click here for complete list...

.

Funding for 'Outside Agencies'

Summary
The Gilford Town budget has historically included contributions to 'outside agencies' - social service or other non-profit agencies that provide services to town residents. Each year this has been a point of contention within the budget committee, with some taking exception to one or more specific agencies, and others questioning the entire concept of providing tax dollars to private non-profits. The committee has historically reduced or eliminated funding for some of these agencies, only to have that decision reversed by voters at the town meeting or deliberative session.

This year the budget committee voted 6 to 4 in favor of totally eliminating all funding the for agencies listed below. This vote was taken without any discussion or analysis of the merits of each individual agency's request.
In an attempt to side-step the deliberative session where similar actions have been reversed, by the same 6-4 vote the committee agreed to ask the Selectmen to place the entire issue on the ballot in the form of a warrant article. (A move to ask the Selectmen to submit seven separate warrant articles - one for each agency - was defeated by a vote of 8 to 3).

So Where Does It Stand Now?
The Selectmen chose to add the question of funding each individual agency to the ballot as separate warrant articles. As a result, the voters will be able to choose whether to fund each agency.

What Agencies Are Involved?
The list of agencies and 2008 budgeted amounts as approved by the Board of Selectmen are shown below. (Note: clicking on each agency name will bring up a summary of the services they provide, the number of Gilford residents served and associated costs of serving them, where provided, and more):

Debate
Those who feel that the town should not contribute any amounts to these agencies have labeled the practice as 'coerced charity'. They believe that tax dollars should not be used to help fund these private agencies. Instead, they believe that Gilford residents who support the work of these agencies should conduct their own private fund-raising efforts.

Those who believe that we should continue to contribute to these agencies feel that the town receives a definite benefit from the services they provide, and therefore should be willing to help pay at least some small portion of the costs. Further, they believe that if these private agencies did not exist or were unable to provide these services, the cost to Gilford voters - either through increased welfare benefit costs or, in some cases, court costs - would far exceed the amounts we've been asked to contribute.


Opinion
The issue is whether Gilford residents should continue to support, through tax dollars, the work of these private agencies. I believe that we most definitely should continue this support, and here's why:

The services these agencies provide are providing a definite value to the community. If these services were not provided by these agencies, Gilford taxpayers would pay for that loss in other, quite probably more expensive ways.

Take the Youth Services Bureau, for example. Their primary program involves Court Intervention. They work with the Gilford Police Department to identify first-time juvenile offenders that deserve an opportunity to avoid the court system. Their success rate is outstanding, with less than 10% of these first-time offenders commiting another crime. Over the past 6 years, Gilford has sent an average of 29 juveniles per year through this program. The Gilford Police Chief feels that "the services provided are a valuable resource to the community in providing alternatives and relief from our overburdened court system. It also gives youth a second chance, but still (requires them) to face responsibility for their actions."

This is just one example. More information about each agency is available here:

Youth Services Bureau

Lakes Region Community Health and Hospice

Genesis Behavioral Health

Lakes Region Family Services

Community Action Program

New Beginnings

The mistake made by the budget committee is this: If indeed the committee's true intent was to simply have voters decide the generic question of whether tax dollars should be used to pay for a portion of the services these agencies provide, then the committee should have abstained on their vote of approval / non-approval that will appear on the ballot.

As it stands now, the ballot will show that none of these warrant articles are approved by the budget committee. This gives the impression that the committee has reviewed and passed judgment on the financial aspects of each agency's request. This is simply not the case. The budget committee never formally reviewed and debated any of the detailed information provided by each agency. Their vote of "not recommended" has absolutely nothing to do with the details....and the committee refused to be clear with voters about that fact. (They turned down my request to advise voters that no financial review had been conducted.)