert T. (2020, February 20). Why HB 1309 is So Important. Retrieved from bedfordresidents.com/bra/2020/02/20/why-hb-1309-is-so-important/

Caldwell, T.P. (2019, September 8). School Board Chooses To Ignore Voters’ Will. Retrieved from www.libertymedianh.org/school-board-chooses-to-ignore-voters-will/

Houghton, Kimberly. (2019, February 21). Merrimack’s debate on homework & grades continues to the ballot box. Retrieved from www.unionleader.com/news/education/merrimack-s-debate-on-homework-and-grades-continues-to-the/article_dadd8a85-83e1-51f4-bcb5-2a1d363e9bf9.html

LegiScan. (2020). HB1309: Relative to the effect of warrant articles. Retrieved from legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1309/2020

Markhlevskaya, Liz. (2019, May 7). Merrimack School Board In Legal Litigation Over Homework Policy. Retrieved from patch.com/new-hampshire/merrimack/merrimack-school-board-legal-litigation-over-homework-policy

Pecci, Grace. (2019, May 9). Homework policy still debated by area parents. Retrieved from www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/local-news/2019/05/09/homework-policy-still-debated-by-area-parents/

Teach 4 the Heart. Why You Should Grade Homework (But Not How You Think). Retrieved from teach4theheart.com/why-you-should-grade-homework-but-not-how-you-think/

By Muriel Bristol | March 14, 2020

The Milton Board of Selectmen (BOS) have posted their agenda for a BOS meeting to be held Monday, March 16.

The BOS meeting is scheduled to begin with a lengthy Non-Public session beginning at 4:00 PM. That agenda has one Non-Public item classed as 91-A3 II (a).

(a) The dismissal, promotion, or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him or her, unless the employee affected (1) has a right to a meeting and (2) requests that the meeting be open, in which case the request shall be granted.

This likely has to do with compensation, rather than the other possibilities, as the various additions and increases with which the BOS was “just fine” were not approved by the voters. A roll-call vote, presumably a secret one, on something or other is noted in the agenda.

The BOS intend to adjourn their Non-Public BOS session at 6:00 PM, when they intend to return to Public session.

---

The Public portion of the agenda has New Business, Old Business, Other Business, and some housekeeping items.

Under New Business are scheduled six agenda items: 1) Re-Organization of Board of Selectmen, 2) Swearing in of Newly-Elected Board & Committee Members, 3) Board of Selectmen Committee/Board Assignments, 4) Board of Selectmen By-Law Discussion, 5) 2020 Election and Warrant Article Results, and 6) Multi-Board Meeting (presently scheduled for April 6th).

Re-Organization of Board of Selectmen. In which the BOS determines who will be Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Swearing in of Newly-Elected Board & Committee Members. In which the newly-elected board and committee members swear to be agreeable.

Board of Selectmen Committee/Board Assignments: a) Budget Committee, b) Planning Board, c) Zoning Board of Adjustment, d) Economic Development, e) Recreation Commission, and f) School Board. In which the BOS members determine who will sit ex-officio (by virtue of their office) on the various boards and committees.

Board of Selectmen By-Law Discussion. In which the BOS determines whether or not to continue to run their meetings using the Chairman Thibeault™ method.

2020 Election and Warrant Article Results. Well, the BOS just got “told,” in the clearest possible manner. But they got told last year too. Perhaps this latest instructional experience may engender in them a desire to implement necessary reductions and reforms. Tune in to see.

Multi-Board Meeting (presently scheduled for April 6th). Likely a collective “What just happened?” spread across multiple boards and committees.

---

Old Business had no scheduled items.

---

Other Business That May Come Before the Board has no scheduled items.

There will be the approval of prior minutes (from the BOS Meeting of March 2, 2020), the expenditure report, Public Comments “Pertaining to Topics Discussed,” Town Administrator comments, and BOS comments.

---

The BOS meeting is scheduled to end with another Non-Public session. That agenda has another Non-Public item classed as 91-A3 II (a): investigation, discipline, dismissal, promotion or compensation of employees.

(a) The dismissal, promotion, or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him or her, unless the employee affected (1) has a right to a meeting and (2) requests that the meeting be open, in which case the request shall be granted.

Likely a continuation of the 91-A3 II (a) session with which they began the meeting. There is a lot to discuss. One might ask why it needs to be in secret.

---

Mr. S.D. Plissken contributed to this article.

---

References:

State of New Hampshire. (2016, June 21). RSA Chapter 91-A. Access to Governmental Records and Meetings. Retrieved from www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-3.htm

Town of Milton. (2020, March 13). BOS Meeting Agenda, March 16, 2020. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/sites/miltonnh/files/agendas/3.16.20_bos_agenda_0.pdf

Youtube. (1965). Cone of Silence. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA&feature=youtu.be&t=19

By Muriel Bristol | March 14, 2019

Milton had the second part of its annual School District election (the first being the Deliberative Session), on Tuesday, March 10, 2020.

Voter attendance of 813 was lighter than last year’s 1,047. One might suppose that Coronavirus concerns played a role.

School District offices appear first, followed by School District Warrant Articles. (Both are listed in the order of the percentages of votes received).

---

School District Offices (in Descending Order by Percentages Received)

In the prior year’s election, by a 593 (56.6%) vote in favor, the Article 11 of that year altered the School District Moderator, School District Clerk, and School District Treasurer terms from one year to three years.

School District Moderator – One for Three Years

Chris Jacobs won the seat with 655 (80.6%) votes. He ran unopposed. None-of-the-above received 143 (17.6%) votes and “Scattering” received 5 (0.6%) votes. (He received 668 (82.2%) votes in his unopposed race for Town Moderator).

School District Clerk – One for Three Years

Tammy J. Crandall won the seat with 631 (77.6%) votes. She ran unopposed. None-of-the-above received 175 (21.5%) votes and “Scattering” had 7 (0.9%) votes.

School District Treasurer – One for Three Years

Mackenzie Campbell won the seat with 610 (75.0%) votes. He ran unopposed. None-of-the-above received 197 (24.2%) votes and “Scattering” received 6 (0.7%) votes. (He received 616 (75.8%) in his unopposed race for Town Treasurer).

School Board Member – One for Three Years

Margaret “Peg” Hurd won the seat with 303 (37.3%) votes. Travis J. Corriveau received 289 (35.5%) votes, None-of-the-above received 117 (14.4%) votes, Lynnette McDougall received 100 (12.3%) votes, and “Scattering” received 4 (0.5%) votes.

***The School District has posted a notice that a recount of this School Board Member result will take place at the SAU #64 office at 6:00 PM on Monday, March 16. 2020.***

---

School District Warrant Articles (in Descending Order by Percentages Received)

Article 6: Air Handling System – Passed – 519 (63.8%) votes in favor, 221 (27.2%) votes opposed, and 73 (9.0%) votes for neither.

Article 8: Maintenance Truck – Rejected – 243 (29.9%) votes in favor, 505 (62.1%) votes opposed, and 65 (8.0%) votes for neither.

Article 13: AREA Agreement Study – Passed – 497 (61.1%) votes in favor, 251 (30.9%) votes opposed, and 65 (8.0%) votes for neither.

Article 9: Educationally Disabled Children Trust Fund – Rejected – 264 (32.5%) votes in favor, 483 (59.4%) votes opposed, and 66 (8.1%) votes for neither.

Article 12: Technology Expendable Trust Fund – Rejected – 275 (33.8%) votes in favor, 480 (59.0%) votes opposed, and 58 (7.1%) votes for neither.

Article 10: Building Maintenance, Repair, Renovation, and Capital Project Reserve Fund – Passed – 480 (59.0%) votes in favor, 266 (32.7%) votes opposed, and 67 (8.2%) votes for neither.

Article 11: School Bus Trust Fund – Passed – 461 (56.7%) votes in favor, 285 (35.1%) votes opposed, and 67 (8.2%) votes for neither.

Article 2: Operating Budget – Rejected – 298 (36.7%) votes in favor, 453 (55.7%) votes opposed, and 62 (7.6%) votes for neither.

Article 3: Collective Bargaining Agreement – Rejected – 311 (38.3%) votes in favor, 449 (55.2%) votes opposed, and 53 (6.5%) votes for neither.

Article 7: Vehicle Capital Reserve Fund Creation – Rejected – 314 (38.6%) votes in favor, 436 (53.6%) votes opposed, and 63 (7.7%) votes for neither.

Article 4: Article 3 Special Meeting – Passed – 399 (49.0%) votes in favor, 345 (42.4%) votes opposed, and 69 (8.5%) votes for neither.

Article 4: Library Media – Passed – 396 (48.7%) votes in favor, 354 (43.5%) votes opposed, and 63 (7.7%) votes for neither.

[Editors note: “Errors excepted”].

---

See School District Election Results for March 9, 2021 and School District Election Results for March 12, 2019. (See also Town Election Results for March 10, 2020)

---

References:

SAU #64. (2020, March 10). 2020-21 Election Results. Retrieved from www.sau64.org/sites/miltonnhps/files/uploads/election_results_0.pdf

By Muriel Bristol | March 11, 2020

Milton had the second part of its annual Town election (the first being the Deliberative Session), on Tuesday, March 10, 2020.

Voter attendance of 813 was lighter than last year’s 1,047. One might suppose that Coronavirus concerns played a role.

Town offices appear first, followed by Town Warrant Articles. (Both are listed in the order of the percentages of votes received).

---

Town Offices (in Descending Order by Percentages Received)

Zoning Board of Adjustment – One for Three Years

None-of-the-above received 805 (99.0%) votes. Steve Baker won with 8 (1.0%) write-in votes.

Budget Committee – One for One Year

None-of-the-above received 788 (96.9%) votes. Lawrence D. “Larry” Brown won with 11 (1.4%) write-in votes. Matthew S. “Matt” Morrill received 8 (1.0%) write-in votes, and Susan Marique received 6 (0.7%) write-in votes.

Cemetery Trustee – One for Three Years

Jonathan W. Nute won with 668 (82.2%) votes. None-of-the-above came second with 141 (17.3%) votes, and “Scattering” received 4 (0.5%) votes.

Moderator – One for Two Years

Chris Jacobs won with 668 (82.2%) votes. None-of-the-above came second with 143 (17.6%) votes, and “Scattering” received 2 (0.2%) votes.

Treasurer – One for One Year

Mackenzie Campbell won with 616 (75.8%) votes. None-of-the-above came second with 194 (23.9%) votes, and “Scattering” received 3 (0.4%) votes.

Supervisor of the Checklist – One for Six Years

Karen J. Brown won with 641 (78.8%) votes. None-of-the-above received 163 (20.0%) votes and “Scattering” received 9 (1.1%) votes.

Budget Committee – Two for Three Years

Lisa M. Gautreau and Lawrence D. “Larry” Brown won seats with 625 (76.9%) votes and 6 (0.7%) write-in votes respectively. None-of-the-above came in second with 187 (23.0%) and 807 (99.1%) respectively. Susan Marique received 2 (0.2%) write-in-votes.

Planning Board – One for Two Years

Brian Boyers won with 612 (75.3%) votes. None-of-the-above came in second with 182 (22.4%) votes, “Scattering” received 19 (2.3%) votes.

Planning Board – Two for Three Years

Jonathan W. Nute and Ryan Thibeault won seats with 479 (58.9%) and 475 (58.4%) votes respectively. None-of-the-above came in second in each race with 326 (40.1%) and 322 (39.6%) votes respectively. Scattering received 8 (1%) votes.

Library Trustee – One for Three Years

Anne Nute won with 470 (57.8%) votes. Lawrence D. “Larry” Brown came second with 282 (34.7%) votes, None-of-the-above came third with 60 (7.4%) votes, and “Scattering” with 1 (0.1%) vote.

Trustee of the Trust Funds – One for Three Years

Karen J. Brown won with 383 (47.1%) votes. Anne Nute came second with 338 (41.6%) votes, None-of-the-above received 90 (11.1%) votes, and “Scattering” received 2 (0.2%) votes.

Selectman – One for Three Years

Matthew S. “Matt” Morrill won the seat with 327 (40.2%) votes, Humphrey Williams came second with 252 (31.0%) votes, and Larry Brown came third with 192 (23.6%) votes. None-of-the-above received 41 (5.0%) votes and “Scattering” received 1 (0.1%) vote..

---

Town Warrant Articles (in Descending Order by Percentages Received)

Milton’s Board of Selectmen (BOS) might well ask themselves to what extent they were aligned with those they “represent.” Thirteen (56.5%) of the twenty-three warrant articles that they recommended – mostly unanimously – were rejected by the voters. Another (4.3%) warrant article that the BOS voted unanimously not to recommend passed. In terms of representation, it would seem that BOS proved to be “wrong” 60.7% of the time.

Article 3: School Resource Officer – Rejected – 217 (26.7%) in favor, 570 (70.1%) opposed, and 26  (3.2%) neither.

Article 16: Eradicate Invasive Species – Passed – 527 (64.8%) in favor, 243 (29.9%) opposed, and 43 (5.3%) neither.

Article 18: Elected to Appointed Fire Chief – Rejected – 251 (30.9%) in favor, 508 (62.5%) opposed, and 54 (6.6%) neither.

Article 24: Adoption of a Tax Cap (Submitted by Petition) – Passed – 505 (62.1%) in favor, 280 (34.4%) opposed, and 28 (3.4%) neither.

Article 19: Land or Roof Solar Lease Agreement Ratification – Passed – 505 (62.1%) in favor, 253 (31.1%) opposed, and 55 (6.8%) neither.

Article 20: Land or Roof Solar Lease Agreement AMENDMENT Ratifications – Passed – 489 (60.1%) in favor, 263 (32.3%) opposed, and 61 (7.5%) neither.

Article 11: Municipal Buildings Capital Reserve Fund – Rejected – 324 (39.9%) in favor, 469 (57.7%) opposed, and 20 (2.5%) neither.

Article 12: Milton Free Public Library Capital Reserve Fund – Passed – 466 (57.3%) in favor, 325 (40.0%) opposed, and 22 (2.7%) neither.

Article 5: Optional Tax Credit for Service-Connected Disability – Passed – 448 (55.1%) in favor, 338 (41.6%) opposed, 27 (3.3%) neither.

Article 6: Strafford Regional Planning Commission Membership Dues – Rejected – 342 (42.1%) in favor, 443 (54.1%) opposed, and 28 (3.4%) neither.

Article 4: Contingency Fund – Rejected – 344 (42.3%) in favor, 445 (54.7%) opposed, 24 (3.0%) neither.

Article 9: Highway Department Special Equipment Reserve Fund – Rejected – 354 (43.5%) in favor, 443 (54.5%) opposed, and 16 (2.0%) neither.

Article 10: Highway Department Capital Reserve Vehicle Fund – Rejected – 356 (43.8%) in favor, 441 (54.2%) opposed, and 16 (2.0%) neither.

Article 13: Technology Upgrade Capital Reserve Fund – Passed – 434 (53.4%) in favor, 362 (44.5%) opposed, and 17 (2.1%) neither.

Article 7: Highway and Road Reconstruction Fund – Rejected – 363 (44.6%) in favor, 428 (52.6%) opposed, and 22 (2.7%) neither.

Article 8: Fire Department Equipment and Capital Reserve Fund – Rejected – 360 (44.3%) in favor, 428 (52.6%) opposed, and 25 (3.1%) neither.

Article 22: Establishment of Heritage Commission – Passed – 426 (52.4%) in favor, 362 (44.5%) opposed, and 25 (3.1%) neither.

Article 2: Operating Budget – Rejected – 273 (33.6%) in favor, 421 (51.8%) opposed, and 119 (14.6%) neither.

Article 17: Establishment of Independent Capital Improvement Committee – Rejected – 345 (42.4%) in favor, 418 (51.4%) opposed, and 50 (6.2%) neither.

Article 15: Bridge Capital Reserve Fund – Passed – 416 (51.2%) in favor, 352 (43.3%) opposed, and 45 (5.5%) neither.

Article 21: Adopt RSA 41:11-a Governing Body Authority to Rent/Lease Town Property for Up to Five (5) Years – Rejected – 352 (43.3%) in favor, 410 (50.4%) opposed, and 51 (6.3%) neither.

Article 14: Geographic Information System – Passed – 406 (49.9%) in favor, 388 (47.7%) opposed, and 19 (2.3%) neither.

Article 23: Optional Tax Exemption: Solar, Wind Powered, Woodburning Systems (Submitted by Petition) – Rejected – 386 (47.5%) in favor, 399 (49.1%) opposed, and 28 (3.4%) neither.

---

See Town Election Results for March 9, 2021 and Town Election Results for March 12, 2019. (See also School District Election Results for March 10, 2020)

---

References

Milton Town Clerk. (2020, March 10). March 10, 2020 Town Election Results. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/sites/miltonnh/files/news/march_10th_2020_milton_election_results.pdf

Milton Town Clerk. (2019, March 14). March 12, 2019 Town Election Results. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/sites/miltonnh/files/news/march_12_2019_town_results.pdf