Category: Politics

By S.D. Plissken | August 1, 2018

The Dover City Council passed a resolution on Wednesday, July 11, 2018, that called on Governor Sununu (R), the NH congressional delegation (Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D) and Maggie Hassan (D), Representatives Carol Shea-Porter (D) and Ann McLane Kuster (D)), and Director of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, to demand an end to the Border Patrol’s “coercive checkpoints” in the state and to “immediately halt” policies that separate or imprison families.

This was their third resolution on this topic. Last year, on Wednesday, October 11th, the Dover City Council passed a resolution, unanimously. Last month, on Wednesday, June 27th, the Dover City Council passed a similar resolution, unanimously (with one member absent), that called on the Trump Administration to immediately end its “zero-tolerance” immigration policy that has led to thousands of family members being separated while attempting to cross the US border.

However, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) seems to have slipped past their resolutions somehow. ICE lists an address in the Strafford County Complex in Dover as being one of its Detention Facilities. (That is just 4 miles from where the Council passes its resolutions). In fact, ICE identifies this address in the Strafford County Complex as being its Boston Field Office. (There is nothing new in this as the Strafford County House of Corrections has been housing ICE detainees since at least 2008).

None of this needs to be. The Federal government is supposed to supply its own officials to implement its own policy initiatives. It cannot compel local officials to participate. In 1842, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania that

The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution.

This is the so-called Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. It has been used to oppose the Fugitive Slave Law (1850) and a host of other iniquities. It appeared more recently in Printz vs. United States (1997).

Neither the NH Department of Corrections nor the Strafford County Sheriff can be compelled to participate in ICE initiatives. They do so voluntarily. The NH Department of Corrections has been receiving so much per head to house ICE detainees; the Strafford County Sheriff has been receiving so much per head to transport them. (A recent contract between the Sheriff and his deputies incorporates this transporting into their duties as a regular task). They are doing this for ICE detainees taken in the whole northeastern tier of states.

So, Dover City Council, you are barking up the wrong tree. Imagine an alternative reality. Instead of addressing a fourth resolution to distant authorities, you make a couple of in-state phone calls. “Hello Sheriff (and fellow Democrat) Dubois, could you stop taking Federal money to transport ICE detainees? Thanks” and “Hello Commissioner Hanks, could you stop taking Federal money to house ICE detainees? Thanks.”

The notion of refusing to support officials with which you do not agree is not new. Etienne De La Boetie advised in 1549:

I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

References:

Concord Monitor. (2018, July 2). Change of priority: As ICE bumps up security at the border, Strafford County jail sees hike in immigrant inmates. Retrieved from www.concordmonitor.com/As-ICE-bumps-up-border-security-Strafford-County-jail-sees-hike-in-immigrant-inmates-18447934

Corwin, Emily (NHPR). (2017, March 22). N.H.’s Immigration Detention Facility Saw Spike In February. Retrieved fromdigital.vpr.net/post/nhs-immigration-detention-facility-saw-spike-february

De La Boetie, Etienne. (1549). Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. France.

Foster’s Daily Democrat. (2018, June 28). Dover Council May Take Immigrant Action. Retrieved from www.fosters.com/news/20180625/dover-council-may-take-immigration-action

Foster’s Daily Democrat. (2018, July 11). Dover City Council Demands End to Checkpoints. Retrieved from www.fosters.com/news/20180711/dover-council-demands-end-to-border-checkpoints

Labor Relations Information System (LRIS). (2014). Collective Bargaining Agreement. Retrieved from www.lris.com/wp-content/uploads/contracts/straffordco_nh_sheriff.pdf

Maharry, Michael (TAC). (2013, December 28). States Don’t Have to Comply: The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. Retrieved from tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/

Manchester Union-Leader. (2017, July 2). New wall has opened door to more illegal aliens at Strafford County jail. Retrieved from www.unionleader.com/crime/New-wall-has-opened-door-to-more-illegal-aliens-at-Strafford-County-jail-04032017

New England Center for Investigative Reporting (NECIR). (2017. August 07). In wake of immigration crackdown, some New England jails see brisk business. Retrieved from www.necir.org/2017/08/07/wake-immigration-crackdown-new-england-jails-see-brisk-business/

NHPR. (2018, June 28). In Dover, A Protest Against Family Separations And N.H. Border Patrol Checkpoints. Retrieved from nhpr.org/post/dover-protest-against-family-separations-and-nh-border-patrol-checkpoints

Pontoh, Dan (ACLU). (2017, October 11). Dover, NH Social Justice Action Alert. Retrieved from www.facebook.com/doverdemocrats/posts/2010453229211338

Tenth Amendment Center. (2013, October 15). No Water = No NSA Data Center. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ANUo8BnYoo

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. (2008). Detainees Leaving ICE Detention from the Strafford County Correction Facility. Retrieved from trac.syr.edu/immigration/detention/200803/STRAFNH/exit/

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2018). Strafford County House of Corrections. Retrieved from www.ice.gov/detention-facility/strafford-county-house-corrections

WMUR. (2018, July 12). Some ICE Detainees Kept at Strafford County Jail. Retrieved from www.wmur.com/article/some-ice-detainees-kept-at-strafford-county-jail/22133924

By Paige Turner, Guest Contributor | July 18. 2018

The Milton Town Players performed their adaptation of a scene from Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington at the Emma Ramsey Theater last Monday night (July 16).

Mr. Glen Bailey made a guest appearance in the title role of junior Senator “Jeff” Smith. His performance was uneven at best, although his material was quite good. It might be that his future lies more behind the keyboard than before the footlights.

The Board of Selectmen (BOS) reprised their familiar roles as clueless and ineffectual solons and did so convincingly. Their new “ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies” rules for the meeting’s Public Comments section aided the mise-en-scène.

Chairman Thibeault, in attempting the more complex role of the sympathetic Senate President, originally played by Harry Carey, was not entirely successful. His stony-faced performance did not project any sympathy at all for Senator Smith or for the taxpayers. For that, he would need to break the fourth wall.

EDC Committeeman Larry Brown portrayed the senior Senator “Joe” Paine, a role originally undertaken by the incomparable Claude Raines. He was the stand-out star of the evening. Brown’s Senator Paine confirmed that government officials can absolutely, by statute, retain and use money they take without authorization. He appeared to have that factoid at the tips of his fingers. His choice of citing it so blandly captured perfectly the cynicism, venality, and corruption of Senator Paine.

The Town Players did well in limiting themselves to this brief scene. A little bit of their governance goes a long way. But do not miss their future shows!

References:

Milton Board of Selectmen. (2018, July 16). Milton Board of Selectman Meeting, July 16, 2018. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/gLovo5_L_3w?t=64

Wikipedia. (2018, July 26). Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_Goes_to_Washington

By S.D. Plissken | May 22, 2018

Economic Development Committeeman Larry Brown rose to speak during last night’s [May 21st’s] Public Comment portion of the Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting. (The full text of Brown’s comments appear in indented italics).

Larry Brown. Our Public Comment has been moved around and people don’t remember the meetings from about three meetings ago [April 16], but what I wanted to do was talk about a topic which I am sure is heavy on your minds, which is the old Greek philosophers, specifically Sophists, who had a bad reputation for a good reason.

They were the kind of philosophers who had arguments that were plausible, self-serving, and knowingly deceptive. They specialized in the destruction of fair discussion by questions that could by their very nature have no direct answer.

Few Sophist works survive from antiquity. Most of what we “know” of them was written by their detractors. (Imagine a future in which an ancient Democrat’s description of the ancient Republicans is all that is known about them (or vice versa)).

Brown does not cite or refute any actual Sophist arguments, but merely repeats the prejudicial characterizations of those ancient opponents. He is employing here a Prejudicial Language fallacy (also known as variant imagization), as well as a Composition fallacy, on his way to a full-on Ad Hominem fallacy.

To denigrate the original speaker of April 16th as a Sophist should require some proof. Even if the original speaker’s opinions overlapped to some degree or in some respect those of the ancient Sophists would not by itself make him a Sophist. To assert such is to engage in a Composition fallacy. (Hitler liked dogs, so people who like dogs are evil).

To then employ alone these unanswerable ancient pejoratives and a Composition fallacy to characterize the original speaker as a wicked Sophist is to engage in an Ad Hominem fallacy or attack, i.e., to speak to the supposed characteristics of an opponent rather than to address their arguments. (There’s a lot of that going around these days).

Example: “How can you say you are moving forward when one-sixth of the voters don’t want the town to exist?” Or, “why should we pay for the mistakes of past assessments?”

Brown’s reframing of the original speaker’s arguments so that he might answer something other than those arguments is a use of the Strawman fallacy. The original speaker (April 16th) made that final point about the results of the March election only as an answer to an assertion by Chairman Thibeault that he felt he spoke for the “entire board and the entire community.” It had little, if anything, to do with seeking explanation of the “moving forward” or “change” aspects of Chairman Thibeault’s statement, which was the principal issue.

Brown was answering a question that had never been asked, at least not as he presented it. There was nothing Sophistic in pointing out that the recent election results proved that Chairman Thibeault did not speak for the “entire” community. The original speaker was proffering a valid counter-example to Thibeault’s assertion of a wider mandate than he actually has.

The two new Selectmen rushed to disavow the actions of the prior board (which had then included now Chairman Thibeault) as having nothing to do with them. So, at least when speaking of the prior board’s actions, or lack thereof, Chairman Thibeault was not speaking for the “entire board” either.

The original speaker had refuted Chairman Thibeault’s assertions of representing the “entire” board and community in the tax matter at hand with valid counter-examples. Nothing Sophistic about it.

As to the first, five times as many voters wanted this town to continue and the actions, structure, and the very election of the new board are an example of that moving forward.

As noted above, Brown is here creating and refuting an argument that the original speaker never made. But his own refutation argument – that a five-sixths majority should compel the actions and fortunes of a one-sixth minority, with no stated limit – is fascinating, if somewhat appalling. The minority should be compelled by a majority to participate in a polity they abhor or in actions they oppose.

Brown is putting forward an Appeal to Numbers (argumentum ad populum) fallacy. That is precisely why the U.S. was designed as a democratic republic and not as a democracy. It did compel participation, but it also incorporated safeguards intended to protect the natural rights of minorities (or, at least, of minorities that it considered to be within its polity). Otherwise, what would be the likely fate of permanent minorities, such as the red-headed, the left-handed, those of minority ethnicity, religion, etc.? Not to mention those with dissident opinions.

The Athenian Democracy executed Socrates, a Sophist, by voting for him to drink poison hemlock. They regularly exiled dissidents by “ostracizing” them, i.e., voting citizens into compulsory exile with potsherd ballots (“ostrakon”). Then followed the Tyrants and the Athenian Empire. And then they fell.

As to the second, absent criminal intent, malfeasance, and the explicit penalties in a contract of record, in a court action it will cost more than the cost of the injury alleged and the simple [?} have little chance of success. That’s the reality.

This is not an argument against the justice of seeking a refund for poor services. It employs instead an Appeal to Consequences fallacy (Argumentum ad Consequentiam). The expense of action or likelihood of success should determine our actions, rather than the truth of the complaint or the pursuit of justice.

But the original speaker framed it somewhat differently. He asked instead, if, as we have been told, the original mass assessment was defective, why are we not seeking a refund?

That contains within it the possibility we might not have been told the truth or, at least, not told all of it. It would have been possible for Chairman Thibeault to admit finally to what has become increasingly obvious: that he, the prior board, and other town officials were at fault. The original speaker allowed for such an admission. Were that the truth, there would be no need to seek legal action against the former assessing contractor.

In his two agenda items, the original speaker actually questioned how we could safely “move forward” or “change” without knowing the truth of what had happened. It was the town officials that had for months shifted blame onto the prior assessor. The original speaker appears to have called their bluff. The Town Administrator began to speak instead of the prior assessors having done things differently, rather than incorrectly, as she and the Selectmen had either stated or implied over a number of months. She also admitted that the then Selectmen had used a “sample ‘reval’ [revaluation]” in setting the rates. So, the original speaker elicited some truths previously obscured. Socrates would approve.

Assessing is an art, not a science.

That would be frightening indeed, if true. How would one ever know an assessment was invalid, as opposed to not quite suited to one’s artistic taste and sensibilities? Not to mention the problem of balancing the artistic tastes of taxpayers versus those who benefit from increased taxes.

If you want more information you can go to the DRA website and you can look up the mathematical formulas which set equalization. The Municipal Association has an article written by Stephen Hamilton, who I knew when I was in municipal and county government. He has been for years the person in charge of the Property Appraisal Division of the DRA and his comments on classical statistics and small sample overrepresentation and the goal of central tendency are still very much on target for assessing today.

Here Brown concludes with an Appeal to Authority fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). As an argument, it counts for nothing. Hamilton’s work likely has merit, but none of it has been cited to any particular purpose. It just sounds good.

So, the comments come late and thank you for your work.

Brown failed to show that original speaker employed any Sophist techniques at all, nor did he show why that would have been a bad thing. Nor did he respond to anything that the original speaker actually said. On the contrary, it was Brown himself  who employed quite a few logical fallacies and “merely” rhetorical devices in his comments.

Perhaps, for some reason of his own, he intended to provide us with a practical demonstration of his notions of Sophism?

References:

Milton Board of Selectmen. (2018, April 16). Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting, April 16, 2018. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/IK0JE0Yi3mw?t=3986

Milton Board of Selectmen. (2018, May 21). Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting, May 21, 2018. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/SrojxJNx1ck?t=82

Wikipedia. (2018, May 19). List of Fallacies. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Wikipedia. (2018, May 20). Sophist, Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

 

By S.D. Plissken | May 10, 2018

Milton Police Chief Krauss asked the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to accept a “free” police dog at the BOS Meeting of Monday, January 8, 2018. Controlled K9, LLC, was “seeking an organization” to which to donate a 3-year-old Dutch Shepard K9. The dog had received minimal training, thus far, and there would be a need for further training going forward, including drug activity training. (The chief had already had the dog evaluated by experts as having “trainability”).

It has long been known that drug dogs are not reliable. While they do have keen senses, they are more interested in pleasing their handlers than in the task. That causes accuracy rates of less than half (i.e., less accurate that the flip of a coin) or even less. Bomb- and mine-sniffing dogs are much more accurate. Their handlers do not have the same biases and incentives towards arrest quotas and asset forfeitures: they want mostly to live.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that a dog’s actual accuracy does not matter as much as its certification (Florida vs. Harris). For that reason, drug dogs are often described as “probable cause generators.” They are a court-sanctioned way to reliably manufacture probable cause where none actually exists.

Chairman Rawson remarked that it would be “Wonderful. A great asset for the Town of Milton.” Selectman Long asked where the dog would be housed and Chief Krauss replied that the dog would be kept at his residence. Not mentioned, or apparently even considered, were any costs for evaluations, additional training, certification, veterinary expenses, or upkeep. Without further ado, Selectman Thibeault moved to accept the K9 donation, Selectman Long seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. None of them expressed any constitutional concerns.

A month later, the Rochester Voice reported (on Friday morning, February 9, 2018) that Nute High School Principal Jan Radowicz had that day said that “Milton and State Police conducted a drug sweep through Nute High and Middle School today, but found no drugs.” No warrant or probable cause was mentioned. The students were confined to their classrooms while the dogs “swept” the hallways and classrooms. Principal Radowicz mentioned that the school would continue to work with the police. Her constitutional concerns, if any, were not reported.

Chief Krauss returned to the Board of Selectmen on Monday, March 5, 2018, to report that, despite “continual training,” the donated dog just lacked the “drives” to continue training. The BOS voted to contact the donor to see if they will be willing to take the dog back under their care.

Chief Krauss did not mention any plans or intention of replacing the dog with one that had more “drives.”

References:

Balko, Radley, Washington Post. (2015, August 4). Federal appeals court: Drug dog that’s barely more accurate than a coin flip is good enough. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/federal-appeals-court-drug-dog-thats-barely-more-accurate-than-a-coin-flip-is-good-enough/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a4ad19ec7063

Hinckel, Dan, and Mahr, Joe, Chicago Tribune. (2011, January 6). Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog

Long, Rebecca, 60 Minutes. (2004, January 5). Does The Nose Know? Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-the-nose-know/

Rochester Voice. (2018, January 9). Police, drug-sniffing dogs sweep Nute Middle High. Retrieved from http://www.therochestervoice.com/police-drug-sniffing-dogs-sweep-nute-middle-high-cms-9475

Town of Milton (2018, January). Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2018. Retrieved from http://www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/bos_agendas_770_2631624852.pdf. (There is also a video of the brief dog discussion and acceptance on Youtube at https://youtu.be/jDlhSg8plKo?t=1601).

Town of Milton (2018, March 5). Milton Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes, March 5, 2018. Retrieved from http://www.miltonnh-us.com/uploads/bos_agendas_794_1363558446.pdf. (There is also a video of the brief dog rejection on YouTube at https://youtu.be/F6wbcKpHQSk?t=6642

By S.D. Plissken | Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Last February, a Milton resident missed the deadline for a petitioned warrant article that would have made access to the Milton Town Beach free to residents.

On Monday, April 2, 2018, Selectman Lucier questioned the purchase of a $12,000 tractor for that same Town Beach. He had been unable to find any authorization for its purchase in warrant articles or in the minutes of either the Board of Selectmen’s Meetings or the Recreation Commission. “Who signed it, who signed the check for it?,” he asked.

He got his answer in the Milton Board of Selectmen [BOS] Meeting of Monday, April 16, 2018.

The BOS have been trying to ascertain the status of its various town committees and commissions, be they active or defunct. Four are listed in the 2017 Town Report: the Conservation Commission, the Economic Development Committee, the Recreation Commission, and the Townhouse Stewardship Committee. Some residents have questioned whether any of them fulfill any legitimate governmental functions.

It emerged that the Recreation Commission was authorized by warrant article in 1948. Since then, it seems to have been reauthorized in 1977. It got a sibling Beach Committee or Commission in 1997 and the two were merged together in 1999. Or so it would seem from the rather spotty records.

The Recreation Director, Karen Brown, added that “the ’99 vote gave the Commission the right to oversee a revolving fund. The 2004 vote gave the Commission the full authority over the beach, the maintenance, all using the funds taken in, and that was elected and both passed, and that’s where the authority came from.” “And then in 2006, there was a vote to try to bring the authority back to the Board of Selectmen and that failed, leaving it as not an advisory committee, but as a committee overseeing and having full access to the money.”

And it would seem that the BOS has little to say about it – the Recreation Commission is its own beach government, established by the voters and authorized to collect its own revenue (sorry, no free beach access) and allocate that revenue just as they see fit (say, on tractors). One of the BOS sits on the Recreation Commission “ex officio” and the BOS fill vacancies to the Commission.

Unless the Recreation Commission is defunct. There seemed to be some doubt as to whether they have met often enough to remain an active commission.

But that remains to be seen…