NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2007
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE MAY 17, 2007
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Ms. Gail Powell Ms. Denise Blaha (Excused)
Mr. Scott Curry Mr. Chet Batchelder
Mr. Philip Fernald Mr. Kurt Duprey
Mr. Michael Koester School Board Representative
Ms. Charlene Andersen
Mr. William Netishen, Selectmen's Representative
Mr. John Decker
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Judy Doughty, School Board
Mr. Peter Bock, Board of Selectmen
Ms. Celia Sweeney
Ms. Debra Kimball
Mr. Gerald Lalonde
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
Ms. Powell called the meeting to order at 7:10pm and introduced the new Budget Committee member, Mr. Curry.
Ms. Powell said that she wanted to talk to the Budget Committee members about how the budget process had worked, the impact of the process on the town and how the process could be improved in the future. She said that she felt the Budget Committee had been helped by the school district shading things in their budget that were contractual obligations. She noted that the Budget Committee did not have control over budget items which were contractual obligations. She said that the Budget Committee had attempted to put out some of their own information. She said that the town officials had presented lots of good information to the Budget Committee as well. She said that she wanted the Budget Committee to have the momentum to keep working on their process. She said that the Budget Committee needed to be more
proactive if they felt they didn't have the information that they needed to make decisions.
WARRANT ARTICLE DISCUSSIONS:
Ms. Powell said that she had invited some members of the public to start discussion about some of the other warrant articles which had been brought before the community. She said that there were networks in the community which were interested in certain issues. She said that she wanted the Budget Committee to be aware of these other community networks and she hoped that the Budget Committee could work more closely with them. She said that the Budget Committee were supposed to be advocates for the community and she said that working with other community groups was a part of that.
Ms. Powell asked Ms. Kimball to speak to the Budget Committee about a warrant article advocated by the Conservation Commission which had been discussed at the 2007 Town Meeting. Ms. Kimball said that the Conservation Commission had been thinking about doing the warrant article earlier than they had started the process. She said that the members of the Commission had not been thinking in terms of a time frame and she said that they might have started the process a little late. She said that the Commission had wanted to use the correct language in the article. She said that they had sent their proposed article including language to the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator for their review. She said that the Conservation Commission had spent time going through the process of creating a warrant article and
she said that it might be nice for the Commission to have something they could post in their office which included the dates they needed to remember when they were sponsoring a warrant article. Mr. Netishen noted that language in warrant articles needed to be very specific. He said that the Conservation Commission had been provided with the proper information but he noted that the RSA document explaining that process was lengthy. Mr. Koester suggested that a link to an attachment of the RSA document could be added to the town website. Mr. Bock noted that the entire Board of Selectmen had not been present when the Conservation Commission had brought this before them. He said that was an unusual situation. Mr. Netishen said that he did not feel there had been a timing issue with the Conservation Commission warrant article. He said that he had not felt it was appropriate for the Board of Selectmen to prejudge on the Conservation Commission
issue. He said that he felt the warrant article had been handled fine by everyone involved. Mr. Bock noted that the Conservation Commission warrant article would have an impact on the community. Mr. Netishen said that in his opinion the warrant article had been more successful because it had been submitted by a petition.
Ms. Powell suggested that the Budget Committee should try to put together a calendar with relevant dates, including important dates to know when submitting a warrant article. She said that the Budget Committee would need to know the dates to submit articles to the library for publication in the town newsletter.
Mr. Koester said that if a petition warrant article was submitted to the Board of Selectmen then the Board of Selectmen should alert the petitioners that they needed to speak to the Budget Committee if their petitioned warrant article would have budgetary impact. Mr. Decker said that the Budget Committee should vote on all the articles to cover themselves. He said that if an article had budgetary impact then members of the Budget Committee should vote for what was fiscally correct or responsible and not with their hearts. Mr. Koester said that petitioners advocating their proposed warrant article should make a presentation to the Budget Committee. Mr. Curry noted that the average citizen did not always understand the regulations. Ms. Powell said that whatever the Budget Committee could do to enhance
communication would be a good thing.
Ms. Sweeney noted that there had been delays in the Conservation Commission getting the financial information that they needed to present their proposed warrant article. Ms. Kimball said that the information Ms. Mooney had presented to the public had helped this warrant article to pass. She said that Ms. Mooney had found the questions from the Budget Committee helpful when she had put together her presentation. She said that the questions had given her a guide as to what information would be most important to the public. She said that the Conservation Commission had followed the model of the Mulligan Forest warrant article with their presentation. She said that they also had looked at the examples of other conservation projects. Mr. Netishen said that only two years earlier the town had their first case of
buying conservation rights to land. He said that the case had taken a year and a half to complete. He said that these conservation issues were very new to the community. He said that the Conservation Commission, the Board of Selectmen and the community were all more comfortable with the process than they had been at first. Ms. Sweeney said that in her opinion the voters were beginning to take a longer view of financial decisions.
Ms. Powell asked Mr. Lalonde to speak about an open letter he had written to the town which discussed the teacher contract. She asked what had triggered the letter. Mr. Lalonde said that he had written the letter because the only information that the voters had gotten about the contract was from the School Board. He said that the information from the School Board used percentages instead of real numbers. He said that many Americans did not understand percentages and did not take the time to figure them out. He said that he had looked into one of the percentages which the School Board had used in their information. He said that there were 160 school districts and 61 of them had recently negotiated labor contracts. He said that the salaries in Nottingham were below the average of the 61 recently
negotiated contracts. He noted that he had been correct in his analysis of the figures and so had the School Board, though they had come to different conclusions. He noted that was part of the problem with the use of percentages. He said that he had wanted the dollar figures so that the people could see the impact. He said that he thought the Budget Committee should be responsible for giving the public the pros and cons of everything fiscal before they voted on it. He said that use of percentages and confusing information did not make it clear to the people what they were voting for. He said that the Budget Committee should look at all the voters, including those on a fixed income and they should get the information out to people about how they would be affected by certain decisions.
Mr. Koester noted that there was a communication problem. He said that the Budget Committee did not have a budget of their own. He said that would make it hard for them to mail out information to the people in town. Mr. Decker said that he believed doing that was beyond the scope of the Budget Committee. Mr. Lalonde said that he thought the number of Budget Committee members who voted for and against each article should be on the warrant. Mr. Decker noted that information was in the minutes. He said that he was not sure if it could legally be put on the warrant. Ms. Andersen said that the Budget Committee had gotten some information and had put copies of it around the town for the voters to see. Ms. Powell said that she thought it would be a good idea for the Budget Committee vote to be on the
warrant or for them to find another way to reveal that vote more. She said that would help the public. Mr. Curry said that the information was confusing to the voters. He said that the Budget Committee should put out their own analysis or they should try to be an arbiter between the sources that put out information supporting opposite views. Mr. Lalonde suggested that the Budget Committee could be like the United States Supreme Court and publish a minority opinion and a majority opinion. Mr. Koester said that he wouldn't be comfortable trying to write an opinion for anyone other than himself. Mr. Decker said that the information about the votes was in the meeting minutes and he also noted that all the meetings were open to the public. He said that people could attend meetings if they were interested in seeing how or why the Budget Committee voted a certain way. Mr. Koester said that the results of the Budget Committee votes could be
published in the town newsletter. Ms. Andersen said that this discussion came down to communication. She said that there were communication options from the cable channel to the town newsletter to the town website. She said that the Budget Committee should sit down with the team that took care of the town newsletter and see if they could coordinate their efforts better. Mr. Bock commented that another option would be that a representative from the Budget Committee could give a presentation at the town meeting. Mr. Koester said that wouldn't work for school issues but it would be a great idea for town issues. Mr. Netishen noted that the Budget Committee could address the Deliberative Session regarding school issues. Mr. Koester said that the Deliberative Session was not well attended. Ms. Powell said that there would be a joint meeting between the School Board, the Board of Selectmen and the Budget Committee on July 9, 2007. She
said that they could discuss some of these issues.
Mr. Lalonde asked who was responsible for presenting the budget information. Mr. Netishen said that he did not feel anything had been left out of the School Board information. He said that the difference between percentages and numbers was simply a method of presentation. Mr. Lalonde said that public figures needed to use the easiest method so people understood the information they were being given. Mr. Decker said that it was the responsibility of every single person to get their own information. Mr. Koester asked if Mr. Lalonde would like to see the minutes published on the web in draft form. Mr. Lalonde said no. Mr. Decker noted that it sometimes took quite a while for minutes to be approved.
Ms. Andersen said that Cheryl Smith had planned a discussion about the mosquito control issue. She said that Ms. Smith had brought in Dr. Alan Eaton to answer questions. She said that about 6 people had attended the discussion.
Ms. Andersen read a list of questions for the Budget Committee which had been prepared by Cheryl Smith. Following are the text of the questions.
1. How are budgets for warrant articles determined?
a. While researching the warrant for mosquito control and monitoring the only info I could find regarding the dollar figure was the quote from the one firm that had contacted the town. Why was this the only quote the town considered? (at least one other firm is licensed to do municipal mosquito control in New Hampshire).
2. If a Nottingham resident incurs expenses related to public education, can they be reimbursed by the town? What is the procedure for this?
a. For example: for photocopying, (even if the educational session was not 'sanctioned' by any particular town committee).
3. How are split votes decided by the Budget Committee? (Does it depend on the wording of the motion?) It would be helpful to have this explained, so it is understood by those attending Town Meeting.
Mr. Bock said that the Board of Selectmen had talked to another firm about mosquito control. He said that the prices had been approximately the same and the Board of Selectmen had felt that this firm was the better choice.
Mr. Decker said that in the event of a Budget Committee tie vote, the tie went to the winner. Mr. Curry said that according to a Planning Board law lecture he had attended the Chair should vote on every motion and members of committees should not abstain unless there was a serious reason. He said that abstentions should be rare.
Mr. Netishen said that the Budget Committee should give some serious thought to making a presentation at the Town Meeting. He also noted that the Budget Committee needed to know the budget as well as the people presenting it because he pointed out that the bottom line number in the presentations was the Budget Committee recommended bottom line number. Ms. Andersen said that she felt like switching out a police cruiser for a police SUV was a good idea but she said that she felt it had been rushed. She said that there should be the chance to do analysis on ideas like that. She said that the Budget Committee should get the chance to talk to people and to discuss the impact before they voted on recommendations like that. Mr. Netishen said that the Budget Committee did have people available that they could have asked
about the idea.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee accept the meeting minutes from January 12, 2007. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Mr. Decker suggested that the three sets of minutes representing the public hearing and meeting on January 12, 2007 as well as the continuation of the meeting on January 13, 2007 be combined into one set of minutes for the official record. He also noted a few grammar and spelling errors.
Mr. Decker withdrew his motion.
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee accept the meeting minutes with changes which incorporated all of the minutes from January 12, 2007 and January 13, 2007 into one set of official minutes. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Mr. Fernald, Ms. Powell, Mr. Koester, Mr. Netishen and Mr. Decker voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry and Ms. Andersen abstained from the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with 2 abstentions.
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee accept the meeting minutes from January 18, 2007. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Mr. Fernald, Ms. Powell, Mr. Koester, Mr. Netishen, Mr. Decker and Ms. Andersen voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry abstained from the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention.
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee accept the meeting minutes from February 8, 2007. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Mr. Fernald, Ms. Powell, Mr. Koester, Mr. Netishen, Mr. Decker and Ms. Andersen voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry abstained from the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Ms. Powell said that she would like to postpone the election of a new Budget Committee Chair because they did not have all their members present. Mr. Netishen said that there was no guarantee all their members would be at the next meeting either.
Mr. Koester made a motion that the Budget Committee choose a Chair before the completion of the April 19, 2007 meeting. Mr. Decker seconded the motion.
Mr. Decker asked if anyone present was a willing nominee.
The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of choosing a Chair before the completion of the April 19, 2007 meeting. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Koester made a motion to nominate John Decker as Budget Committee Chair. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Mr. Decker said that he would consider accepting the position but then the Budget Committee would need an alternative representative to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. He said that he would rather represent the Budget Committee on the Capital Improvement Plan Committee than be the Chair. Mr. Netishen said that losing Mr. Decker would be a great loss to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. He said that making Mr. Decker Chair at the expense of his representation on the Capital Improvement Plan Committee would be doing a disservice because the community would be best served by having Mr. Decker on the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. Mr. Koester said that if Mr. Decker agreed to be the Chair of the Budget Committee he would have lots of support and he would be able to delegate responsibilities. Ms.
Powell said that she also felt the Chair of the Budget Committee would have a lot of support but she noted it would be hard for Mr. Decker to be Chair and representative to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. Mr. Curry asked why Ms. Powell did not want to continue as Chair. Ms. Powell said that was not able to be as on top of the demands required as she would like to be. Mr. Netishen said that he would like to postpone the motion.
Mr. Fernald, Ms. Powell, Mr. Koester, Ms. Andersen and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion to nominate John Decker as Budget Committee Chair. Mr. Decker and Mr. Netishen voted against the motion. The motion passed 5-2.
Mr. Decker made a motion to nominate Mr. Koester as Vice-Chair of the Budget Committee. Ms. Powell seconded the motion. Mr. Decker, Ms. Powell, Mr. Fernald, Ms. Andersen, Mr. Curry and Mr. Netishen voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Koester abstained from the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with 1 abstention.
OTHER INFORMATION:
Mr. Decker announced the following dates for future Budget Committee meetings:
July 9, 2007 Joint Meeting between the School Board, Board of Selectmen and Budget Committee
May 17, 2007 at 7:00pm
August 16, 2007 at 7:00pm
Mr. Decker said that the May meeting would be used for the Budget Committee to review the town and school district quarterly reports.
Mr. Netishen said that many Nottingham residents were not able to use their phones. He said that Verizon was bringing in lines but he said that the 895 exchange would be dead for a while. He said that people needed to keep posted to the cable channel for further information. He said that there were 5 locations where residents could go and the locations were manned by people with ham radio who would be able to call out if people needed something. He encouraged everyone to keep an eye on their neighbors and to take care of each other. He said that the volunteers were exhausted and he said that there were likely to be problems with the phones for a while. He said that he had heard estimates of 3 weeks before the bank would be back to normal and 4 weeks before the phone service would be back to normal.
He said that the phone number people could call to reach emergency management was 734-2532.
Mr. Netishen announced that Ms. Mary Bonser would be the Board of Selectmen representative to the Budget Committee.
Ms. Powell thanked Mr. Koester for his help during her term as Budget Committee Chair. Mr. Koester thanked Ms. Powell and said that she had done a tremendous job as Chair. Ms. Andersen thanked Ms. Powell as well. She also thanked Mr. Netishen for his service to the Budget Committee and said that she had complete confidence in him as a leader of the community. Mr. Decker also thanked Ms. Powell for her time as Chair of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Netishen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50pm. Mr. Koester seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
