Guest Blogs


Upholding Citizen's Rights... New Hampshire Style

By Tom Sutliffe

Notice that this opinion memo from NHMA totally supports the ERPG suit.  It was stricken from the record of our hearing, which is highly unusual.   The information contained in the memo, if stricken would be highly prejudicial to our suit, because it completely supported our complaint!  Judge Morrill struck this evidence and never noticed ERPG of his order.  Thus, we never asked for a reconsideration of this order, having no knowledge it had been ordered.  Only pro-se litigants in New Hampshire have this happen to them,  so that they can't appeal the issue.  Why?... because they have not asked for a reconsideration within the ten day allotted timeframe.  The Supreme Court gang declined to act on this issue because it said we failed to ask for a reconsideration of the Judge's order. They refer to it as a procedural issue!  We found out about the Judge's order only when we requested the entire file to be sent to the Supreme Court for our appeal. Looking for justice in New Hampshire.... go to Federal Court!

NHMA fax cover

NHMA pg 1

NHMA pg2


NHSBA v. Epping Superintendent (2 different views of the same dicision)

Thought you might like to see the two different interpretaions of the same decision placed on the websites of the NHSBA and the Epping SAU #14 websites respectively.

Tom Sutliffe

NH Supreme Court Rules on Epping School Board Case

On October 6, 2006, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an order in Epping Residents for Principled Government, Inc. v. Epping School Board. The issue was whether the Epping School Board used "unwarranted advocacy" in support of certain ballot issues and warrant articles, in violation of the Constitutional rights of certain taxpayers who held opposing viewpoints.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the School Board's actions. However, the order was not a clearcut victory for New Hampshire school boards, as the order raises more questions than it resolved and does not provide definitive guidance for the difference between appropriate and inappropriate advocacy.

The Court's decision was based largely on procedural grounds, as opposed to being decided on the merits of the law. The Court ruled that the taxpayers did not properly preserve certain of their arguments for the Court to review. The Court may have been looking for a better case upon which to make some significant rulings.

It appears that some statements by a School Board are clearly acceptable, such as "we urge you to support the budget because we need it to fund our program" and "we need a new high school and ask you for your support". These kinds of "advocacy" appear to be tolerable, especially if they appear in the School District Annual Report. However, some Epping School Board practices were, in the Court's words, "troubling."

Specifically, the Court had reservations about the Board's direct attacks upon opponents of the budget or new school and using students as "mules" or couriers to send "political" messages home.

Because the decision was unclear, the legality of some board practices is still unsettled, such as using public money for mass mailings advocating a particular position. There probably would not be anything wrong with a mass mailing that conveys information on important issues, provided that it is consistent with the acceptable language. Also, it appears to be unlikely that the Board would be required to give dissenting viewpoints equal space and time in the School District Annual Report, or pay for an opposing mass mailing. Until the law is further clarified, NHSBA urges school boards to proceed with caution when "advocating" for particular political ballot issues and warrant articles. NHSBA Policy KDCA recommends that school districts do not use student as couriers for information that advocates a particular position on bond issues, political matters, labor relations issues or District budgets. NHSBA also recommends that any mass mailings contain purely "neutral" information related to the issue at hand, as opposed to including potentially coercive statements from the school board.



On October 6, 2006 the NH Supreme Court issued an order regarding the appeal of the Epping Residents for Principled Government, Inc. versus the Epping School Board. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's determination. In summary the Superior Court:

1. Denied ERPG's request to declare the school district annual report as unwarranted advocacy and an incorrect expenditure of public funds in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions.

2. Denied ERPG's request to enjoin all officials as to the unwarranted advocacy in the future and to contain a statement in the next two annual reports about the constitutional prohibition against using public monies for the purpose of advocacy.

3. Ruled that the statements made by public officials were made on behalf of public purpose, not private statements.

4. Ruled that the district did not inappropriately or excessively use public funds for the annual report.

5. Ruled that the district did not violate ERPG's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution or the Equal Protection under the State Constitution (to have access for presenting an opposing view).

Barbara Munsey, Epping Superintendent


Magic Wand Middle East Summit

by Ray Will

What if...

What if Nixon went to China?

What if Anwar Sadat told Walter Cronkite that he was willing to meet with Menachem Begin within the week?

What if Ferdinand Marcos told Ted Coppell he would be more than happy to hold elections in the Philippines?

What if I waved my Magic Wand (TM) and President Bush, the most stubborn US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit? Stranger things have happened.

The Magic Wand Comprehensive Summit for the Middle East:

The Players: USA, Syria, Turkey, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel, the EU, Russia.

The Broad Agenda:
1. The Kurdish Opportunity
2. The Palestinian Opportunity
3. The Sunni and Shite Opportunity only then...
4. The Future of Iraq

Actually there is a pragmatic method to my madness. Notice the format of the Summit. First we are dealing with the actual religions and ethnicities of the region (Kurdish Shite, Sunni, Palestinian) and not the modern borders. (Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palistinian Authority.) Only then do we deal with the future of Iraq.

Draw the borders any which way, the issues will be less Iraq vs Iran and more Sunni vs Shite or a Palestinian State vs recognition Israel's right to exist. Kurd vs other ethnicities (like the Turks or Russians for example). By formatting a summit in this way we can affect change over many borders. This may broker agreements that make Iraqi stability more attainable for it's stage in the summit. And by having Egypt and Jordan sponsor each summit, these moderate states at general peace with Israel get to showcase the results of that peace.

The Dream Team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Ambassador George Mitchell, Colin Powell, President James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.

Considering the roster of the Dream Team there is a balance. If one of our out-of-the-box thinkers (Carter, Jackson) says or does something nuts, the more pragmatic members (Lugar, Albright, Mitchell) will keep them grounded.

First Summit Meeting: February 20th 2007, Sponsored by Egypt and held in Cairo, to take up agenda issues 1-3.

Second Summit Meeting: September 1st 2007, Sponsored by Jordan and held in Amman, to take up agenda issue 4.

Since 2001 the US has been engaged for good or ill in a "war process". Maybe its time to remind the world just who has the diplomatic gravitas to broker a peace deal. If I remember correctly we ARE really good at brokering peace. With only a 230 year history we don't have NEARLY the grudge matches that other countries have with their neighbors. (Sure, our relations with Cuba are shrill, but we aren't lobbing anything at each other but press releases.)

We helped the Palestinians and Israelis.
We helped the Balkans. (In beautiful downtown Dayton Ohio no less.)
We helped the Egyptians and Israelis.
And we tried with a lot of other countries

Now before you say, "but can we trust the players...?" Only pollyannas will believe trust is even an issue. People have been killing each other. NEITHER side will call the other trustworthy after or during armed conflict. The whole point to ANY summit process is there is a need to talk and it must be done in spite of everyone's misgivings-- not born of some foolish hippie notion that your blood enemy just became a Boy Scout so peace talks can take place.

The other side of this school of thought is much worse: believing that because the other side is untrustworthy there can be no talks. I'm no pacifist but at some point even in war you have to at least have talks. If they are unwilling to even talk, well where does the killing end then? This school of thought acts like its a waste of breath to even invite the Players to the table. Well waste it! People are dying, and you can't even TRY?.

So how do I believe we can overcome the aforementioned obstacles? Strangely enough, and don't laugh: George W. Bush himself. I mean only Nixon could go to China. The Summit, the Dream Team, the border-crossing format of the agenda, even the moderate Arab locales all hinge upon one unlikely event: What if the most intractable US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit? However unlikely all of this, none of it goes anywhere unless GW is on board front and center.

I'm also of the belief that if a peace process in and of itself is going on it injects hope into communities that feel the only response to their lot in life is a death wish. Remember the pictures of Middle Eastern babies with bombs strapped to them?

But how well did recruiting go for the Communists in the Philippines after Macros lost the election to Cori Aquino in 1986?

Remember the relative calm between the Palestinians and Israel after the 1993 signing.

What happened to the Sandanistas and Contras after the Oscar Arias peace plan?

We must give people on all sides in this region a reason to hope. That won't happen with a "Pollyanna Peace Plan". Only Nixon could go to China and I think only President Bush (as unlikely as that is) can initiate this plan.

Besides that, I would pay real money to see Jesse Jackson, Richard Lugar, Jimmy Carter, and President Bush all having a fallafel together in Amman Jordan.

 Raymond Will is a Generally Busy Guy. In addition to working full time, he serves on his local Planning Board, is the Secretary of the City-Wide Neighborhood Committee and volunteers weekly with the Salvation Army. He lives in Portsmouth with his wife Jenn and their two cats Mandy and Mystique.


The NH Homestead Plan

By State Representative Andy Peterson

Hillsborough, District #3

This year the voters delivered a re-election victory of historic proportions to Governor Lynch and unceremoniously replaced Republican majorities in the New Hampshire House, Senate and Governor’s Council. The after-effect of this “blue tsunami” leaves the Democratic Party with a greater ability to formulate and implement state policy than at any time in living memory.

But sooner than we can imagine, Republican sorrows and Democratic joys alike will be eclipsed by the massive responsibility which confronts the Governor and State Legislature this session: The need to resolve the education funding issue by the July 1, 2007 deadline imposed by the NH Supreme Court.

State Education Funding has for years now loomed like a foreboding shadow over our state’s efforts to support beneficial programs and protect the many advantages that provide New Hampshire citizens with a vibrant economy and singular quality of life. In what I hope will be a constructive contribution to the upcoming debate, I have proposed a comprehensive legislative solution to State Education Funding requirements entitled “The NH Homestead Plan”.

The bill includes a formulation of $4,500 +/- state adequacy grants which will be inflation indexed and paid directly to school districts annually on a per pupil basis. In addition, the legislation calls for over $200 million dollars to be paid to communities annually in the form of targeted aid and approximately $36 million to be distributed in stabilization grants. The total state funding provided for in the plan would be nearly $1,150,000,000, in the 1st year, or over $300 million more annually than provided for in the existing law, which has now been ruled unconstitutional.

The funding for the plan is based on one simple premise: The education of the next generation of New Hampshire citizen’s is everyone’s business … we’re in this together!

I propose that we raise the needed additional revenue by forming a single taxing district for the purpose of raising basic state education expenses and tax property at an even rate of $7.50 per thousand, via the statewide property tax.

The plan is called the “NH Homestead Plan” because resident’s primary homes across the state will receive an exemption from this base tax rate for the first $200,000 of equalized accessed valuation, or a $1,500 tax reduction, estimated to provide over $430 million dollars of direct property tax relief to homeowners statewide.

In addition, the moderation of local property tax rates, which now vary statewide from between only about $3 per thousand to more than $25 per thousand (equalized total rates based on full value assessments/market value), will create a more equitable distribution of tax burdens and lower property taxes for communities which have long been overtaxed when compared with the state average.

These changes require no sales or income taxes, nor do they require other changes such as legalizing casino-style or other expanded gambling. They would, however, achieve two valuable goals: Remove the need for further intervention by the state courts and provide long overdue property tax relief to NH homeowners.

According to Legislative Budget Assistant Office estimates, a resident owner of a $300,000 home in Keene would experience the double benefit of a 95 cent reduction in their property tax rate and also gain a $1,500 reduction via the plan's homestead exemption, lowering their 2005 tax bill of $7857 to $6072. In Manchester, where the tax rate would rise by approximately 74 cents (based on the recently established 2006 rate), owners of $300, 000 homestead properties would see their taxes fall from $5,055 to $3,777. No Manchester homeowner would see an increase for property valued under $2,000,000. In Dublin the tax rate is also projected to increase. However, due to the homestead benefit, primary homes in Dublin valued under $750,000 would see a decrease in total property taxes. As a result of these changes, the "donors" would henceforth truly be individuals, rather than communities.

Owners of second homes, businesses and speculative property in low tax towns will no doubt object to these changes, but the maximum increase in property taxes is limited to $3 per thousand on an equalized basis, and those who will experience these increases will still pay less than if they were located in a neighboring community.

When I compare the overall affects of this plan to other alternatives, I believe it has significant advantages and merits serious consideration in this pivotal year. Take a look at , click on ISSUES and see the details for yourself.


AMS Council, Amend Draft Statement on Climate Change

by Andrea Saul

A group of 17 American Meteorological Society (AMS) members and renowned scientists has banded together to petition the AMS to include natural variability in their draft statement on climate change ( According to their website, AMS “represents over 11,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts” in promoting “the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications.”

These scientists, led by AMS fellow and council member Joseph D’Aleo, submitted their letter yesterday (below) in an effort to influence the deciding committee on the final statement. They are concerned that the current draft statement on climate change “does not adequately address issues that continue about the measurement of past and even current climate and the factors which cause climate changes.”

In the letter, the scientists agree that the draft statement needs to be amended to include “data uncertainty issues,” “additional anthropogenic and natural factors,” and “natural variability when discussing the possibility of continued warming predicated on the imperfect climate models.”

All comments on the AMS statement under consideration are due tomorrow.

December 7, 2006
American Meteorological Society
45 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108-3693

Response to AMS Council on the Draft Statement on Climate Change

Dear AMS Council:

The October 20, 2006 AMS draft statement concerning climate change deserves a closer examination.

First of all, we were struck by the remark in the first sentence about the warming of the climate for the last 50 years. In fact, the statement in the relevant IPCC chapter as well as in the technical summary speaks of 30 years. Only the misrepresentation in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers speaks of 50 years.

Overall, the current statement does not adequately address issues that continue about the measurement of past and even current climate and the factors which cause climate changes. As we continue our research and determine the proper policy recommendations, it is important to first address these issues.

There can be no denying our climate is changing or that human activity plays a role, through urbanization and land-use changes around stations as well as greenhouse gases and aerosols. The degree to which climate is changing itself is subject to question. The drop-off of the number of global stations from 6,000 to 2,000 in the last 35 years (with the biggest drop-off in the last 15 years) and the large increase in missing data months in the last decade in some large regions of the world invite some data integrity questions that need to be addressed. A study by Roger Pielke Sr. of Colorado State University, “Unresolved Issues with the Assessment of Multi-Decadal Global Land Surface Temperature Trends” (, which demonstrates the errors in the measurement of surface temperatures with a bias toward warming has been submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research.

A major conclusion of the study is that as a climate metric to diagnose climate system heat changes (i.e., ‘global warming’), the surface temperature trend, especially if it includes the trend in nighttime temperature, is not the most suitable climate metric. As reported in Pielke [BAMS 2003], the assessment of climate heat system changes should be performed using the more robust metric of ocean heat content changes rather than surface temperature trends. If temperature trends are to be retained in order to estimate large scale (including a global average), the maximum temperature is a more appropriate metric than using the mean daily average temperature.

John Lyman and Greg Johnson of NOAA and Josh Willis of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, in a 2006 GRL paper, “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean” (, showed that about a third of the heat gained by the oceans since 1993 disappeared between 2003 and 2005 and that the cooling is “unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.”

Adjustments are being made for urbanization and local factors in the global data, but the fact that rural areas remain in almost every state and country that show little or no warming (and many areas cooling) raises additional questions about whether these adjustments are of sufficient magnitude. The NCDC HCN data base has the most stability and has been argued the best urban adjustment. It shows a temperature trend that is small (just 0.03C/decade since 1930) and more cyclical in nature, suggesting the role of natural cyclical factors.

Indeed, considerable peer review work has established the important role that the sun, through direct and indirect factors, and multidecadal cycles in the oceans have played in past climate. While the statement mentions solar output, it claims that it probably has had a small impact. In fact in some studies solar and these other factors have been shown to correlate with observed cyclical temperature changes as well as, or better than, greenhouse gases. As for one example, N Scafetta and B. J. West of Duke University, in “Phenomenological Solar Signature in 400 years of Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere Temperature Record” ( (GRL 2006), suggests that the sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900. And Willie Soon in a GRL 2005 paper “Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-Wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 years” ( showed a correlation of 79% of arctic-wide surface temperatures with total solar irradiance from 1880 to 2000 compared to just 22% for greenhouse gases.

Similarly the temperatures over Greenland and the Arctic have been shown to correlate with the phases of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation with values as high as 62% over the past century. Greenland temperatures from 1959 to 2003 actually had a negative correlation of -16% with greenhouse concentrations (last two in paper to be presented at Annual AMS).

To limit the debate over current global warming scenarios by virtually ignoring such man made and natural changes is to dangerously mischaracterize the debate. There is not an absolute consensus. There are legitimate alternate viewpoints that deserve recognition.

With such uncertainty as to how much change has occurred and what factors are responsible, it is no easy task to try and project where climate goes from here. We attempt to forecast future climate changes with complex and imperfect climate models. The climate models haven't even convincingly shown whether there will be more or fewer clouds -- which makes their capacity to accurately gauge radiational effects of any change suspect.

In order to develop a policy to correctly anticipate and plan for temperature change we must first develop more accurate future assessment methods which might include a move away from numerical climate models and towards empirically based statistical models. As you may know, a similar evolution occurred in the multi-seasonal forecast realm at CPC.

Let’s not forget the 2001 NAS report that said there is no certainty. Specifically the report said: “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions… future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustment (either upward or downward).”

Nor should you ignore the findings of the 2005 NRC Report “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties” (, which concluded a need to move beyond the radiative forcing of CO2, including the need to assess regional radiative and non-radiative climate forcings.

As such, we ask that the draft statement be amended to include references to the following:

-the need to address data uncertainty issues

-the need to discuss additional anthropogenic and natural factors, and

-the need to consider natural variability when discussing the possibility of continued warming predicated on the imperfect climate models.

Thank you for your consideration of our proposed changes. The undersigned are available to discuss this further, and welcome an opportunity for a full and open debate with the committee on this issue.


Joseph D’Aleo
CCM, Fellow of AMS, Council Member AMS
Executive Director, ICECAP

Dr. Gary Sharp
Scientific Director
Center for Climate/ Ocean Resources Study

Dr. Ben Herman, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Professor and Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics; Optical Remote Sensing; Radiative Transfer, Satellite Remote Sensing.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
Past-President, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Sallie Baliunas
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
60 Garden St.
Cambridge MA 02138

Dr. James O’Brien
Robert 0. Lawton Distinguished Professor, Meteorology & Oceanography
Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2840

Dr. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, Environmental Consultant, Professor of Climatology (Ret'd).
Chairman, Natural Resources Stewardship Project (
205-27 Songhees Road
Victoria, British Columbia, V9A 7M6

Madhav Khandekar, Retd. Scientist Environment Canada
Environmental Conultant
Unionville, ON, CANADA
AMS Member since ~1965

Dr William Gray
Emeritus Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Colorado Sate University
Fort Collins, CO

Paul Cousins
Managing Director
Portland, Maine

Kevin Williams
Director of Meteorology, News 10NBC
AMS Seal Holder
President, Weather-Track, Inc.
Rochester, NY

Tom Chisholm
Chief Meteorologist
AMS Seal Holder
Portland, Maine

Peter D. McGurk
BS Atmospheric Science, Cook College, Rutgers University, 1977
SM Geophysics, University of Chicago, 1979
Senior Meteorologist, WSI, Andover MA

Herbert E. Stevens
The Skiing Weatherman and/or Grass Roots Weather
39 Surrey Lane
North Kingstown, RI 02852

Dr. Mel Goldstein
Chief Meteorologist
New Haven CT

Tim Kelley
NECN Meteorologist
AMS Seal Holder
160 Wells Ave
Newton MA 02459