Category: Politics

Selectmen Try to Avoid Dancing a Pas-de-Deux

By. S.D. Plissken | September 20, 2018

Our Board of Selectmen (BOS) try so very hard to avoid dancing a pas-de-deux (a “step-of-two,” a ballet or part of a ballet, that features two dancers only) They seem to devote a considerable amount of their time trying to work this out.

Strictly speaking, whenever two of the three of them are together that constitutes a quorum and makes for an official BOS Meeting.

Most recently, Chairman Thibeault touted the Milton Historical Society in the BOS Meeting of Monday, August 20. Rightly so. (Just don’t buy them a new roof with public money).

Vice-chairwoman Hutchings would like to go too, but has difficulties:

Hutchings: Can I have a comment on that?

Thibeault: Sure.

Hutchings: Only because Bonnie … Dutton? … calls me, every time you all have a meeting, and asks me to go to the meeting. Because I’m a member. But, because I never know if you’re going to be there and, since two of us can’t be in the same room without calling it a meeting, what can we do to …

Administrator Thibodeau: Tell me if you’re going and I’ll post a meeting.

Hutchings: But, see, sometimes I don’t know. It depends on if there’s a conflict with another meeting … I mean, what, there’s got to be a way to get around this, so that …

Thibodeau: I have to post a meeting.

Hutchings: Can we just have a standard posting? Do you go to all of their meetings?

Thibodeau: Now you’re going to …

Thibeault: Pretty much, if I can, and now that I’m one of …

Hutchings: So, can we just do a standard posting of it?

Thibeault: … the people that was elected Tuesday, I will be at almost every one.

Thibodeau. Yes, now you’re, what, vice-chair or something, or …

Hutchings: I mean it does make it difficult, with a three-member board, if I’m a member of the Historical Society and, now you’re the chairman or whatever, it does … you know, I mean, it makes it hard.

Thibeault: No, we can, … I mean, we can post it … I mean, … it’s a 91-A. We just need to be very cautious.

Hutchings: Right, can we post it?

Thibeault: We can’t make decisions about the town or talk about town business.

Thibodeau: Don’t talk about town …

Hutchings: And I get that, but can we just put a standard “blanket”? Does it have to be that we’re both going to be there? What can we do to circumvent?

Thibodeau: Well, you could say you’re not going to talk about the town.

Hutchings: Well, that goes without saying. I mean, it’s the Historical Society. It’s a total separate entity.

Thibodeau: And you’re not going to make any decisions. But, if you’re very cautious …

Thibeault: If we post it … when we’re going to go … just post it. E-mail Heather and have her post it,  … just to be as transparent as we can. Again, it’s really not a meeting.

Hutchings: Right. Do we have a schedule of when you guys are meeting? Cause it seems …

Thibeault: I think it’s the second Tuesday. Or the first Tuesday, the first Tuesday of the Month.

Hutchings: The first Tuesday.

Thibeault: There’s probably going to be some adjustments.

They pretty much went around in a circle and arrived back at the start: posting every time they are in the same place as a meeting.

(By the way, Vice-chairwoman Hutchings, you might want to stay away from terms like “circumvent” and “get around” when you are talking about laws, even silly ones. Just a suggestion. It leaves a bad impression).

Consider the absurdity of it all. Hmm. We might even apply a logical reductio-ad-absurdum method or test to this process. Say two of the selectmen go to a pie contest or a parade or some other event. There are many people there, perhaps hundreds. The two selectman are standing together. Oh, well, that’s a meeting, definitely. Plain as the nose on your face.

How about if they move apart, say ten feet? Or different ends of the table? Well, they can still talk at ten feet. I guess the other people present there make it a more “public” meeting. We’re right here, we can hear you.

How about if they move further apart, say fifty or sixty feet? Or sit at different, widely-spaced tables. They could still shout something out, I suppose. Alright, let’s say they are on opposite ends of the crowd, hundreds of feet apart. They would have trouble communicating, even by shouting. Are they still in the same “meeting”? Obviously not, to think that would be absurd.

But if they moved closer together again? There’s a crowd there. How could we know they didn’t do that? Someone would have to watch them all the time. Or they would have to post it as a meeting.

How about if all the selectmen wore bodycams all the time instead? No, I suppose that’s a non-starter.

Is it time to expand the BOS to a five-member board? It might solve some of the smaller issues, like a Milton Historical Society meeting. The same problems would persist for larger public events. (Politicians tend to gravitate to large public events). The quorum number would just be bigger – three, rather than two. But a five-member board might have other advantages.

Lots of NH towns do have five-member boards instead of three-member boards. Even the residents of that other Milton – Milton, Massachusetts – discussed expanding their board last year (see References below). They mentioned better representation, spreading the workload, more heads being better than fewer heads, etc.

With five-member boards, two of them are a “subcommittee” instead of a “meeting.” And subcommittees could meet to hash out problems – you know, green eyeshade stuff – like reducing our tax burden.

Maybe a really efficient subcommittee could find and figure out how to return last year’s supposed $1.4 million tax overage? The full board seems unable to work that out. Not even in an unrecorded workshop meeting. They just dance away from it.

References:

Milton [MA] Scene. (2017, April 23). Opinion: Five Member Board of Selectmen. Retrieved from www.miltonscene.com/2017/04/opinion-five-member-board-selectmen/

Town of Milton. (2018, September 20). BOS Meeting, August 20, 2018. Retrieved from youtube/LfPichonEYQ?t=4117

Town of Milton. (2018, September 16). Special Meeting – Town Event. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/bos_agendas_826_1598026346.pdf

Town of Milton. (2018, July 4). Special Meeting – Town Event. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/index_759_2301862641.pdf

Town of Milton. (2018, June 9). Special Meeting. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/index_759_2301862641.pdf

Town of Milton. (2018, May 28). Special Meeting. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/bos_agendas_810_2871105304.pdf

Town of Milton. (2018, April 21). Special Meeting. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/bos_agendas_800_1356514139.pdf

Wikipedia. (2017, August 7). Pas de Deux. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pas_de_deux

Milton and the U.S. Constitution

By S.D. Plissken | September 17, 2018

Today is Constitution Day. Happy Constitution Day!

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. We encourage all Americans to observe this important day in our nation’s history by attending local events in your area. Celebrate Constitution Day through activities, learning, parades and demonstrations of our Love for the United State of America and the Blessings of Freedom Our Founding Fathers secured for us (Constitutionday.org, 2018).

Did you know that Milton voted against the U.S. Constitution in 1788? Yes, it did. Milton and Farmington were then the Northeast and Northwest parishes of Rochester. And Rochester voted against the proposed U.S. Constitution.

The United States were bound together loosely under the Articles of Confederation from 1778 onwards. By 1787, they were beset by monetary collapse, unrest, and even rebellion. Congress called for a convention in February 1787, to be held in Philadelphia, PA, for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” The convention opened on May 14, 1787, but could not assemble a quorum until May 25, 1787.

Shay’s Rebellion (1786-87) and other issues convinced a number of convention delegates that a stronger central government was needed. So, the convention wandered off its “sole and express” purpose and produced a complete replacement for the Articles, rather than a revision. (Some historians have described it as a “coup”). Some delegates left in disgust. Others voted against the replacement, but lost to the majority that voted in its favor. That vote took place on September 17, 1787 – now remembered as Constitution Day – and the convention adjourned.

Then began the great debate. Those in favor of the proposed replacement constitution were known as Federalists, while those opposed were known as Anti-Federalists. Much was said on either side and that debate was carried in local newspaper articles (and, as we have noted elsewhere, that which was said was said largely under pseudonyms). Newspapers of that time frequently copied (or “shared”) each other’s articles, so, through that mechanism, the various arguments were very widely seen.

The Constitution is considered now to have been almost divinely inspired. Its creators have been beatified as “the Founding Fathers.” Whatever possessed Rochester (and Milton and Farmington) to vote against it?

Rochester had 2,857 inhabitants (in 1790). It was the 25th largest city or town in the United States. That Rochester count broke down to 730 males aged 16 years or over, 740 males aged under 16 years, 1,386 females, and 1 slave. (The census enumerator (Joseph Hait) had to correct his original spelling of Rogester to Rochester. Oops).

(The last of Rochester’s six double-columned pages has the Milton names; there were about 345 people on that page. No slave. (Editor’s note: This 1790 view of Milton deserves further study)).

But Rochester was an inland city. (Dover is the head of navigation for the Cocheco River). It might have been the 25th largest city or town in the United States, but it was situated inland.

Most New Hampshire people lived inland, and they didn’t expect to benefit from maritime commerce. They didn’t like coastal merchants, either. They opposed the Federalists, because they feared a central government would concentrate power and destroy democracy.

After the Philadelphia convention adjourned and the debate had been joined, Delaware voted (30 (100%) to 0 (0%)) first to ratify on December 7, 1787, followed by Pennsylvania (46 (66.7%) to 23 (33.3%)) on December 12, New Jersey (38 (100%) to 0 (0%)) on December 18, Georgia (26 (100%) to 0 (0%)) on January 2, 1788, and Connecticut (128 (76.2%) to 40 (23.8%)) on January 9, 1788. Those were the easy ones.

Federalist NH Governor John Sullivan knew that the U.S. Constitution was unlikely to pass in New Hampshire. So, he engaged in a little jiggery-pokery. He recalled the state legislature to meet at the capital (then Exeter) in January 1788, when travel was difficult, especially so for delegates from the inland districts of the west and north. That favored the Federalists. That Federalist-packed legislature called for an early convention, in February 1788, while the weather would still be in their favor.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts voted (187 (52.7%) to 168 (47.3%)) sixth to ratify on February 6, 1788.

Despite the weather, strong Anti-Federalist opposition did arise at New Hampshire’s February convention. Many inland towns had bound their delegates in advance to a “no” vote. “Whipping” their votes – browbeating and logrolling – could not work. Elsewhere, New York’s governor came out in opposition. Opposition was building also in Pennsylvania and Virginia. That sustained the NH Anti-Federalist opposition. The Federalists adjourned the convention until June, in order to allow delegates to consult their towns again. They also jiggered the rules to allow state representatives and other Federalist officials to stand as delegates – sort of Super Delegates. And maybe the votes of other states would solve the problem in the meantime.

While they were out, Maryland voted seventh (63 (85.1%) to 11 (14.9%)) to ratify on April 28, 1788, and South Carolina voted eighth (149 (67.1%) to 73 (32.9%)) on May 23, 1788.

New Hampshire’s reconvened convention began to assemble at Concord’s Old North Meeting House on Wednesday, June 18, 1788. Only 90 of the expected delegates had arrived by that first day, 107 arrived by the second day, and 108 by the third day. Five more delegates were expected, but most of them (4-1) were known to be “no” votes. So, the convention voted to ratify without them on Saturday, June 21, 1788. It was not a landslide – 57 voted in favor (54.8%) and 47 voted against (45.2%). (Had they waited for the missing delegates, the result would have been the same, but with a narrower margin: 58 (53.2%) to 51 (46.8%)).

New Hampshire, being the ninth state to ratify, tipped the balance. The U.S. Constitution would go into effect.

After New Hampshire, Virginia voted (89 (53%) to 79 (47%)) to ratify on June 25, 1788, followed by New York (30 (52.6%) to 27 (47.4%)), North Carolina (194 (71.6%) to 77 (28.4%)), and, finally, Rhode Island brought up the rear (34 (51.5%) to 32 (48.5%)).

Vermont’s status remained nebulous. Both New York and New Hampshire claimed it. It was a sort of no-man’s land, outside of the new dispensation. (Persecuted Shay’s rebels found refuge there). It gained admission as the 14th state on March 4, 1791.

Ms. Muriel Bristol contributed to this article.

References:

Constitution Day. (2018). Constitution Day. Retrieved from www.constitutionday.com/

Constitution Society. (2018, September 7). The Anti-Federalist Papers. Retrieved from www.constitution.org/afp.htm

Harris, Emmett. (2014, July 13). Ratification in New Hampshire. Retrieved from www.fsp.org/ratification-new-hampshire/

New England Historical Society. (2018). New Hampshire’s Constitutional Convention Creates a New Nation. Retrieved from www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/new-hampshire-constitutional-convention-creates-nation/

Libby, Orin G. (1894, June). Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-8. Retrieved from teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/libby/#4newhampshire

U.S. Congress. (n.d.). The Federalist Papers. Retrieved from www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers

U.S. Constitution. (2018). New Hampshire’s Ratification. Retrieved from www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html

Wikipedia. (2018, August 18). 1790 United States Census. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census

Wikipedia. (2018, September 8). Articles of Confederation. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Wikipedia, (2018, July 25). The Anti-Federalist Papers. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers

Wikipedia. (2018, June 18). Constitution Day (United States). Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Day_(United_States)

Wikipedia. (2018, September 1). The Federalist Papers. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

Wikipedia. (2018, June 4). Jiggery-Pokery. Retrieved from en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jiggery-pokery

 

 

Non-Public BOS Session Scheduled (September 10, 2018)

By Muriel Bristol | September 7, 2018

The Milton Board of Selectmen (BOS) have posted their agenda for a BOS meeting to be held Monday, September 10.

The meeting is scheduled to begin with a Non-Public preliminary session at 5:00 PM. That agenda has eight Non-Public item classed as 91-A:3 II (c), 91-A:3 II (j), 91-A:3 II (j), 91-A:3 II (e), 91-A:3 II (j), 91-A:3 II (c), 91-A:3 II (a), and 91-A:3 II (c).

91-A:3 II (c). Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting. This exemption shall extend to any application for assistance or tax abatement or waiver of a fee, fine, or other levy, if based on inability to pay or poverty of the applicant.

The first, sixth, and eighth matters (the “c” items) appear to relate again to the recent tax abatement process.

In November, the BOS made a serious error in setting the 2017 tax rate. It affected all of the taxpayers, i.e., about 2,700 taxpayers, to a very large degree. Various figures have been given, ranging as high as $1.4 million. In December, the BOS suggested that those affected should file for abatements, which was a bit of shell game. An abatement fund of $20,000 could not possibly resolve an unauthorized tax levy of $1.4 million. This would be the third meeting that devoted agenda time to hearing abatements or appeals of rejected abatements.

91-A:3 II (j). Consideration of confidential, commercial, or financial information that is exempt from public disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, IV in an adjudicative proceeding pursuant to RSA 541 [Rehearings and Appeals in Certain Cases] or RSA 541-A [Administrative Procedure Act].

The second, third, and fifth items (the “j” items) might also relate to abatements. Of couse, they could be anything at all. The BOS has been sorting out matters related to the title of the old fire station.

91-A:3 II (b). The hiring of any person as a public employee.

The third matter (the “b” item) relates to the hiring of one or more additional town employees. This does not suggest that the BOS intends to either cut the budget through attrition or even level fund it.

91-A:3 II (e). Consideration or negotiation of pending claims or litigation which has been threatened in writing or filed by or against the public body or any subdivision thereof, or by or against any member thereof because of his or her membership in such public body, until the claim or litigation has been fully adjudicated or otherwise settled. Any application filed for tax abatement, pursuant to law, with any body or board shall not constitute a threatened or filed litigation against any public body for the purposes of this subparagraph.

The fourth matter (the “e” item) suggests that somebody is seriously dissatisfied with the results of their abatement hearing. On some level, it makes no sense. It was the BOS that actively encouraged all taxpayers last December to seek abatements as an imperfect solution to their own $1.4 million rate-setting error. One would think they would be handing them out like candy.

91-A:3 II (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.

God only knows to what the seventh matter (the “a” item) relates. This might be somebody’s promotion, such as a police officer (to make room for the one being hired). It might be something from the Mi-Te-Jo hearings. One of the many issues discussed there was a dispute involving some town employee defining things without authority to do so. It could be anything.

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

The Public portion of the agenda has new business, old business, and the approval of minutes.

Under new business is scheduled: 1) Swearing in Police Officer (item posted by Chief Rich Krauss), 2) Update Personnel Policy (Heather Thibodeau), 3) Insurance Buyout Discussion (Heather Thibodeau), 4) Recreation & Boat Launch Discussion (Andy Lucier), 5) Town Report/Election Dates (Andy Lucier), and 6) History of Milton (Andy Lucier).

Selectman Lucier is back from his hiatus. He evidently plans to weigh in on the Town boat ramp. Also, the History of Milton. Get your popcorn ready. There is also the swearing in of a new police officer, which explains one of the prior 91-A:3 II (b) items.

Under old business is scheduled: 7) Cruiser Lease Purchase Discussion Follow up (Rich Krauss), 8) Downtown Winter Parking Discussion Follow up (Rich Krauss), 9) 2018 Dog Warrant List Update (Rich Krauss), 10) Previously Appointed Economic Development Committee Member Terms/Recreation Alternates (Ryan Thibeault), and 11) Townhouse Heating Discussion (Erin Hutchings).

Townhouse heating problems appear for the third time. Winter parking rears its head again too. Watch this one, the BOS was shopping for parking lots last May.

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. (2018, September 7). BOS Meeting Agenda, September 10, 2018. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/bos_agendas.php

This Is a Private Party

By S.D. Plissken | September 5, 2018

The NH State Primary election takes place next Tuesday, September 11, between 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The polling place will be again at the Milton Assembly of God Church at 370 White Mountain Highway.

There will be three ballots from which to choose: Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian.

Events of the last two presidential elections might give one pause in regard to this whole primary process. Republican delegates pledged to Ron Paul were not acknowledged at their party convention in 2012. Democratic delegates pledged to Bernie Sanders encountered similar problems in 2016. And there was that whole Wikileaks thing that revealed rigging by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The Bernie Sanders campaign sued the DNC over it. The suit went nowhere, but it was revealing. At one point, a DNC lawyer, Bruce Spiva, argued before the judge that the Democratic Party was a private organization and, as such, was not bound by any actual ballot results.

Wait … what did he say?

We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into backrooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.

Republican Party officials said similar things regarding the Ron Paul delegates during the 2012 campaign. The Libertarian Party, Green Party, and others have not covered themselves in glory either. (The Democrats have since changed their rules, so as to prevent Bernie from upsetting them further).

Okay. A private organization does what it thinks best … best for them, that is. That makes sense. By all means, have a good time at the party, dear.

But it does beg the question: you are going to pay for this yourselves, right? You would not want to stick the undeclared plurality with the bill for your private party.

References:

Milton Town Clerk. (2018, August 31). September 11, 2018 Notice of State Primary Election. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/taxes_292_2284148664.pdf

Milton Town Clerk. (2018, August 31). September 11, 2018 Sample State Primary Ballots. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/taxes_291_2086530106.pdf

Washington Examiner. (2017, May 1). DNC Argues in Court: We Don’t Owe Anyone a Fair Primary Process. Retrieved from www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-argues-in-court-we-dont-owe-anyone-a-fair-primary-process/article/2621767

Washington Post. (2017, August 25). Florida Judge Dismisses Fraud Lawsuit Against DNC. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/florida-judge-dismisses-fraud-lawsuit-against-dnc/

Gore, Lesley. (1963, March 30). It’s My Party. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Cc5t72G8s

Non-Public BOS Session Scheduled (September 4, 2018)

By Muriel Bristol | September 3, 2018

The Milton Board of Selectmen (BOS) have posted their agenda for a BOS meeting to be held Tuesday, September 4. The meeting is scheduled to begin with a Non-Public session at 5:00 PM. That agenda has one item: Non-Public matters classed as 91-A:3 II (b).

91-A:3 II (b) The hiring of any person as a public employee.

This meeting relates again to the hiring of one or more additional town employees. This does not suggest that the BOS intends to either cut the budget through attrition or even level fund it.

The BOS does not intend to proceed from their Non-Public BOS session to a follow-on Public session.

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. (2018, August 31). BOS Meeting Agenda, September 4, 2018. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/bos_agendas_824_4106554878.pdf

Milton’s Idée Fixe

By S.D. Plissken | August 31, 2018

Milton has a very peculiar notion about businesses and its own “need” for them.

In short, the idea is that Milton needs businesses – so that it might tax them – so that it can alleviate its high residential property taxes.

This notion is ubiquitous. You hear it from elected officials, town committees, town employees, town meetings, newspapers, and from the townspeople. It is on everyone’s lips and has been for years. One might say even that it is an idée fixe (an idea that dominates one’s mind, especially for a prolonged period). Milton has long-standing town committees devoted either partly or largely to forwarding this notion.

When hearing it for the first time, it has a sort of superficial plausibility. But somewhere, in the back of your mind, you may sense vaguely that something is not quite right with this proposition. Something about it doesn’t quite “hang together.”

Stop for a moment. Clear your mind. Examine it more closely.

Aah, you see it now, don’t you? There is a flaw in the chain of reasoning. They have it exactly backwards.

Few, if any, businesses would ever enter voluntarily into Milton’s high-tax environment. At least not without some strong countervailing incentive. By their very nature, businesses strive always to reduce their overhead costs. But in this proposition, business is thought likely to choose the higher overhead option – Milton and its high taxes – over lower-tax communities that may be found elsewhere. Even elsewhere nearby.

Milton believes in the story of the boiling frog:

The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats that arise gradually rather than suddenly.

This is what Milton hopes will happen – that new businesses will come into its tepid waters and sit still while they are slowly boiled. However, the old fable is not true. The frogs do jump out if they possibly can. Wouldn’t you?

For example, Amazon’s recent search for a city in which to establish its secondary headquarters (HQ2) has been much in the news this year. Why not expand where they are in Seattle? Because the waters are getting warmer there. They are jumping out, so to speak, at least partially.

In a uniquely public competition, the [Amazon] company asked cities to highlight several local assets: the education and skills of their workforce, the quality of their transit and built environment, the strength of their schools and universities, and the livability of their communities. Amazon also requested each jurisdiction to describe what level of tax incentives they would provide so that the company could understand how tax breaks would help defray the initial cost of its proposed $5 billion investment. 

Tax breaks? That means lower taxes. That means a community would have to lower its taxes to “encourage” businesses to move there. Well, lower them for the business being encouraged, while everyone else’s taxes would have to be raised.

But they could raise the tax temperature back up later? You know, slowly, so as not to alarm the businesses. Well, no, not really. As the tax temperature rises, the businesses will decide at some point that taxation has become too hot. When that happens, they can just “jump out.” Just like the frogs, and just like Amazon. But jump out to where?

Not to Milton. The temperatures are past tepid here. You can see the bubbles beginning to rise. Its taxes will soon be boiling over. (It might be time to jump out if you can).

But what if Milton really wanted businesses for some other reason? Say, increased employment, general prosperity, etc.. It could reverse direction and reduce its taxes and regulations to achieve that?

No, that would be just crazy. Milton has committees seeking actively to “encourage” businesses – so that they might be taxed – in order to alleviate high residential property taxes.

Everybody knows that will work. They have known it for a long time now.

References:

Brookings Institution. (2018, August 28). Amazon HQ2: How did we get here? What comes next? Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/research/amazon-hq2-how-did-we-get-here-what-comes-next/

Meriam-Webster Dictionary. (n.d.). Idée Fixe. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idée%20fixe

Reuters News Service. (2017, October 19). Billions in tax breaks offered to Amazon for second headquarters. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-headquarters/billions-in-tax-breaks-offered-to-amazon-for-second-headquarters-idUSKBN1CO1IP

Wikipedia. (2018, July 26). Boiling Frog. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Wikipedia. (2018, May 20). Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

Chairman Thibeault and the Beanstalk

By S.D. Plissken | August 26, 2018

It may be that people these days are less familiar than formerly with the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. Let us set the scene:

Jack is a young, poor boy living with his widowed mother and a dairy cow, on a farm cottage. The cow’s milk was their only source of income. When the cow stops giving milk, Jack’s mother tells him to take her to the market to be sold. On the way, Jack meets a bean dealer who offers magic beans in exchange for the cow, and Jack makes the trade. When he arrives home without any money, his mother becomes angry and disenchanted, throws the beans on the ground, and sends Jack to bed without dinner.

Chairman Thibeault had a bright idea, on which he expounded at last week’s Board of Selectmen’s (BOS) meeting. (Selectman Lucier was absent). Thibeault would like to trade the Town cow for some State magic beans.

Thibeault: Alright. Next on the agenda: A possible State Boat Ramp at the Town Beach. I put this on there [the agenda]. So, this has been talked about a little bit I guess in the past. I reached out to the State a little while ago to get some more information on the State boat ramp. Basically, it’s a 25 to 35-year lease with the State. They require designated trailer spots. It has to be open 24/7 for free – for boaters – to put your boat in and out. It is not intended to be a swimming area. It is not intended to be an area to fish off the dock. The State initially just took a look on Google Earth at the Town Beach. They didn’t say, “yes,” they didn’t say “no.” There were definitely some challenges if we were to try and do a State Boat Ramp there due to competitive parking. The fence would have to be changed a little bit. So, I just wanted to bring it up to the Board of Selectmen, because it’s essentially a Board of Selectmen decision. The State is – would be – willing to talk to us if we want to talk them to get further information. Like I said, it wasn’t a definite “no,” it wasn’t a definite “yes,” because there are challenges with the ball field, with the Town Beach, competing for parking. That was one of their initial concerns, so I wanted to share that with the Board – something to think about. Basically, the State then would be – they would pay for – the boat ramp and maintaining it for those years. So, something we can think about.

Hutchings: Do you want a response?

Thibeault: Yep.

Hutchings: I think it would be a shame to give that to the State. I really do. I think that’s probably kind of the pearl – in the oyster – is that beach area.

Thibeault: You wouldn’t be giving the beach area. Just the spot for the ramps.

Hutchings: You’re going to wind up losing – I mean it’s not a huge area to begin with. We have to give parking up for … for trailers and that. We’re going to lose quite a bit, I think. I asked one of the employees Sunday who was working at the gate to pull up the numbers knowing that this was on the agenda and the amount of money that that brings in up there – I think it would be shame, I mean it’s self-sufficient. I think if we took our money and repaired the boat ramp ourselves, as a town. I think, … I just think it would be a shame to give that away to the State. You’re talking since the middle of May ’til the middle of August, it’s brought in almost $33,000 and that’s not saying the …

Thibeault: $33,000?

Hutchings: $33,000 – $32,726. The boat ramp and the beach. I’m lumping it altogether, because ….

Thibeault: I’ve asked several times how much the boat ramp itself brings in and was told it couldn’t be separated.

Hutchings: Well, I went up and asked Diane on Sunday morning early if she would mind doing this, because when I saw this and she said, how do you want it broke down …

Thibeault: There’s something wrong with those numbers, I think.

Hutchings: Well, I’m saying this is the beach and the boat ramp.

Thibodeau: What were those numbers again?

Hutchings: $32,726, starting from May 8th all the way to August 16th.

Thibodeau: 32 what?

Hutchings: $32,726. The boat ramp – it’s not that the boat ramp brings in the huge amount – the beach brings in the bigger number, but I sat out there, I’ve gone out several times and sat there and watched people who’ve come up, and they bring the whole family, some one of – Uncle Bob we’ll say – brings up the boat, he puts the boat in, and the kids are all out there playing on the beach and then they alternate – they run ’em through. There’s a lot of that that goes on. I think it would be a shame to give that to the State. I really do. So …

Thibeault: I think there’s several options down there and I think we could still charge for the beach and the State ramp would actually bring people into town and promote the town of Milton, which economy is hurting and help the businesses in town because you’d have a State-advertised boat ramp. I do think that we need to be able to separate out how much money just the boat ramp is taking in and my understanding is the way they … they can’t do that right now. The Rec. Commission had actually voted and made a recommendation that that be separated out and I’m not sure where that stands. But, I’m not saying give up the whole Town Beach to the State. That’s not at all what I’m saying if you give up …

Hutchings: But I think if you give up …

Thibeault: … a small part. I’m open to discussing with the State, to see what they have to offer, because it would be a way to get. like I said, a State boat ramp would get us on the map with the State, and also, I mean, we won’t have to pay the cost of putting in the new ramp.

Hutchings: Which is what – about 30 grand? And we already have $15,000 that the taxpayers in town earmarked for it a year or two ago. Two years ago.

Thibeault: But it’s $30,000 we could use on other areas …

Hutchings: There’s $32,726 we could use to put in a new boat ramp. We could put in a nice pavillion down there, so the kids aren’t having to use the tent. I mean, there’s all kinds of things that we could use …

Thibeault: You’re sure there’s no summer camp money in that?

Hutchings: Positive.

Thibeault: Okay. Alright.

Hutchings: I’m just saying. I just think it would be shame to give that away.

Thibeault: Alright. I just think that we need to think outside the box and the $10 fee that we get at the boat ramp – or whatever it is – we have to account for how we are going to bring people into town. And that free advertisement that the State would give us, I think that would help. I wanted to share that with the Board and I guess right now we don’t really have a decision one way or another. So, we can move on.

Now, Thibeault claims that his scheme would save money, a claim that Hutchings questions. But note his main rationale: this would bring people into town to use the now State ramp, which would help businesses, and the State would do the advertising.

The truth is that “helping” businesses is not a governmental function at all. No taxpayer resources whatsoever should be devoted to that purpose. None, nil, zilch.

Government’s supposed justification has always been the protection of life, property, and liberty. At the town level, it is usually taken to also include maintenance of roads and schools. Business and its concerns – its successes or its failures – have no part in this. The town government does not have to, as Chairman Thibeault has it, “account for how we are bringing people into town.” “Boosting” business is not a concern of government of at all.

Surrendering a part of the Town Beach – as some have said, its “pearl” – to the State based on Chairman Thibeault’s theory – just a theory, mind you – that it would somehow “help” business is misguided. That has the taxpayers subsidizing the businesses. That is not how free markets work. He needs perhaps, as happened to Jack in the story, to be sent to bed without his dinner.

But neither he nor Milton town government will welcome these truths.

Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.

References:

Milton Board of Selectmen. (2018, August 20). Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting, August 20, 2018. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/LfPichonEYQ?t=1840

Wikipedia, (2018, August 23). Jack and the Beanstalk. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_and_the_Beanstalk

Wikipedia. (2018, May 20). Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

Goffstown Shows the Way

By S.D. Plissken | August 21, 2018

Mr. Bailey rose to speak again during the Public Comments portion of Monday night’s Board of Selectmen’s (BOS) meeting. His subject was again the erroneous over-taxation in the 2017 2nd half tax bill.

The BOS has never given any explanation, exact figures, or proposed solutions to this problem.

Mr. Bailey provided the BOS with copies of the following letter sent out with Goffstown’s first half tax invoice (July 2018). (Milton did not make a similar correction or explanation in its first half tax invoice).

[Town Seal] Town of Goffstown

TOWN OFFICES

16 MAIN STREET, GOFFSTOWN, NH 03405

Dear Goffstown Taxpayers,

Enclosed is your property tax bill for the first half of the property tax year 2018. You may notice a significant reduction in property taxes due, compared to the previous year’s tax rate. There is a unique situation this year which we aim to clarify with this letter.

As you may be aware, the audit of the Goffstown School District 2017 fiscal year identified reporting errors which led to improper retention of unreserved funds above the limits authorized for contingencies under RSA 198:4=b. The accumulation of funds between 2011 and 2017 amounted to a total of $9, 811, 451 which will be reclassified in July at the end of the current School District fiscal year. Without any action, this reclassification of School funds normally would have reduced the amount of taxes to be raised for local education beginning with the 2018 2nd half tax bill in November.

The Board of Selectmen successfully petitioned the State Department of Revenue Administration to adjust the 1st half tax rate in anticipation of this release of funds. The revised tax rate for the 1st half of 2018 is shown below, compared to 50% of the final 2017 tax rate.

[Here there appeared a table showing the County, Local School, State School, Town, and Total tax rates for “50% of 2017 Rate” and “1st Half of 2018 Rate.” The Local School rate of $7.315 in the 50% column has been adjusted downwards to $4.125 in the 1st Half column. That would be a drop of $3.19 per thousand]

The impact of this release of funds continues over the next tax cycle as well. The rate for the 2018 2nd half tax bill will not be determined until the fall, but it is expected to be similar. The 2019 1st half tax bill will increase and approach previous levels as cash flows stabilize. We expect conditions to normalize by the 2019 2nd half tax bill.

If you escrow your property taxes, you may want to notify your financial institution of these anticipated changes. If you are planning to sell or buy property in Goffstown in the next 12 months, you may also want to consult a real estate professional regarding tax proration.

If you have any questions about your taxes or the fund balance issue, please feel free to contact us or visit the Town and School websites at www.Goffstown.com or www.Goffstown.k12.nh.us

Sincerely,

[Signatures of]

Adam Jacobs, Town Administrator

Brian Dalke, Superintendent

Mr. Bailey’s comments cannot be transcribed here. That is because they do not appear in the video record of the meeting. There is a short (1:31) section in which Ms. Virginia Long spoke of an upcoming volunteer cleanup on Casey Road. Mr. Bailey then began to speak –

Glenn Bailey. You have before you a letter issued by the Town of Goffstown and there are more on the sideboard if people … [end of recording].

His full remarks are not included in the published record. That second section is missing. There was a technical problem at that point.

The third section commences at the beginning of the remarks of the next commenter, Mr. Larry Brown, who spoke of the upcoming pie contest.

In any event, Mr. Bailey highlighted the Goffstown letter’s second paragraph as an example of “transparency” in that the Goffstown officials had explained that an error had been committed, as well as describing its scope and size. He went on to highlight the third and fourth paragraphs as examples of “accountability” in that the Goffstown officials had explained in some detail how they proposed to return the money that had been over-collected through their error.

He further remarked that Milton officials, who have spoken often of the importance and virtue of “transparency” and “accountability,” had never displayed any at all in the matter of the 2017 taxes. He said that they had forfeited their right to employ those terms.

References:

Milton Board of Selectmen. (2018, August 20). Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting, August 20, 2018. Part 1. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtYixUTRFa8

Milton Board of Selectmen. (2018, August 20). Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting, August 20, 2018. Part 2. Missing from the record, due to technical difficulties.

Milton Board of Selectmen. (2018, August 20). Milton Board of Selectman Meeting, August 20, 2018. Part 3. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfPichonEYQ

Non-Public BOS Session Scheduled (August 20, 2018)

By Muriel Bristol | August 18, 2018

The Milton Board of Selectmen (BOS) have posted their agenda for a BOS meeting to be held Monday, August 20. The meeting is scheduled to begin with a Non-Public preliminary session at 5:15 PM. That agenda has four items: Non-Public matters classed as 91-A:3 II (c), 91-A:3 II (j), 91-A:3 II (b), and 91-A:3 II (j).

91-A:3 II (c) Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting. This exemption shall extend to any application for assistance or tax abatement or waiver of a fee, fine, or other levy, if based on inability to pay or poverty of the applicant.

91-A:3 II (j) Consideration of confidential, commercial, or financial information that is exempt from public disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, IV in an adjudicative proceeding pursuant to RSA 541 [Rehearings and Appeals in Certain Cases] or RSA 541-A [Administrative Procedure Act].

The first, second, and fourth matters appear to relate again to the recent tax abatement process. In November, the BOS made a serious error in setting the 2017 tax rate. It affected all of the taxpayers, i.e., about 2,700 taxpayers, to a very large degree. Various figures have been given, ranging as high as $1.4 million.

In December, the BOS suggested that those affected should file for abatements. This would be the second meeting that devoted agenda time to hearing appeals of rejected abatements (The “c” item). The other items (the “j” items) are likely also matters related to abatements. However, the BOS has also been dealing with matters related to the title of the old fire station.

91-A:3 II (b) The hiring of any person as a public employee.

The third matter relates to the hiring of one or more additional town employees. This does not suggest that the BOS intends to either cut the budget through attrition or even level fund it.

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

The Public portion of the agenda mentions appointments and resignations from various town committees, accepting a donation of a basketball hoop, police cruisers, a grant for an emergency management trailer, a possible state boat ramp at the town beach, a zoning fee waiver, cemetery mowing, the townhouse heating system (again), nomination of the former Plummer’s Ridge Schoolhouse for a grant from the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance, as well as the Staff Appreciation Day Cookout and September meeting adjustments.

References:

NH Preservation Alliance. (2018). Seven to Save. Retrieved from nhpreservation.org/seven-to-save/

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. (2018, August 17). BOS Meeting Agenda, August 20, 2018. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/bos_agendas.php

Milton and the Knowledge Problem

By S.D. Plissken | August 13, 2018

Milton has a serious knowledge problem: it lacks awareness of the “Local Knowledge Problem.”

A succession of Milton selectmen, town officials, planners, economic developers, as well as much of its population, have been absolutely certain that Milton needs a family restaurant at Exit 17. They have known this, almost as an article of faith, for years. Few question it.

Some might ask how they received this revelation (or why they have persisted in believing it for so very long). Well, they will tell you. The major weight of Milton’s increasingly high property taxes is borne by homeowners. Unaccountably, those taxpayers do not like to bear that burden. So, that tax burden should be shifted onto businesses. Or, at least it could be, if there were only more businesses. Milton needs more businesses.

The business owners’ incentive to line up for this mulcting remains unclear. It might appear that they have none at all. Alternatives, such as reductions in town government or in its budgets (or even just holding the line), easing local regulations, seeking state regulatory relief, etc., are never seriously considered. That would be crazy. Milton just needs more businesses.

There are aesthetic considerations too. Milton deplores just any business venture that might arise through natural market processes. (Witness the China Pond and Mi-Te-Jo expansion melodramas). Milton does need more businesses, but they need to be the “right” sorts of businesses.

Restaurants might be good, but franchise restaurants are obviously less so. They do not strike the right tone; they are a bit déclassé. However, a “family” restaurant could work quite nicely. That would be just the “right” sort of business. Absolutely. Milton needs a family restaurant business at Exit 17. No doubt at all. The town government knows what is best for Milton.

But it does not know. It could never know – that would be impossible – because of the “Local Knowledge Problem.”

Professor F.A. Hayek (1899-1992) of the London School of Economics (and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics) published “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (often called the “Local Knowledge Problem”) in the American Economic Review in September 1945. His article was rated recently as among the most important 20 papers of the last 100 years. In it, Hayek explained why central planning is all nonsense.

The knowledge required for economic planning is imperfect, transitory, and widely dispersed among many actors. No board, commission, or committee of individuals could ever hope to assemble enough for an optimal solution (and perhaps not even enough for a poor one). It is impossible for them to do so. The necessary knowledge resides temporarily – the situation is ever changing – in the array of all market participants. (Nowadays, it might be said that the necessary knowledge and information is “Crowd Sourced”).

As one proceeds north from Milton along NH Route 16, the results of successful decisions based upon such dispersed local knowledge may be seen readily. There are three gas station convenience stores, two restaurants, a trading post, an auto parts store, a sugar house, a Kung Fu dojo, a garden center, a motel, a farmers’ & crafters’ market, a stove museum, and a fish farm. There are also quite a few home-based businesses. In season, there are several farm stands.

All of these businesses were created without benefit of central planning, through market processes. Their entrepreneurs took a chance, based upon their own intuition and local knowledge. They invested their own capital (available in part due to lower taxes), resources, and effort in those concerns. Bravo! They have satisfied market demand, and done so with no cost, risk, or loss to taxpayers if they fail to thrive.

Milton’s central planners have their thumb on the scale in “knowing” that Milton needs a family restaurant. Without adequate knowledge, which they can never have, it is their own preferences they put forward in defiance of market desires. That can garner only imperfect results at best and likely “it will all end in tears.” (Remember the most recent strong preference failure of this sort: the landfill?).

Why should it not be that an electric car-charging station, farmers’ market, sheep farm, meadery, dojo, cell-tower, billboard, or things not yet imagined arises at Exit 17? Why is a family restaurant necessarily the optimal solution? How can planners know that? (A free market might even prefer that location remains as it is). Obviously, they cannot.

Yes, there is a sort of arrogance to it all. Milton and its taxpayers are not part of some SimCity game.

Of course, there is also the additional hurdle of water and sewer facilities. The proposed Exit 17 location lies beyond the town water network. (Exit 18 is even further beyond the Pale). It has been estimated that it would cost at least $1 million to extend those services out to the desired restaurant site. That is daunting. But, wait. BOS Vice-chairwoman Hutchings revealed recently that the $1 million figure is an underestimate. In fact, it would cost much more than that, vastly more. (And government estimates usually need to be tripled to approach real-world accuracy).

Tax reductions would allow business growth. But that implies an attendant government reduction. Town government sees no benefit in reducing itself: such a proposal lacks appeal. Impossible. Put such notions aside.

The Exit 17 family restaurant must remain an article of faith. Government planners know it.

Meanwhile, the Stop, Drops & Rolls coffee shop closed this week. Its proprietor seeks to sell both the business and the property. “We just can’t generate the customers to continue to stay open.”

References:

Hayek, Friedrich A. (1945, September). The Use of Knowledge in Society. Retrieved from fee.org/articles/the-use-of-knowledge-in-society/

Stop, Drops & Roll. (2018, August 6). It Is a Sad Day Today. Retrieved from www.facebook.com/StopDropsandRoll/

Wikipedia. (2018, August 13). Friedrich Hayek. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Wikipedia. (2017, June 20). Local Knowledge Problem. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Knowledge_Problem

Wikipedia. (2018, August 3). SimCity. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity

Electra, Dorian. (2010, December 20). I’m in Love with Friedrich Hayek. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arbfem4BohA