"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
Alexander Hamilton

Monday, March 2, 2015

Meet the Candidates Night March 1st 2015

All five BoS candidates gave  brief statements of their qualifications. The only other contested races are for Treasurer, Amanda Bergquist vs incumbent Laura Hilliard and the Zoning Board  with three candidates running for two seats, , incumbent Bob Zewski, Robert St. Peter and Timothy Tinel.
Amanda Berquist attended as did Robert St. Peter and a statement from Bob Zewski was read on his behalf.


Anonymous said...

Thank you to Jerry Hopkins and the Lions Club for another fine job. Thank you blogger for getting the video up and thank you Hollis for filming it. BoS candidates were quite varied. John Anderson seems out of touch and not well informed but his heart is in the right place. Kelly Marsh is very bright and might be a good choice for a fresh new face. Josh and Jean speak for most of us and both have many years of community involvement. Chuck was okay in his comments, but why is he running? He also mentioned that he coukld be autocratic when needed. Look up the def, "taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering."an autocratic management style". too bad we don't have a real debate among candidates. Please vote on March 10th.

One is Enough said...

Lots of talk during the meeting about trust in town government and the Right to Know Law. Makes me wonder if electing our former Town Administrator, Chuck Connell, to the Select Board, is prudent.

One bureaucrat, Carter Terenzini, already sits with the board and advises them.

Need More Info. said...

" Kelly Marsh is very bright and might be a good choice for a fresh new face ". Obama was a fresh new face too. Enough said? Unless we know where someone is coming from, we can not entrust them with office. Kelly pledged to answer all questions asked on this site. She answered enough to show that she has not followed town issues.
My fear is that she may be a Trojan horse for the school board, or the " we need a gym " movement. To have my support, she will have to clarify her interests.

No Track Record said...

I appreciate Kelly's willingness to serve our town. A fresh face and new ideas are always welcome especially from such a well spoken and polite young lady.

In order to be an effective Selectman a candidate should have a good grasp of the issues. I feel Kelly lacks the knowledge, to hit the ground running.

Kelly, show us you have what it takes to be an effective Selectman. Attend Selectmen meetings, serve on a committee or two, ask questions, get involved with the towns inner workings and become more familiar with the challanges Moultonbrorough is facing. Only than will voters realy know where you stand on the issues.

Anonymous said...

Amazing silly comments here. Obama? Trojan horse for the school board? What nonsense. Get a grip, take a deep breath and loosen that tin foil hat for a few minutes and think before you write.
Give the lady a break will ya. She is a volunteer running to work for you.

Anonymous said...

The preceding message has no content..

Grumpy said...

Of the candidates we have two who have served well, are familiar with town governance and have the time and commitment. I believe we have tasted Mr. Connell's
"autocratic style" when he was TA and I don't think that is what we need in Moultonborough.
As Mr. Bartlett said, we had 200 people speaking loud and clear on a petition regarding the TA and the BoS went into their autocratic mode and went silently on with the TA.
I would like to see one or two who saw SB2 as a possible way to allow every voter to have a say on the final product. One candidate (I believe it was Mr. Connell) gave the gratuitous argument that the deliberative session could derail a whole article with just a handful of people present. As an example of how a Town Meeting can do the same just look at the history of the ABC. That article (calling for a Statutory B.C.) was turned upside down by amendment before the article was ever discussed. Just give the entire legislative body the chance to vote.
Jobs, crime rate, tax rate and education.... Jobs start with zoning for commercial efforts and standing by that zoning (fail). Crime rate is low (done). Tax rate; we unfairly rely on non-resident taxes for extraordinary spending and that will someday come back to bite (fail). Education; a good example of extraordinary spending with mediocre results (fail). We need to work on three of these areas.
Josh Bartlett was the only one that convinced me he deserves my vote.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks that fresh new faces, ideas, and open minds are exactly what this town needs, as opposed to the usual, where so many have been entrenched in numerous committees, their focus and failed efforts for so long. We owe Josh and Jean our gratitude for their volunteer time, and perhaps they speak for you on several issues, however I disagree that they “speak for most of us”. Perhaps on an issue or two, but that’s the beauty of this process, to find and elect someone who best represents “most of us”!

Anonymous said...

I don't find the comments silly at all. I found Kelly to be a bright new face and someone who could perhaps someday be a member of the BoS. She should familiarize herself with the workings of town govt., how committees contribute to town govt. and so on. Also, she seemed completely unaware of one of the town's thorniest issues, the UNH Gym Feasibility Study;familiarity with that would have served her well. I wish her well, and look forward to having her run for office sometime in the future.

Anonymous said...

After looking at the video it is hard not to agree with many of the previous comments, starting with the very first one. Jean is very impressive and Josh Bartlett has some excellent qualifications. Both of then seem to have a good grasp of the challenges facing the town. I agree that Chuck Connell's comment about being autocratic is bothersome. John Anderson is a nice guy but questionable as far as being able to tackle the job.
Kelly Marsh is definitely a fresh face but not ready for prime time. She talked about not spending money but nothing specific. she made no mention of where she stands on sidewalks, the States Landing project or a new gym. She didn't even seem to know there was a UNH study. Her comment on this thread several weeks ago about the balance of power between the BoS and the TA was scary. Not knowing the difference between an elected official and a town employee doesn't come across as someone ready to become a selectman.

Anonymous said...

The Obama and trojan horse comments are silly. Were talking a local election here. Keep it bipartisan. AS to the " no content" comment. Niether does yours.

Anonymous said...

I am supporting the candidates who have spent time working on town committees and participating in meetings. Folks whose opinions I have heard. Candidates like Jean and Josh.

I remember Chuck Connell as Town Administrator and he's not the candidate for me. All but disappeared afterwards...did not even know he was a resident.

Kelly Marsh not such a good impression on responding to the blog questions. She was able to respond to some questions at the candidates meeting...once she heard what other candidates had to say. I cannot believe that she does not know about the UNH gym feasibility study. And the comment about checks and balances with the BOS and TA...unbelievable to say the least. The TA works at the pleasure of the BOS. In my opinion, not ready for the position. Has not had even found the time to come up to speed yet on what is going on in our humble Town.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Bartlett is definitely playing the part of a politician. He has been a vocal supporter of SB2 but waffled during candidates night spouting something about "balance but not necessisarily SB2". Sounds like he doesn't want to take a vocal stand on some issues we have known him to have strong opinions about in the past lest he alienate potential voters. I wonder how long until the true colors show if he gets elected. A vote definitely goes to Jean, but not so sure about the other.

Kelly Marsh said...

Hi all, since my name has come up so many times here I felt it best to respond.

First of all, thank you to all who came out the other night and listened to all of the candidates and questions. I felt it was important for each citizen to be heard no matter the question asked or how late the hour.

Secondly, you have not heard from me in some time because I find I am having a hard time with this particular forum. I have tried to answer questions but they do not seem to be making it to Paul. I am not sure of the issue and have talked to Paul about it a few times but it kept happening so it was futile to try to have a good question/answer session this way. I have given out my email and my facebook page for anyone to use but thus far no one from here has done so. I did wait at the door and talked to people there about some issues. It was very nice. I am a much better face to face person. Please, if you have questions contact me and let’s meet for coffee. You get a much better sense of someone when they are right in front of you having a conversation.

I can assure you, I am not now, nor have I ever been a trojan horse.

I am willing to admit when I make mistakes and yes my understanding of the TA position was one. I appreciated the information and said so but that was one of the messages that were lost, twice I believe.

I'm not sure how I could comment on sidewalks or States Landing as these were never brought up during the discussion or after. I was asked about the 'Rec' building and answered honestly. I did read the study. What I said I did not see was a $6 million dollar price tag attached to a proposal. As was pointed out by other candidates this figure is not set in stone. My position on this was remaining neutral until I see a final proposal. That is how I am. I could reject everything out of hand but how fair is that? Is that what you as a voter really want? Someone who rejects everything without having all the information? That is not the kind of selectman I would be.

This is what I can offer you as a selectman for our town:
Careful spending - I will not spend OUR tax dollars wastefully. Every dollar in that account is money we have worked hard to earn and I will never forget that.
Respect - You will always be treated with respect by me and I will always listen to what you have to say regardless of whether or not we agree.
Representative - I will represent you. You, the voter, get to decide what you want. In the end, I am just the person making that happen.

I really hope this makes it through. If not, I will keep trying until it does. Please feel free to contact me. Let's talk!


Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

"He has been a vocal supporter of SB2 but waffled during candidates night spouting something about "balance but not necessarily SB2". "

I hope I don't get Josh in trouble, with other voters, by showing support for him.

At the candidates meeting, regarding SB-2, he was recognizing the animus, towards the questions I asked; SB-2 and Official Budget Committee in regards to Article 29. He was also sensitive to previous votes on SB-2 taken by the town.

Unlike Josh, I don't give a damn about hurting someone's feelings, if they're passing wind, and taking up my time. Josh wasn't. He was responding to questions asked, or interpreted by the moderator, who was trying to be "cute", unsuccessfully.

Josh's statement of an "SB-2 lite" was his attempt at recognizing previous attempts at passing SB-2 by the town. The problem he was wrestling with, under NH law, there are few instances of using ballots other than statutorily stipulated reason. That is the reason SB-2 is a "ballot referendum system", and he can't provide an "SB-2 lite" solution. You can't use the ballots for just anything.

He was the only one that corrected the moderator for his false assurance that SB-2 gets rid of town meetings. The moderator couldn't be any more wrong.

Or the other person, that bloviated about extended experience with SB-2 ... how SB-2 doesn't allow for voters to debate, and articles can't be changed. Bull...! The SB-2 deliberative session is no different than the annual meeting debates, if you stay for the whole meeting.

SB-2 allows you, to not have to go park your *ss for 6-8 hours waiting to vote on one matter. It allows you to go a booth and vote on all the same issues, quickly, in a voter booth and go home ... not listen to a cacophony of bloviating wanna-bees.

Their claim to fame is being popular in town.

Most in town haven't a clue what an Official Budget Committee is, or its statutory power. But they believe one Ta, or 5 Selectmen with day jobs, can do a better job. Or a 5 member advisory budget committee, from the same town folks, know better than the other 4,000 folks in town. You have to wonder how much time it takes, with all the other committees their on.

My name is on what I believe ... and I've got the gonads to defend my positions ... and maybe a little education.

If lemmings want to go jump off of cliffs ... have at it.

Yes, there is a cure for ignorance, but not stupidity.

They both show through!



Josh Bartlett said...

To the folks who question my position on SB-2:

I have been a vocal supporter of SB-2; I believe that it gives people a chance to have their voice heard, even if they cannot be at Town Meeting.

However, I believe that a compromise position needs to be found. SB-2 has been voted on three times and has not passed. The voters have spoken, so I think it is time to move toward a possible alternative. On Sunday night I suggested that perhaps an SB-2 "lite" could be crafted - something that would allow ballot questions on all money matters over a particular amount, say, $10,000. Short of full SB-2 this would allow 1200-1400 (our usual voting day turnout) voters to be heard on important large ticket articles. This would prevent situations where 100-200 people make major decisions for all our citizens.

Regarding the statements often made in opposition to SB-2 deliberative sessions, I disagree totally with the contention that lower turnout to these sessions indicates a lack of interest. It indicates that people are getting their information from sources other than from people who can attend those meetings. Ballot booth voting eliminates intimidation and allows people time to consider the arguments and do their own research.

I hope this makes my position clear. I trust that folks will let me know if I have not.

Anonymous said...

Josh has been a proponent of SB-2 for many years and he has recently come to the realization that there are some valid deficiencies and pitfalls in this form of town government. It is admirable that he is not afraid to voice his change of opinion, state his reasoning, suggest remedies and most importantly, not be afraid to say so. These are attributes that should be welcomed.

It is uncalled for to have his candid and public comments demonized and misconstrued by those who have not wrestled with the question of SB-2 and have made an in depth evaluattion of the ramifications of making a change. This attitude is not waffling but a mature way to analyze an issue.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't we all say when asked: I will spend tax dollars wisely. I am open to hearing all the issues. I will have the residents' best interests at hand in all decisions, etc., etc. So easy to say...

Let's keep our eyes on the candidates who have a track record.

As they say: Actions speak louder than words.

P.S. Never had an issue posting here. Remember to hit the "I'm not a robot" box!