I have left this section in place for the time being, as it serves as a record of public statements and positions I made prior to the election.
You will find all pre-election questions and answers - unchanged since the day they were first posted - further down on this page.

One particular pre-election question has generated some post-election comment, so I'll address that here.

Some have suggested there may be a conflict of interest with respect to my votes on the library and / or town budgets in so far as the effect on the salary and benefit packages of employees (since my wife is the Library Director).

My pre-election promise that I would "refrain from any votes on the library director's salary or benefit package" has been questioned, since the budget process does not separate out any one persons salary from the rest of the budget. Further, it's been suggested that the anything related to the library budget whatsoever could conceivably affect my welfare - again, because my wife is the director.

Fortunately, the New Hampshire RSAs provide detailed guidance on how best to proceed.

Title 1, Section 14B establishes a "Legislative Ethics Committee", and charges them with the responsibility of issuing guidelines "for appropriate conduct for individuals relating to the performance of their duties as members, officers, or employees of the legislature".
The committee's guidelines have been published in a booklet entitled "Ethics Booklet - RSA 14-B, Ethics Guidlines and Procedural Rules" - which is available for review at this web address- www.gencourt.state.nh.us/misc/ethics.pdf.

The following definitions are taken directly from the booklet:

Conflict of Interest is defined as "the condition in which a legislator has a financial interest in any official activity".

Financial interest is defined as "a reasonably foreseeable direct material financial effect, distinguished from its effect on the public generally, on the legislator or his or her spouse".

When a legislator becomes aware that a conflict of interest exists or may exist and the conditions set forth in paragraph I are not met, the legislator shall proceed in accordance with either subparagraph (a) or (b):

(a) Declare that the legislator will not participate in any official activity associated with the issue.

(b) Declare that the legislator intends to participate in the official activity and will provide a description of the conflict of interest including:

• names of all entities, both public and private, which might be affected;
• the nature of any benefit which may accrue to the legislator;
• the nature of any financial interest in the issue;
• the nature of any relationship which existed, exists or may exist between the legislator and any person or entity which might be affected;
• such additional information as may be required to permit clear public awareness and understanding of the nature and extent of the conflict.

While the Legislative Ethics Committee proposes these two separate options, they give no special favor to one over the other.

In my specific case, option (a) would be not be appropriate because - as already pointed out - the Budget Committee does not vote on any individual salary package - including that of the library director, and therefore there is no activity for which I would need to decline to participate.

Option (b) seems most appropriate in my case, as even though no true conflict exists, it allows for a public disclosure of the spousal relationship that may give rise to questions of conflict.

Therefore, in accordance with instructions laid out in the balance of the Ethics Booklet, I will file the appropriate declaration with the Budget Committee Chairman during our first scheduled meeting.

What follows are pre-election questions and answers, unchanged since first posted....



Have you attended any meetings of the budget committee this year?
I attended as many meetings as I could. I didn't make all of them, but I attended at least a portion of five of the meetings, and I also attended a working session between budget committee member Skip Murphy and Fire Chief Jim Hayes.



Since your wife is the library director, Isn't there a conflict of interest that should prohibit you from holding a position on the budget committee?
The statutes do not prohibit spouses or other relatives of town employees from serving on the budget committee - so the New Hampshire House and Senate did not feel that this was an issue. That said, however, I would go beyond the requirements of the statute, and would agree not to serve on the subcommittee assigned to review the library budget, and would specifically refrain from any votes on the library director's salary or benefit package.



Why have you proposed a Code of Conduct for the budget committee? Committee member Skip Murphy states that in personal conversations you have been unable to "come up with times that respect was violated during the meetings. And you finally had to admit that at no time was the 'line crossed' during the meetings or otherwise."  

Upon reading Skip's statement I dashed off an e-mail suggesting it might be time for a second round of coffee and donuts. As I told Skip, if he walked away from that first meeting with those impressions, I had failed miserably in my attempt to communicate!
Just as a quick background, the reason I asked Skip to meet with me the first time was that I feel it's important to get beyond the e-mails and blogs and editorials and sit down face to face. While we might not solve the world's problems, or change any opinions, it can't hurt to get to know each other personally, and there's nothing better than good old-fashioned conversation to help people understand each other.
OK....so it didn't work so well the first time.   We'll try again!  

In budget committee public hearings, deliberative sessions, letters to the editor, and this website (see the question below this one), I have consistently stated that - with only a few exceptions - there were no problems in the committee's public sessions. It was in letters to the editor, blog postings and the like that some committee members were labeling all town employees as dishonest, and engaging in name-calling against many other Gilford residents and elected officials. I believe this harms the committee's ability to work effectively, and for that reason, I think a code of conduct is in order.



You have criticized the work of the current budget committee in letters to the editor. What is your complaint with them?
My letter to the editor criticized the way in which some of the most vocal members of the committee were conducting themselves outside of the budget meetings. With a few notable exceptions, there were no specific problems in the public sessions. It was in letters to the editor, blog postings and the like that some committee members were labeling all town employees as dishonest, and engaging in name-calling against many other Gilford residents and elected officials.
While this is certainly well within their rights of free speech, the issue is two-fold. First, as elected (or appointed) officials, I would think that at a minimum they owe a duty to all residents to conduct themselves with civility and to treat all residents with respect - both during and outside of their public meetings. Second, by engaging in name-calling and questioning the integrity of the very people they are charged to work with (school board members, school and town administrators, town employees), they diminish their ability to carry out the jobs they were elected (or appointed) to accomplish.
This is simple stuff - I'm not asking more than what we all agree to when we attend town meetings or deliberative sessions - no name-calling, no referring to others as liars, or cheats, etc., etc. Simple, grade-school manners.
(See my request for all candidates to sign a "code of conduct"...



Why did you sign the petition for a warrant article that would have eliminated the budget committee?
The original petitioned warrant article would not have eliminated the budget committee. It would have replaced the existing committee with an advisory budget committee. The new committee would have retained the ability to review all budgets, meet with department heads, ask questions and make recommendations, and blow the whistle long and hard if they uncovered areas of concern.

What the new committee would NOT have retained was the authority to make changes in town and school budgets that are beyond the reach of even a majority of Gilford voters to restore. The statutes currently prohibit voters from making more than a 10% change in the bottom line of the budgets as submitted to them by the budget committee. This means that one or two swing votes on this small committee could generate cuts that thousands of voters – a clear majority – would be prohibited from reversing. The only defenses I have seen of this authority basically ask that we rely on trust – because the odds of a change this significant are slim, and / or because the committee has not exercised this authority in the past. (Belmont is up against this very issue this year – so it can and does happen!) I don’t believe we should be asked to rely on trust alone.

The original warrant article would have retained the needed oversight role of the committee while removing this excessive authority.

As it stands now, however, this discussion is no longer relevant. Those who were opposed to this warrant article were concerned that it stood a good chance of passage. They therefore proposed and passed an amendment that substantially and materially changed its intent. All language related to the replacement budget committee was stricken, which means that passage of the article would now leave us with no oversight committee. As a result, I no longer support the warrant article.



NEW QUESTION: Questions from Jim Cookman
I would like to know where you stand on some of these issues. I’ve lived here all my life. My parents have lived in the same house more than 40 years, in Gilford, on Harris shore Road. They are retired and pay over $12,000.00 a year in taxes. Yes they live on the water, but this is very high. At least one thousand dollars a month, out of their small retirement income, just to stay living were the have most of their lives. I don’t want to see them taxed out of their life long home. As you can imagine we know many people in Gilford in the same situation. These are some of the issues that we would like to know where you stand: Town employee contributions to there ever increasing health care cost. Do you consider wages in Gilford to be above average? If so, will you work to keep raises in line with private sector raises? Many people I know receive 0 - 3% annually, plus have their health contributions raised frequently. Should the Budget Committee be involved with teacher contracts? The previous three year contract of an annual 8% wage increase, along with an above average increase in the current contract, could definitely use some oversight. Should the Budget Committee be looking at the retirement fund contributions of town employees? This is a state, and country, wide issue that is going to start costing taxpayers huge money. I would appreciate these issues, along with your responses, being posted on your web site for other candidates to give their much needed input. This would be very helpful for everyone to get to know the candidates as well. If you would like you may forward these same questions to the Gilford Grok. Thank you for your time. Jim Cookman

My Response:

I'm happy to respond to your questions...but before I do, I think you should know just a few relevant things about me.

I grew up on a farm in Southern Minnesota. Farming is a tough business, and my dad was never wealthy. In the mid 70's he and my mother sold the farm they had owned for over 30 years and bought a house in Rochester, MN. A small, modest house, but in a great location, on a hill overlooking the city. Now - 30 years later - it's sandwiched between several huge, modern houses, and my 83 year old mother lives there alone. Minnesota, as you probably know - is one of the highest taxed states in the union. So I am not a stranger to the problems of fixed incomes, rising home values, and spiraling taxes.

I'm also not a stranger to the business world, and the issues surrounding health care costs. I spent the first 23 years of my career working for a number of different companies, including United Airlines in Chicago - where I worked for the president of their Mileage Plus division. Of course they had a professional human resources (personnel) department that dealt with questions of wages and benefits....but I was frequently asked to sit in on discussions of rising wage and medical costs, and the amounts we asked employees to contribute towards their coverage. It was always a tough, sensitive issue. On one hand, we had to help keep our division of the airline profitable. On the other, we had to remain competitive in the labor market. It was a balancing act, and it required great negotiation skills and the highest degree of professionalism from all involved.

Now, to your first question regarding town employee contributions to ever-increasing health costs. Like any private business, it is reasonable for the town to expect employees to share in the burden of rising health care costs. Having said that, like any private business, the town owes a duty to their employees to make decisions about such contribution levels based on a thorough and professsional salary / benefit analysis that takes their complete compensation package into account. If we can't get such a study in-house, then we should pay to have one completed. More on this in the next question.

Do I consider wages in Gilford to be above average? I don't know. The competitive labor market is one factor that goes into the bottom line salary received. Other factors - to name just a few - include the total compensation / benefit package, union constraints, and the qualifications / education level that the town associates with each position. Salary and benefits are the single most expensive line item in hundreds of thousands of businesses (and towns) across the country. It's a fact - but this fact does not independently signal that salaries or benefits at an individual company (or town) are too high. We should be demanding adequate explanations, support, and comparative analyses from town and school administrators, selectmen and school board members. If we're not satisfied with what they give us, then we should request a professionally authored, comprehensive analysis to tell us one way or the other. Neither taxpayers nor employees should be expected to rely on a narrowly-focused, single-number comparision completed by someone with no expertise in salary / benefits / compensation - and inserted into the debate by the town's most policitically polarized committee. A business sure as heck wouldn't approach it that way, and neither should we.

Should the budget committee be involved with teacher contracts? No. The town pays darn good money for professional administrators, and we go to the polls to elect a representative school board. This is their job that we've hired and elected them to do, and we should hold them accountable to do it. If I hire an attorney to represent me in court, and I'm dissatisfied with his performance, what would be my best course of action? Find another attorney, or call up my plumber and ask him to argue my case? I don't know about you, but I'd go with the first option.

Should the budget committee be looking at retirement fund contributions of town employees? This falls in line with your first two questions. This has a growing impact on the costs in town, so as with salary and benefits, the budget committee has a duty and a right to demand that the town's solution be fully supported and explained. If the committee isn't satisfied with the support or explanations, they should request a professional review.