News From One Of My Favorite Unions

We have been somewhat busy at CNHT these last few weeks gathering up the low-hanging fruit of town meeting season so I almost let this slip by.

There is a union down in Washington DC that tracks our NH Congressional Delegation very closely. It's the typical monolithic big money operation full of professionals that endeavors to sway public opinion with annual reports and awards. You may have heard of them. The organization is called The National Taxpayer Union, also know as the AFL-CIO-NOT.

National Taxpayers Union gives a “Taxpayers Friend” award to the smartest members of Congress, who, based on their ability to comprehend the inner workings of a legislative body as well as grasp macro-economics, and also recognize a ponzi scheme when they see one and are loathe to feed it more citizens paychecks if they can help it. Here is what it takes to qualify.

“NTU believes a score qualifying for a grade of "A" indicates the Member of Congress is one of the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies. We are pleased to give these Members of Congress our "Taxpayers' Friend Award."

“Strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies” - has a nice ring to it.

That description doesn't paste tax and spend liberals with unflattering names like liberal or progressive. Why bother. We all know the difference between liberal/progressive tax and spend, big government types and responsible, intelligent, public servants who represent the people who sent them to Washington.

So what a coincidence New Hampshire's United States Senator John E. Sununu should get the top 2005 award, thats right, number one, from the National taxpayer Union!

John Sununu ran against a liberal/progressive, tax and spend, big government type when he won his seat in the Senate and beat her soundly. NH voters were give a clear choice and they took it.

Now all Americans benefit.

You can become a union member by contacting www.ntu.org

The "Right to Film" Law

To follow up on a story about JJ Valera of Windsor who was forced to go to Hillsborough Superior Court, North to get “permission” from the Town of Windsor to film the Annual Meeting there – we “won”!

Judge Conboy, with several sets of film crews (one was our guys) in the courtroom, made a personal plea to everyone that they all understand that cameras are allowed in public meetings. Her subsequent order followed that lead with the total amount of costs incurred by Mr. Valera be awarded to him with an extra blessing — the Town of Windsor has TEN days to pay!

That Saturday, the independent film crew which was the center of this controversy attended the Coalition of NH Taxpayers Directors Meeting at our office in Concord and filmed about an hour or so of the CNHT Directors discussing the issue from beginning to end.

Our CNHT Directors are all well aware of the Right to Know Law, RSA 91-A, from Part I Article 8 of the NH Constitution, right up to current legislation, HB 626, designed to gut it.

How timely of this out-of-state crew to show up and document what average taxpayers go through when trying to attend their own town meeting or get simple documents from elected or appointed officials.

HB 626 is in the hands of the State Senate as I write. The bill was drafted with much input by the state's most anti-taxpayer organization, (funded with tax dollars of course) The NH Municipal Association.

A proposed new section for 91-A allows for “outside meetings” after which attendees must report at the “next meeting” what happened at the “outside meeting.”

Of course if the “next meeting” is another “outside meeting”...you get the picture.

No wait, you won't.

RSA 91-A isThe Right To Know - Who's Nuts?

Last week I was called by one of our members J.J.Valera of Windsor about some issues in his town. One that hit the papers March 7 was the story about an independent film crew who wanted to film the Windsor Town Meeting on March 14.

J.J was told in rather salty language by the town moderator that no ----ing way would a ----ing camera be allowed in the ----ing Windsor Town meeting.

So J.J called our pal at the AG's office “Bud” Fitch who gave this advice: Go get a court order. So off to Hillsborough Superior North we went Monday, at 10 am - with the film crew.

The 'pro se' petition was hand written in the courtroom hallway while my wife Debbie and I went and got cash for the petition filing fee, as the Valeras thought a check was sufficient and did not bring $145.00 cash.

All this was done with the film crew in tow. Talk about getting handed an issue!

As this was unfolding, down the court house hallway comes State Representative Jordan G. Ulery of Hudson on business of his own. I flagged him down and Rep. Ulery, looking quite the part of the NH State Rep. with a white sea captain's beard, business suit and all, gave us a brief but interesting history of the Right to Know Law in NH. If the film crew was looking to make a grass-roots film they had just hit the motherlode.

And then came the Manchester paper's reporter who was watching all this from a few feet away. She wanted to know what was going on and was given the whole story from J.J about the Windsor Town Moderator while being introduced to the film crew – a story in itself. That was Monday. Tuesday it hit the papers.

Also on Tuesday I found out that a Windsor Selectman has given Mr. Valera a letter stating there will be no opposition by Windsor officials to the Town Meeting being filmed.

So why did a long time Town Moderator not understand he was in a no win position trying to stop public access?

Why didn't the now Deputy AG Fitch just call the Town of Windsor and tell then get on with it?

Was it necessary to advise the Valeras' a court order was needed to enforce this clearly basic law?

When asked for a quick solution, why didn't a Superior Court judge just grant an order and skip holding a hearing? Don't they have serious business to attend to?

Will the Valeras' get their $145.00 back?
Film at 11:00PM.

Not this next 11:00PM or the one after that. But stay tuned!

Bankrupting the Village: Timeline in Bedford

Here is a reverse time-line for the new Bedford school construction “Plan” voted in last year. Where have all the supporters gone? And whatever happened to “Build It And They Will Come.”?

Home Sales for ZIP Code 03110 Bedford NH

Month-Year #Sales Average Sales Price

02-2006 2 $306,000.00
01-2006 40 $424,000.00 taxpayers find out school will cost $60 million
12-2005 19 $438,000.00
11-2005 51 $466,000.00
10-2005 48 $428,000.00
09-2005 34 $501,000.00
08-2005 46 $560,000.00
07-2005 48 $486,000.00
06-2005 31 $463,000.00
05-2005 23 $451,000.00
04-2005 22 $477,000.00 $46 million school passes during snowstorm
03-2005 24 $410,000.00
02-2005 18 $563,000.00
01-2005 23 $428,000.00
12-2004 18 $429,000.00
11-2004 37 $406,000.00
10-2004 30 $457,000.00
09-2004 33 $402,000.00
08-2004 57 $450,000.00
07-2004 65 $475,000.00
06-2004 49 $387,000.00
05-2004 29 $479,000.00
04-2004 16 $401,000.00
03-2004 21 $387,000.00
02-2004 22 $366,000.00
01-2004 42 $375,000.00

March 2005 — Annual school board election SB2
$49.5 BOND PASSES WITH 67% OF THE ONLY 31% OF VOTERS
WHO COULD MAKE IT TO THE POLLS during a snowstorm
that canceled many other annual meetings.

February 2005 — Session 1 of school board's deliberative
session for the upcoming March SB 2 ballot election to
deliberate another citizen petitioned warrant article to
sign the tuition contract with Manchester. School board's
warrant article appears to approve bonding in the amount of
$49.5 million dollars for a combo school of grades 7,8
and a high school. (Notice the “deal” to bring in more voters
by catering to another set of grades. This is very common in
unnecessary construction projects.)

January 2005 — Supreme Court issues zip opinion ruling
in favor of Bedford School Board and preventing petitioners/
plaintiffs from having a 'hearing on the merits'.

June 2004 — Special election petitioners file suit against
Bedford School Board.

June 2004 — Bedford School Board refuses to comply with
election results and refuses to sign tuition agreement.

June 2004 — Special Election petitioned by 1500 citizens
demanding that school board sign the 20 year tuition
agreement with Manchester PASSES WITH A HUGE
MAJORITY OF 92% OF THE VOTES.

March 2004 — Annual School Board's Election (SB2)
proposed Warrant Article for a $45 million dollar
bond to build a high school FAILS AT THE POLLS
Tuition contract passes. Bedford Academy passes.

February 2004 — Session I or school board's deliberate
session prior to the Annual Secret Ballot Election SB2
to be held in March, 2004, the citizen petitioned warrant
article (originally proposed by Attorney Stan Tefft and
including 800 signatures) requiring the 'Bedford School
Board to sign the 20 year tuition agreement with Manchester'
was unlawfully amended by then Town Council Chairman,
Bill Greiner, by the insertion of the words "if, and only
if, the high school bond passes".

November 2003 — Bedford School Board 'special of the
day' Warrant Article again for a $45 million dollar bond
to build a high school FAILS AT THE POLLS* (boycott)

July 2003 — School Board's special election (SB2)
Warrant Article for $9 million dollar bond to
buy land on Route 101 to build a high school
FAILS AT THE POLLS.

March 2003 — Annual Secret Ballot Election SB2
School Board's Warrant Article for $45 million dollar bond
to build a high school FAILS AT THE POLLS.
Tuition contract with Manchester passes.

Currently there are few articles in the local papers from the supporters of the new school now that it is becoming apparent that the per student cost will rise from $7-$8,000 for tuition in Manchester to about $15,000 for an education in Bedford – whatever that will be like.

The projected student “increases” are actually dropping, as are the jaws of taxpayers as they discover a new soccer field is “sinking,” a new access road is needed, water lines need improvement, teachers need to be hired, and supplies and furniture bought.

The School Superintendent Ann “Reamed'us” who promoted the construction is leaving, as is the school board chair Dan Sullivan..

The head of the local 'taxpayer' organization, Roy Stewart, who supported the new construction because the student population was supposedly growing, has not given an explanation of the newly found costs for the project to the press. The press dutifully reported every emanation from him during the campaign to build this fiasco. Now there is silence.

Little Evidence Of Voter Fraud Prosecution (Part II)

Even though I make clear that The Coalition of NH Taxpayers tracks non-resident voters who come in college student and summer resident form, I get the same old attempt to relate non-resident voter fraud with a person voting twice.

Lets put it in perspective.

Why would I waste our limited resources tracking double voters when there are so many non-resident voters? And why would I attempt to catch double voters when the State of New Hampshire's Legislature and AG's Office are doing everything they can to prevent us from doing so?

Example:

Say I have a voter of questionable residency or who I believe is voting twice. They registered in 2000 in Keene but when arrested in 2005 gave out of state ID to Keene Police. This means they voted here in 2000 but still have legal residency in another place. In any case, they are still on the Keene voter list and require no identification to vote.

Or let's say I find the same name such as Sean W. Greenhalge (made up) on the same day registration addendum TWICE in two different sets of handwriting, meaning he could have come through the line and voted twice.

I would have in the past, as was the right of any NH citizen, gone to the Supervisor of the Checklist in Keene and asked for the registration card for each person. With that NH Voter Registration Card, RSA 654:7, on line #6, I could see where the person had been registered before. The next task would be to call that place to see if the person voted there. Simple right?

Not any more.

Here is HB 391 the newest of a growing list of amendments to NH Election laws. This House Bill is currently in the Senate. [Newest wording bracketed.]

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

AN ACT relative to election affidavits.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Right to Know Exemption. Amend RSA 654:31-a to read as follows:

654:31-a Right to Know Exemption. The information contained on the checklist of a town or city, specifically, the name, street address, town or city, and party affiliation, if any, of registered voters, except as otherwise provided by statute, is public information subject to RSA 91-A. All other information on the voter registration form, absentee registration affidavit, [citizenship and domicile affidavits,] and application for absentee ballot shall be treated as confidential information and the records containing this information shall be exempt from the public disclosure provisions of RSA 91-A, except as provided by statutes other than RSA 91-A. [Notwithstanding the foregoing, citizenship and domicile affidavits are public records subject to RSA 91-A for the sole purpose of challenging an individual registering to vote or voting, challenging ballots to be recounted, to the extent that such ballot challenges are specifically authorized by law, or determining the accuracy of any citizenship or domicile affidavit.] Election officials and law enforcement personnel in furtherance of their official duties may access and may disclose information from the voter registration form, citizenship and domicile affidavits, absentee registration affidavits, and applications for absentee ballots, if necessary to resolve a challenge to an individual registering to vote or voting, or if necessary to investigate or prosecute election law violations or any crime. Law enforcement access and use of such records for the investigation or prosecution of crimes unrelated to election law violations shall be limited to the records of the specific individuals who are the subject of the investigation or prosecution.

2 Affidavit. Amend RSA 659:30 to read as follows:

659:30 Affidavit. The affidavit of a challenged voter, a voter citizenship affidavit, a voter domicile affidavit, or any other affidavit required by the election statutes may be sworn before [any person authorized by law to administer oaths or before] any election officer.

3 Preservation of Voting Materials. Amend RSA 659:101 to read as follows:

659:101 Preservation of Absentee Voting Materials, Election Day Affidavits, and Domicile Affidavits. The affidavit envelopes and application forms processed by the moderator as provided in RSA 659:50, and the citizenship affidavits and domicile affidavits as provided in RSA 654:12 and any other documentary proof of qualifications retained by the town or city clerk, the supervisors of the checklist, or other election official may be preserved in the same manner that ballots are preserved. [and] [Citizenship, voter registration, and domicile affidavits shall be retained for 3 years after the election in which they are used, and other materials] may be destroyed one year after the first state general election at which the individual may vote.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
End

As you can see there is an effort to limit from the Right to Know Law (RSA 91-A) any relevant information on the NH Voter Registration Card, EVEN THE SIGNATURE!

This is on top of the limitations adopted in 2003 to this same statute. Now, when I get a copy of a NH Voter Registration Card almost 75% of it is blank or redacted by the Supervisor of the Checklist.

There is one single explanation for this change in wording and that is to have voters who register here be as anonymous and untraceable as possible.

The sponsors of this newest bill, both left wing Democrats, are:

Rep. Chuck Weed of Keene (Election Law Committee member, Keene State teacher)
Rep. John Pratt of Walpole

Eventually other states will find out how corrupt our election process is becoming and we will lose the Presidential Primary. Deservedly so.

So which party CLAIMS it is trying to SAVE the Primary?