HUB status in Moultonborough

[tis]

Originally Posted by Wishbone

I was there as well, got there early and still had to wait. Why would they set up the registration in the auditorium when they have a whole school to use? As mentioned before, if this doesn't validate the need for SB2, I don't what will.

Next question, is where or what are they going to do, to accommodate this many people. I also hope it is scheduled on a Saturday, so even more can attend.

They are probably hoping less will attend.

[neckdweller]

As someone who likes to say that I write off my Moultonborough bill as a charitable donation on my taxes since I can't vote there, I would love to say this is hilarious except for the fact that a lot of people wasted their time last night. The Moultonborough Speaks explanation is pretty lame. They expected 800 people? I think I saw more Hub signs (pro and con) on my route up to the lake last weekend. They drastically underestimated the number of people that have strong feelings on both sides of this.

I'm pretty sure as I type this there's a group in town drafting a 5,000 seat stadium proposal to raise at the rescheduled town meeting. This will accommodate everyone for future town meetings. The stadium will be funded by local minor league teams in the area. Just like all those local swim clubs will fund the Hub.

[winni83]

Last night at 10:18 PM I received the following message from member breathe easy:
“Hey Winni83 – who are you? Stop hiding behind a pseudonym”.

To answer the question posed directly: It is none of your business. If Don thinks that any of my posts crossed some kind of line, he would delete them. Now why would you want to know who I am? Are you thinking about some kind of retaliation or pay back?

I really don’t care who breathe easy is and have no idea as to his or her identity. But some interesting facts. . Now I am no detective, but breathe easy’s avatar is a picture of a person’s lungs. Paul Punturieri, our town moderator, has a blog called Moultonborough Speaks, but he now only posts under that blog on Facebook. The about section on Moultonborough Speaks describes Paul Punturieri as a “Respiratory Care Practitioner”. Draw your own inferences.

I will post any additional private messages I receive.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by winni83

Last night at 10:18 PM I received the following message from member breathe easy:
“Hey Winni83 – who are you? Stop hiding behind a pseudonym”.

To answer the question posed directly: It is none of your business. If Don thinks that any of my posts crossed some kind of line, he would delete them. Now why would you want to know who I am? Are you thinking about some kind of retaliation or pay back?

I really don’t care who breathe easy is and have no idea as to his or her identity. But some interesting facts. . Now I am no detective, but breathe easy’s avatar is a picture of a person’s lungs. Paul Punturieri, our town moderator, has a blog called Moultonborough Speaks, but he now only posts under that blog on Facebook. The about section on Moultonborough Speaks describes Paul Punturieri as a “Respiratory Care Practitioner”. Draw your own inferences.

I will post any additional private messages I receive.

Paul P hid his name behind his blog for quite sometime, I recall! Tell him to pound sand.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

A friend of mine came up with an idea whereby voters, already signed in to vote last night, could go to town hall and cast their votes. Sounds simple….right? What could possibly go wrong? After mulling it over, my solution would be to allow those voters, already signed in, to go to the town clerk’s office during specific days and times, and complete the ballot, much the same way as an absentee ballot, and then all votes would be SEALED, not to be counted until town meeting day, under well supervised circumstances. This would avoid “irregularities “ in the count, if you get my drift. Legal feedback, anyone? I should amend that to say that anyone already registered to vote last night could forget my suggestion and just go to the newly scheduled town meeting, whenever that is.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

A friend of mine came up with an idea whereby voters, already signed in to vote last night, could go to town hall and cast their votes. Sounds simple….right? What could possibly go wrong? After mulling it over, my solution would be to allow those voters, already signed in, to go to the town clerk’s office during specific days and times, and complete the ballot, much the same way as an absentee ballot, and then all votes would be SEALED, not to be counted until town meeting day, under well supervised circumstances. This would avoid “irregularities “ in the count, if you get my drift. Legal feedback, anyone? I should amend that to say that anyone already registered to vote last night could forget my suggestion and just go to the newly scheduled town meeting, whenever that is.

Moultonborough would need to vote to adopt the SB2 standard before the format could be used.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Moultonborough would need to vote to adopt the SB2 standard before the format could be used.

Yes. BUT this recreation circus is going to come back and back and back.

So for future debacles of voting - SB2 would solve current issue of delay.

[neckdweller]

I would imagine when the SB2 vote comes up at the rescheduled meeting someone will point out that last night's craziness wouldn't have happened if SB2 was in place.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

I would imagine when the SB2 vote comes up at the rescheduled meeting someone will point out that last night's craziness wouldn't have happened if SB2 was in place.

I don't believe this would be the case. I think for a hot item like this the same crowd would have happened SB2 or not, and if the venue had been able to accommodate all the people there would have been a lot of hollering and screaming when people realized their ability to debate and question was severely limited by SB2. I'm voting against SB2.

[winni83]

The video of the non meeting is up on Town Hall Streams, look at it beginning at about 29 minutes. Our Town Moderator basically threw the Fire Chief under the bus and put the blame on him for doing his duty. When in fact the reason that the meeting did not take place was lack of planning by the Town Moderator. Does anyone think that even if the capacity of the auditorium had been exceeded by a mere 100 people or so that there were plans in place to deal with that?

See:

https://townhallstreams.com/stream.p...id=51&id=52862

[longislander]

A friend of mine came up with an idea whereby voters, already signed in to vote last night, could go to town hall and cast their votes. Sounds simple….right? What could possibly go wrong?

At this time there is no ballot. The present non-SB2 absentee ballots were voted last Tuesday. It would only contain electing officials and zoning amendments, anyway. See Article 1 in the warrant (First Session of Annual Meeting (Official Ballot Voting)

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...r_04.20.23.pdf

RE: The May 11th town meeting registrations are now useless. The moderator:
oThe Article number will be announced, and the text will be presented in full.
o The Moderator will seek a person to move and second the consideration of the Article.
o The Article will be placed on the floor for debate and final vote.

I would imagine when the SB2 vote comes up at the rescheduled meeting someone will point out that last night's craziness wouldn't have happened if SB2 was in place.

It has already been pointed out, in jest, to the moderator, Town Administrator, and select board, and will probably be re-iterated at the re-scheduled meeting.

I don't believe this would be the case. I think for a hot item like this the same crowd would have happened SB2 or not, and if the venue had been able to accommodate all the people there would have been a lot of hollering and screaming when people realized their ability to debate and question was severely limited by SB2. I'm voting against SB2.

Reminding the voters "point out that last night's craziness" will probably happen since I am the the SB2 presenter of Article 3, the SB2 petition.

Under SB2 the "screaming and hollering" happens a month before voting on the Tuesday ballot, voting with privacy behind a curtain, and can vote 7:00am to 7:00pm. Make out a "cheat sheet" beforehand, after getting informed, and go into the voting booth and check off the spots.

Does anyone believe the voters didn't already know how they would vote! on The Hub!

Classically, there are always more voters on the Tuesday than at the second session town meeting. In addition to that, there are no absentee ballots at traditional town meeting.

The Nov. 2022 general election had 21% of the ballots cast by absentee. Why aren't they allowed to vote on all warrant articles, not just electing officials and zoning amendments?

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by ITD

I don't believe this would be the case. I think for a hot item like this the same crowd would have happened SB2 or not, and if the venue had been able to accommodate all the people there would have been a lot of hollering and screaming when people realized their ability to debate and question was severely limited by SB2. I'm voting against SB2.

Some are not informed as others have already posted.

Originally Posted by longislander

SB2 vs. Traditional Meeting

FOR SB2:
SB2: A Month to Research Warrant Discussions Before Voting.
SB2: All Warrant Articles Are Voted on Tuesday Ballot, not just electing
officials, zoning, and other required by statute.
All day voting. In and out in a little while. Not hours and hours waiting
to vote.
SB2: Absentee Ballots Include ALL Warrant Articles
Snowbirds, military, and other absentees can vote on all warrant articles.
SB2: All Voting is Secret, in curtained voting booth
Traditional meeting hand, card, or paper votes intimidate some voters.


AGAINST SB2:
Fewer Attendees at SB2 Deliberative Session
There should be! Many already know how they will vote.
SB2 Does Not Allow Debate of Warrant Articles
Not true! Yes, it does, at the deliberative session. Same as traditional.
SB2 Does Not Allow Amendments to Warrant Articles
Not true! Yes, It Does, at the deliberative session. Same as traditional.
Traditional Meeting Allows For More of a Social Event.
No, it doesn't. SB2 Deliberative Session social event can be the same.
SB2 Jeopardizes the Budget
Traditional imperils the budget more. SB2 has default budget or other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bw0sfN8QBU

Keep it togetheer.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

Yes. BUT this recreation circus is going to come back and back and back.

So for future debacles of voting - SB2 would solve current issue of delay.

It is historically the case in NH for a proposal to come up again and again until it is passed. Sometimes attitudes change and it doesn't pass... but frugality is a thing of the past for now.

[Descant]

SB2 has been around now for ~30 years. In the early days there were many abuses and the rules have changed to resolve things. For example, you can amend an article at the deliberative session, but you are limited in the ability to change intent. You can't just insert "not" before "raise and appropriate. I see a lot of scheming underlying the questions and comments above. Mostly, these schemes have all been tried and been eliminated. Before you vote yes or no, have somebody from the Municipal Association or the AG's office give you a primer.

BTW, I believe it is up to the Selectmen to provide a place for the meeting and the moderator only runs the meeting. And the fire marshal has an obligation for safety. Each doing their job is not pointing fingers or placing blame.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by Descant

BTW, I believe it is up to the Selectmen to provide a place for the meeting and the moderator only runs the meeting. And the fire marshal has an obligation for safety. Each doing their job is not pointing fingers or placing blame.

Good point. The buck stops at the selectmen.

[longislander]

SB2 has been around now for ~30 years. In the early days there were many abuses and the rules have changed to resolve things. For example, you can amend an article at the deliberative session, but you are limited in the ability to change intent.

Excerpts from my presentation that will be revised for whenever the meeting occurs. Facts don't change, however.

History
SB2 stands for Senate Bill 2. It became law in1995. The town had previously voted SB2, 4 times; 2004,
2007, 2009, and 2011, on the Tuesday ballot. Some voters probably had no clue what it was. In 2019, the
law changed with House Bill 415 changing SB2 adoption to town meeting, as we are doing tonight.
Legislation in 2000 made “SB2” the official name. This is the first time Moultonborough will be debating at a town meeting.

Amendments
The following excerpts are based on a 2019 NH Municipal Association article by Stephen C. Buckley,
Legal Services Counsel.
“The content of warrant articles is either prescribed by statute, or is governed by common law, and
statutory ground rules, especially as applied to articles that contain appropriations. An “illegal” warrant
article is one that cannot have any legal effect, even if town meeting approves it, usually because it
violates some provision in the law. It is “unenforceable”.
After the public hearings are over and the warrant is drafted, and posted, it is up to the moderator—with
the assistance of other town officials and the town attorney—to make sure that the town’s business is
accomplished fairly and efficiently.

Opinion of the Justices, No. 4600 Decided July 9, 1957.
"The subject matter of all business to be acted upon at the town meeting, shall be distinctly stated in the
warrant, and nothing done at any meeting . . . shall be valid unless the subject thereof is so stated."
More recently, in Grant v. Barrington, (2008), the Court described the purpose of RSA 39:2 in the context
of an (SB 2) town meeting:
“[t]he prohibition against changing the subject of a warrant article is to ensure that subjects that were not
noticed to voters, are not inserted into the articles at the deliberative session. This protects the voters who
decided not to attend the first session, from new subjects being addressed, about which they had no
notice, and therefore, did not have an opportunity to consider, when deciding, whether they were
interested in attending the deliberative session.”

This is described as the “stay-at-home test”.

The court also stated that the statutes did not warrant that the court decide what is "intent".

The role of the SB2 first session (town meeting/deliberative session) is to decide the final form of the Tuesday ballot questions.

SB2 is not a change in government. It only changes who can vote, when we vote, and how we vote.
Towns may adopt either March, April, or May town meeting.

The only difference between SB2 and Traditional town meeeting is:
who can vote, when we vote, and how we vote, and a default budget.

SB2:
All registered voters, especially absentees, can vote on all warrant articles (a biggie!)
Vote on all warrant articles on the Tuesday ballot (another biggie)
Vote on one ballot, after a month to research and decide (who is Bull S*ing) from 7am to 7pm, in privacy, and then do your thing!

Bring Moultonborough into the 21st century. Vote yes on Article 3 of the 2023 warrant.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

SB2 has been around now for ~30 years. In the early days there were many abuses and the rules have changed to resolve things. For example, you can amend an article at the deliberative session, but you are limited in the ability to change intent. You can't just insert "not" before "raise and appropriate. I see a lot of scheming underlying the questions and comments above. Mostly, these schemes have all been tried and been eliminated. Before you vote yes or no, have somebody from the Municipal Association or the AG's office give you a primer.

BTW, I believe it is up to the Selectmen to provide a place for the meeting and the moderator only runs the meeting. And the fire marshal has an obligation for safety. Each doing their job is not pointing fingers or placing blame.

Does Moultonborough have a place with a big enough capacity to handle that large a turnout?
One of the reasons for SB2 in our town was due to the growing residential population and the large turnouts.

[fatlazyless]

So, what is the forum, smart-money prediction on the soon-to-be-happening Moultonborough town warrant vote on this 15-million dollar "Hub" indoor recreation facility that includes an indoor heated 25-meter swimming pool?

It needs a 60% vote to make it actually happen which seems like a high hurdle what with all the opposition expressed on this forum?

Is there an equally strong faction of Moultonborough voters out there who's voice is not really present on this forum and who could that be? .....

Is it the Moultonborough public school system, grades K-12, and their parents, local town supporters, and other Moultonborough residents who could reach a 60% voting result?

[John Mercier]

I'm biased toward no.

[Wishbone]

From what I saw and heard at the aborted town meeting, I would be surprised if they broke 50% being for it.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Does Moultonborough have a place with a big enough capacity to handle that large a turnout?
One of the reasons for SB2 in our town was due to the growing residential population and the large turnouts.

We did one once with ~4500 people (yes, the first attempt was cancelled and rescheduled). Three gymnasia with big screen TV's assistant moderators and microphones. Even easier to do now. There must be a gym and a couple of churches suitable in almost any town. Might put a bit of a squeeze on the General Gov't section of the budget.

[longislander]

The moderator's Facebook page:

"The largest crowd we ever had at town meeting prior to tonight was in 2019 when we had around 650 people check in. The expected attendance tonight was thought to be closer to 800 which with the use of the lobby and the aisles without blocking the exit doors was just enough to safely accommodate that number.
The moderator, selectmen, town clerk, town administrator, facilities, public works, school personnel and many town employees all work together to plan and conduct these meetings. Decisions are not made without a great deal of thought and effort, but at the end of the day the buck stops with us. This was an unfortunate situation, and we will do the best we can to avoid a recurrence.
Hindsight is always 20-20, but unfortunately it doesn't change the outcome. It is also not particularly helpful to be unnecessarily critical of people who are essentially volunteers working on your behalf. We are human and not omniscient."

During Covid, the auditorium, cafeteria, and gym were utiized at the school that is the regular town meeting place, and accomodated a large turnout. I believe the Sandwich fairgrounds was utilized for a school district annual meeting once as well.

The Tuesday voting day always has a higher turnout than "Town meeting" day. It is doubfull that anywhere near 2,000 ever showed up for either. The Nov. 2022 General election had 3,202, but that is not a town meeting; note the 21% of voters were absentee voters.

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...s_11082022.pdf

Note in moderator's comment the 2019 that 650 checked in. and then checkout the Voters Cast - 1366 on Tuesday voters prior.

Look up the turnout for the Tuesday vote by year here; right at the top of the first page of each year:

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/tow...eeting-minutes

[DickR]

After I got home from the aborted meeting, I sent some suggestions for the next attempt to have a meeting to the Town Administrator, via the town's website.

I suggested quadrupling the number of check-in tables, with a shorter range of alphabet letters for each. I also suggested moving the tables out of the auditorium, to alleviate the congestion there.

The long corridor adjacent to the auditorium entrance would be better and also be positioned better between the auditorium, cafeteria, and gymnasium, all of which may be needed to handle the large crowd expected. Better signs for the tables would help, placed where they could be seen from a distance down the corridor.

Finally, it would be useful to have people enter the building from more doors than just the one by the auditorium. Some of that was happening anyway, but the long line to get to the check-in tables inside the auditorium led to the long line out the nearby door and back up the driveway.

More complaints about last night's failure won't help. Let's be constructive and help the town's officials with good ideas to make things work more smoothly next time.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by DickR

After I got home from the aborted meeting, I sent some suggestions for the next attempt to have a meeting to the Town Administrator, via the town's website.

The beest recommendation is to vote YES for SB2.
As stated above. ALL can vote at their leisure on voting day.

Problem solved.