The lament was heard over and over as we did research for our story on Town Meetings – it’s not like it used to be. In the good old days – which, of course, are always looked at through rose-colored glasses – everyone came out to Town Meeting, it was a social event, everyone cared about their neighbor and it was better when the issues were discussed at a meeting. Indeed, it probably was like that for many towns and school districts before New Hampshire experienced its growth spurt.

It would be wonderful if everyone eligible to vote came to Town Meeting, School District Meeting or the SB2 version of those meetings, but it is simply not practical for most towns. Towns and school districts would have to rent a building like the Verizon Wireless Arena and bus everyone out there to accommodate the thousands that would add up to. And how long would a meeting like that go, if everyone wanted to speak?

The official ballot law, which most of us call SB2, does at least allow more people to participate in the process of deciding how our tax dollars are spent. The Town Meeting and the School District Meeting still happen under this setup, and we encourage people to attend those meetings. You’ll get a little flavor of the good old days when people hashed out issues in person. But SB2 allows voting on warrants on election day so you don’t have to attend the meetings. That’s led to lower attendance at the big meetings, which many old-timers see as a negative, but which busy people see as a positive thing for their timecrunched lives.

By not attending meetings, one hands enormous power to a few who do go – unelected people who may or may not agree with you. For many larger New Hampshire towns, it may be time to let go of nostalgia for the old days and consider a representative form of government.

— Editorials published by Neighborhood News Inc. are written by an editorial board. The board is composed of Publisher and President Amy J. Vellucci, Executive Editor Ginger Kozlowski, Managing Editor Christine Heiser and News Editor Susan Clark.

To the Editor:
The letters and articles of this paper have made it clear that there are many questions and opinions about our decision to consolidate the police and fire department into a Department of Public Safety.

This decision was based on our obligation to provide for the needs of the community and the community's ability to pay for those services. Our goal, past and present, is to manage our community for the protection of its people and property.

As individuals, we may disagree on many things about government but it is possible to agree on services we expect from it. At the local level, we look to our community to provide services such as roads for our safe passage, the enforcement of laws and ordinances, fire protection and emergency medical response. These are reasonable expectations in the 21st century and Goffstown provides these services to its residents 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

At the 2004 Town Meeting, voters approved an article requesting the selectmen to develop a plan for 24/7 fire and EMS service. Our position, then and now, is that the town already provides those services through full-time and call personnel, all dispatched by our Police Communication Center.

In response to the request of Town Meeting, we studied the history of calls and found that the majority of calls for service are for medical emergencies.

As a result, the board of selectmen directed that one station be staffed with emergency medical personnel during night-time hours. That service was implemented and exists today. Every evening there are two EMTs at the Pindardville Fire Station ready to respond to any medical call.

As always, we continue to respond to fire calls on a 24/7 basis. Full-time personnel respond to weekday incidents.

Call personnel respond to evening calls and man the stations on holidays and weekends. The board is unaware of any public complaints regarding the current delivery of service.

However, it is clear to the board that some members of our full-time fire staff are not satisfied with the current staffing arrangement. The local fire union president has submitted a petitioned article to hire18 additional firefighters to implement a city fire department model with a minimum of three firefighters at two fire stations on a 24-hour-seven-day-a-week basis.

The board of selectmen has looked at this article. The cost for an entry-level firefighter, including wages, benefits, physicals, Hep-C shots, training, uniforms and protective gear, is approximately $55,000 a year which equates to $990,000 for the first full year of 18 firefighters. When you add in the cost of facility upgrades for sleeping and eating quarters, the cost will exceed $1 million (increasing your property taxes).

Over the past 20 years, fire calls have decreased both nationally and locally. The fire service, recognizing this decrease, has added the function of emergency medical response to their service.

Many of our firefighters are already cross-trained as emergency medical responders. It makes sense to continue the cross-training.

Based on our review, the board concludes that a Department of Public Saftey is the most efficient and cost-effective approach to providing fire, EMS and police services to the Goffstown community.

We look forward to your comments and continued participation in the governing of your community. The board of selectmen will continue discussing this issue, the history of service in this community, and respond to the specific issues raised by fellow citizens in the upcoming weeks.

Thank you for your time this week. The Goffstown Board of Selectmen would like to thank The Goffstown News for this opportunity to speak with the citizens of Goffstown on this important issue.

Respectfully submitted,
Gossett McRae, Chairman
Bruce Hunter, Vice Chairman
Philip D'Avanza
Barbara Griffin
Robert Wheeler
Goffstown Board of Selectmen

To the Editor:
The arrogance of the Weare Board of Selectmen will not stop. The voters of Weare need to replace this power-hungry bunch with some fair-minded citizens. This writer has shared his dismay with this board's questionable ethics and acts of favoritism. If there were any thoughts that I might be overreacting to their actions, one just needs to review Article 42 this year and ponder for a moment its purpose. Article 42 states, “Shall the town authorize the Board of Selectmen to implement policies and procedures for appointing and/or removing members of any board or commission within its authority?”

Are you kidding me? Just about every committee in town is short members. We are short four members alone on the parks and recreation committee. The board just last year refused a past selectmen to serve on the park and recreation committee.

So the selectmen already have the power to deny access to any committee to anyone. They should never deny a citizen the right to be involved in their community but do have the authority not to appoint.

So ask yourself, why would they create such a procedure? It is simply one word, folks: Remove. You see, some of us dedicated volunteers actually disagree with this board sometimes. This volunteer actually has the notion that you can disagree with your almighty selectmen in private and in – “gasp” – public. If such abuse of the American political system has to go, it is the right to free speech in Weare. How will such a procedure affect the decision-making of each and every committee.

Disagree with the selectmen and be removed in a public or private setting. Be put on some sort of black list, never to be allowed to serve your community.

My mother used to tell me, “If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” If you need such a drastic and un-American measure, you are in the wrong position. The shorthanded volunteer base will get smaller if this article passes. I am sure I will be one of the first to go.

Recruiting new volunteers will get 100 times harder for all committees. Each and every one of these selectmen campaigned on treating these volunteers with respect – every one of them. This measure is a direct contradiction.

If the board does not like you or like your independent nature, you are gone and may never return. Shameful but par for the course.

Please join me in defeating this article. Please help send a message to the board. No on 42 is the battle cry. Yes to free speech and independent thought in Weare. As always, please remember – ethics is what you do, not what you say. Thank you for the time – I, at least, appreciate it.

Brian McDonald
Weare

To the Editor:
I would like to respond to Jim Thomson from Weare, and clarify a few things for the benefit of the Weare voters.

It is not only my assumption that most people in Weare are against the abuse of eminent domain for economic development, but it is a fact that UNH conducted a poll and over 90 percent are against it.

I suspect Jim and I would agree on many issues and we probably have more in common than we have differences. The only difference that I know of so far is how to go about reversing the horrific decision in the Kelo vs. New London case.

I don't think that the readers of this paper need a civics lesson on how a bill becomes a law, and the role of the courts. I think the ones requiring lessons are the politicians and judges.

They seem to have forgotten who in this country is sovereign, and it is time we remind them. If we are successful in applying Justice Souter's own ruling to him directly, we will prove something. We will prove that nobody is above the law, not even a Supreme Court Judge.

That message will be heard loud and clear across the nation and those in positions of power might think twice before cavalierly deciding to take away people's rights.

As a matter of fact, the mere threat of applying the rulings of rulers to the rulers (that was a mouthful) as we are doing in Weare, has already saved some people from having their property taken. I was given that information from a citizen of New London, Conn., and he wanted to let me know that the country is watching us here in Weare.

We are all Americans who are interested in reviving the American Dream which has unfortunately received a pretty hard knock-out punch from the U.S. Supreme Court. She may be knocked down temporarily, but don't count her out just yet!

Keith R. Lacasse
Vice Chairman
Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights Weare

To the Editor:
This letter is in response to an article you published that was titled “Not all are happy with Medvil Sale.”

First of all, let me state that this letter is from the board of directors in a co-op in the northern part of the state.

In your article it was a Mr. Roger Buxton that made the statement that all co-ops are “dumps.” That remark was very rude and insulting to other coops.

We believe Mr. Buxton and a few other residents there need to be enlightened on a few things. In this world today we have the right to choose. If Mr. Buxton and his friends don't want to join their co-op, that is their right. But don't begrudge their neighbors who have joined.

Saying that the Medvil Association is “incapable” of running the parks is plain stupid. How do you know if they can run it or not?

As far as those 120 residents that are upset because they can't vote, it's no different than any other corporation; if you're not a stockholder, you don't vote.

The amount of homeowners in the Medvil co-op shows that it can afford the $11 million mortgage. Yes, you will have a payment, but you will also enjoy the benefits of owning your park and controlling your carrying charge (rent). There will be no landlord to promise you everything and give you nothing but rent hikes. Hometown America isn't above doing that, either.

Also, why would a family park have more income than an adult park? The carrying charge is based per home, not how many persons live in the home.

Our co-op was formed almost three years ago and it was the best thing for us. There was another interested buyer at the time. We knew this investor was out to make money and he wasn't going to make it off us. We did the paperwork and the legal aspects and bought ourselves a park. The NHCLF worked with us from day one and are still there for us if need be. We have 80 homes in our community now, and our park has a lot of character. Mr. Buxton and his friends are more than welcome to come visit our co-op anytime. Our so-called “dump,” as Mr. Buxton prefers to call our co-op, is actually a nice residential-owned community.

Good luck Medvil in going through with your purchase.

Board of directors,
Lodge Hill MHP Co-op
Lancaster