Thursday, October 2, 2014

Survey Process

Based upon some recent comments about the UNH feasibility study survey, some clarification is in order.
No survey is perfect and it is but one piece of a larger puzzle, which when it all comes together paints a picture of what it is that the respondents are really saying. There is no guarantee for any survey medium, whether online or on paper, that will prevent dishonesty. The online survey is limited to one per computer for that purpose so as to prevent "stuffing the ballot box".  When you complete the survey online, if you attempt to complete it again from the same computer, a reminder will be displayed that you have already taken the survey. 
If people answer the questions honestly, we will know for example if you are a Moultonboro resident or not and whether you are seasonal or not and that is information that can be pulled from the results to differentiate the respondents and their answers. One way the UNH team will " proof" the survey results will be in the focus groups. Do the people that show up to speak match what they read in the surveys? 
As to questions for the town team, please be assured that we want this process to be as open and transparent as possible so come this evening and ask questions.  If there is a perception that the public is being shut out, the end result will be unsuccessful. 

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I look on amazed that the transparent insider maneuvering of a few can play with the best interests of our citizens. An expensive 4th gym with declining school age population?...without common sense usage statistics?..appears to be nothing more than a jobs bill for a few vendors...do what you must but know that I, for one, will fire every vendor I subsidize with excessive 'lakefront invoice rates'....as self-serving processes like this continue to be rammed through to the detriment of our community, sooner or later certain folks are going to realize who needs whom

Joe Cormier/jcormier@myfairpoint.net said...

Some of us won't be able to be at the meeting this PM, but will view the video.

Thank you again, Nancy and Hollis, for your diligence and volunteerism, in bringing a recorded view of town happenings. The recordings allow individuals, to develop their own opinions ... not hearsay, nor undue third party influence.

There's no question that "minds have already been made-up" regarding the proposed Gym.

No problem ... let the process work its way through.

You've paid for the UNH study ... hear them out ... and then vote at the 2015 town meeting.

Trying to stifle the UNH recreational professionals, will achieve nothing but demonstrate a "stubbornness" to other views, and a closed mind.

Think about it as a "parry and thrust" opportunity, for the "opposition", and ourselves (or is it yourselves).

Doesn't mean the duel is over!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb9p9tP7aBU




Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mr. Blogger, for the clarification. The problem I see right off is that there may be more than one eligible voter per household. One vote per computer would then be a problem unless each voter could use a different email address. Can you answer that, please?

P R Riot said...

SUBJECT MATTER of Tonites ( Oct 2) meeting. ? ?
Not posted on town website " BRC Facility Study by UNH. Our T A said that link would be the nerve-center of this P R campain...Seems the nerve is dead.
One question on the mechanics of the web based survey.....will we be able to open it, and review all questions before posting answers? Will we get locked out if we preview it ? From what I have heard at the meetings, it will be a struggle for survey recieptiants to put fourth their own views.
This is very carefully orchestrated by two town employees, and the UNH experts. Who represents the taxpayer here? Did we get $ 5,000 to $ 10,000 to bring in our own economists and experts?
Sheep, you are going on a sleigh ride.

Who Works For You ? said...

TAXPAYER Defense Team ! ! The gang of five...the only ones who represent the Taxpayer. Scary thought. We have two paid town employees who hired UNH Rec experts to carry their water. Who allowed this ? Who represents the taxpayer? The two new members of the BOS more or less cancel each other out. One wants the gym, the other wants a fair process to answer this question, but he is only one vote. Our BOS chair is placing all his effort on being an impartial chair...does not seem to be representing those who voted for him. He has to have a voice on the issue, not just " Roberts Rules ". Our other two long time members are standing on the train platform, watching the caboose go round the bend. Mo says to Curley: We should have been on that train ". Curley says " I didn't know where it was going ". We have brought ninja sticks to a gun-fight. The taxpayer needs to realize his only voice left is his own. Two paid employees have manipulated us into a corner.

Tax Payer Rep ? said...

Today the Town Administrator announced this months " Talk of the Town " video, a newsy P R campaign he M. C's . It is on the town website. This month features Jean Beadle, chair of the Advisory Budget committee. Hope she will add transparency on our Capital Improvements Budget, which has to be near double, to meet the wish list.
Next month ( cut Paste from town announcement )

Next month’s topic will be UNH Recreation Needs Study.

Have to wonder who will represent the taxpayers on that ?

Jean would get my vote said...

Any chance Jean Beadle would run for the open Selectmans seat? She would be a welcomed addition. She's smart, with a common sense attitude, and knows the towns finacial situation better then most.

Anonymous said...

Still unable to watch videos on my Ipad posted on the towns website. No problem with the Moultonboro Speaks blog site. Whatever the problem there must be technology to fix this glitch.

Anonymous said...

I am frustrated and unhappy, but not surprised, at the direction the survey and focus groups are taking. What started out as a feasibility study for a GYM has morphed into an extravaganza orchestrated by the TA and rec. director. It is my understanding that focus groups are going to include students' opinions! Now, what do you think they will say when asked what we need for the rec. dept.???? What happened to "children should be seen and not heard?" Do you think they will be prompted? Also, school staff will have input. Who is paying for this anyway?

Anonymous said...

Wow, just Wow! Again I felt that the questions appeared appropriate, if its intent is to determine use and needs. I have not completed the survey, and so have not seen where it would ask or suggest that a gym is required. I think the result of the community input might suggest one way or another. Isn't determining if there is a need or not to determine direction better than a yes or no vote? Why shouldn't the usage survey include all of the community input?!! To suggest that the kids or parents would not answer honestly is inappropriate and I suspect that those who suggest such a thing might be the ones with the dubious instinct. I also want to thank the blogger for his efforts. It must be difficult endeavor.

Needs - Wishes.. said...

10:22. Wow Wow Wow...you mention " need " with regard to the Rec Study. FYI, town wise, a need is the Police Dept, or a school, or the Fire Dept, or our Welfare Dept, for people that can not afford our taxes and food.
The recreation effort is NOT a need....you can go recreate yourself.....without our stressed tax dollar.

Anonymous said...

12:12 - I believe that this study is the same study that we voted on this past Town Meeting in response to the BRC on community services and facilities; to pursue development of a facility to meet several programs and functions. Apparently there are many who disagree with you and feel that there is enough of a need that they voted for a survey to evaluate what we have and are using. Would a new facility benefit our community? I don't think any one person knows. Let's allow the communities information in survey results guide us. No need to get nasty!

History said...

2:35. You are incorrect here Your cut-paste:

; to pursue development of a facility to meet several programs and functions.

Vote was for a feasibility study, to see if more rec facilities were needed. Normally this would have been the first step, proir to siting a building we don't know if we want..

Note the prototype they used in the site study was 25,000 sq ft.....$ 6 million or so....and only 10 % for meeting room/projects. Rec offices and storage. 5,000 sq ft. Basketball court 10,000 sq ft..
This will morph into a facility to meet several programs and functions, when they figure out they do not have the support . That was the process last time, before the whole plastic project was voted down.

Anonymous said...

K history, you got me; I didn't use the actual specific language of the article. However I don't believe that I am "incorrect" when I state several programs and functions. Perhaps "various" would have been a more acceptable word then several. What I recall is that following many years bouncing the subject and reviewing information, the BRC found and suggested that new facilities should be pursued, and the community agreed with a yes vote. The study looks like it is pursuing information from the community about how they use and feel about the conditions of the current facilities, and if they meet their needs. My point is that the survey appears to be evaluating current inventory to help determine a starting point of facilities and conditions. I could be wrong, but if this is the intent of the survey, I agree with its process, that it is a responsible focus and format, in stead of just asking if we need a new gym. Myself I'd be happy with horseshoe pits and annual Fire Dept. muster cookouts. ;P

Details.. said...

11:04 A M. You compose a nice. Gently written blog, tho fuzzy on some details.. The BRC was a committee of just five members, and three were clearly pro-gym before their meetings started. After their report in 2011, they were disbanded. There was NO action taken on their report...NO votes, NO ratification. Thanks to ourT A and Rec Director, the BRC report rose from the dead, and was their hue and cry for a feasibility study, a campaign before last years town meeting. Town Meeting approved a feasibility study. The five members of the BRC only made a reccomendation.....nothing binding. They also had a strong plea to explore facility sharing...some place our leaders do not want to go.
This years town meeting will be about approving the feasibility study, if it turns out as they expect.. If UNH says our town is too small to support a facility, we will vote on something...a motion that can be twisted into three different meanings. They do not let us just do YES or NO around here.