Category: election

Don’t Print That!

I had a great conversation today with a guy running for police commission who didn’t want me to put in the paper that he’d been convicted of disorderly conduct and possession.

Those charges are from five years ago. “That’s in the past,” he said. True.

But the pending trespassing and resisting arrest charges aren’t from so long ago. Those are from January, and they won’t go to court until May 11, one day shy of a month after the election.

The man at first argued that this was his private criminal record, and I had no right to be putting it in the paper. I explained that I wasn’t looking to broadcast his record, but he had opted to run for public office. Every one of the candidates running for office went through the same level of scrutiny, I said, and we weren’t singling him out.

(Another man running for selectman and budget committee was arrested two and a half years ago for stealing scrap metal from the dump—a town entity. He was convicted of theft. Wouldn’t it be interesting to have someone convicted of stealing from the town elected to run it? I can’t make this stuff up.)

After explaining I wanted to give him a chance to explain his side of things he (the police commission candidate) did just that. He said he was set up (the selectman candidate said the same thing), and that he was the victim of police brutality, although he didn’t report it. I’m not sure about those accusations, but I can say he felt like I was tossing his hopes of winning the seat in the garbage. He called me back after we got off the phone the first time to tell me his attorney wanted me to know he might take a plea. I don’t want to be spreading this guy’s name all through the paper, but voters have a right to know who is running.

I’ve spent the last week and a half running through all the selectmen candidates, police commission candidates, library trustees, budget committee, etc. (I leave the school board to Lloyd.) They are all going to have their perspectives put in the paper. Almost no where do they get challenged before the election. We put in a few editor’s notes, like when a candidate says they would bring new ideas like LED streetlights (there are already LED streetlights), but we don’t have time to do full stories on all 30 candidates.

So here I’ve done a little digging, and I knock this guy totally off balance. I feel like telling him, “Look, but don’t run if you don’t want your criminal record discussed.”

The paper shouldn’t do that, he said, it’s private.

“Any middle school kid can go to the court house and request these records,” I said. “They are anything but private.”

I don’t think a criminal record should mean you can’t run for office, but I do think voters should be allowed to make informed decisions. On the other hand, some of the other candidate profiles should come with disclaimers themselves…

That’s politics, I guess.

Budgets and Stuff…

Ever put together a $33 million budget?

Me neither.

The budget process for towns and schools in New Hampshire is officially broken. Honestly, having come from a city form of government before this, the way they deal with things in towns is crazy.

Here’s the problem: there is a proposed budget, and a default budget. The proposed budget is what the town hopes to pass, and the default budget is a fallback budget, where last year’s budget is only increased by contractually obligated amounts.

Normally the proposed budget is more than the default budget. If voters don’t like it they can reject it. If voters add to the proposed budget that’s fine, because if the body politik as a whole doesn’t approve they can always fall back on the default budget.

These days, however, are not normal. Budgets are being slashed in the midst of one of the worst state and municipal budget crunches in decades. (I listened to a story on NPR about how bad it is just tonight on the ride home.) 60 Minutes had a segment about it a number of months ago. Things really are bad, particularly on the state and local levels, where politicians don’t have a treasury that can print money to fall back on.

So what have local lawmakers done? Slashed budgets. The proposed budgets for both the town of Conway and for SAU 9 were less than last year. Some of that was voluntary, and some of it was by force. Some departments did as they were requested by the boards overseeing the budgets, and some had their budgets cut without their approval. It got ugly at times.

But New Hampshire is about local democracy, so those cuts had to go before the voters. The voters with something to lose came out, and in both cases the cuts were restored. In the case of the town the cuts were restored and then some, but the towns budget is about one-third of the school, so less people got up in arms about it.

But therein lies the problem—remember the fallback budget, the default budget? It’s last year’s budget plus contractually obligated increases, right? So it’s last year’s budget plus a little. No big deal. But then take the proposed budgets, the cut budgets, and then add back the voters requests. Suddenly that proposed budget becomes last year’s budget, maybe plus a little. All the sudden there is no fallback. There is no option for people to turn to should they not approve of the proposed budget. There is one choice for voters, which equal to no choice.

Or there was a choice, but that choice was to show up to the deliberative portion of town meeting to fight for cuts or increases. Now that choice has passed, and there won’t be another shot at it.

But think about it: the newspaper says Budget Committee Cuts, If Passed, Will Eliminate 60 Jobs at the School. Who will come out for that meeting? The person who wants those cuts? No, they think “my elected representatives are doing what I want them to do, no reason to raise concern.”

No, it’s the people who want to fight the cuts that come out. That’s what happened with both the town and the school—people opposed to the cuts came out, and people in support of the cuts stayed home.

I know what you’re thinking, “maybe the town doesn’t really support these cuts.” But last November’s election argues that. Every election in the region went to conservatives. It seems strange all those same people would be looking to raise their taxes. And all the budget committee members and all the selectmen were struggling to be frugal—one would think the elected officials would be representative of the people that put them into office.

But the votes for both the town and the school were overwhelmingly in favor of giving them more money. That seems hard to believe, that a town would so wholeheartedly endorse higher taxes.

And if the voters who showed up at the meetings aren’t representative of the electorate as a whole, it’s too late now. The people will have two choices—vote for a little increase, or vote for a larger one. That, to me, is a broken system.

And it’s funny, I’m not against increased spending personally. But when I go to meetings (and I go to a lot of them) I hear a lot of citizens concerned about spiking property taxes and increases in local spending. I would wager it’s roughly equal to the number of people willing to watch their taxes go up for more services. But that isn’t the impression Conway’s form of government gives. It, unfortunately, has built-in assumptions about perpetually increasing budgets and a legislative format that brings out the special interest groups at the expense of the general public. It gives a disproportionate amount of power to the few, albiet at the fault of the many who don’t show up.

It’s been interesting to watch, but I’m not sure it’s good democracy. And that’s what it’s meant to preserve.

Just in case you missed the link, here’s the 60 Minutes segment about state debts:

Hanging With Mitt

Mitt Romney was in the Mount Washington Valley tonight, criticizing President Barack Obama and laying the groundwork for a 2012 presidential bid. The New York Times, among other media outlets, was there to report. I was bumping into photographers, television reporters and other print journalists who were all there trying to capture the moment.

It’s a bit surreal to watch the horserace begin this early. I have not lived through a New Hampshire primary, so I haven’t seen this before. It won’t be as lively as 2008, when there were two parties nominating candidates, but there will likely be rhetoric to spare.

The more reporting I do the less I understand partisanship. I have political views, but they aren’t convictions. I don’t believe them to be true. I feel one way, but I don’t think it’s the only valid model. I studied political science in college, but as I get into it now I realize reporting on this race or any like it is not the journalism that excites me. It isn’t shining a light into places where no one else is going, and while there is room for insightful reporting I don’t think I’m the one to do it. It’s certainly interesting to be in a room with a past and future presidential candidate, a U.S. House representative and a U.S. senator, but that isn’t the coverage for me. I don’t like races, particularly ones that go on for years. I guess that’s good to figure out now.

What’s In a Committee?

It’s town meeting time, and with tight budgets around Conway that has meant fights all over the place. The budget committee has had several heated meetings, and the selectmen have gone the same way. The school board is struggling to keep their budget numbers up while people on all sides are looking for cuts, and the police are asking for more money to fund more officers at a time when other departments are cutting.

We were talking today about the role of the budget committee, which recommends final figures that then go to the voters and (if not revised) onto the ballot. The budget committee is supposed to be elected, but of the 11 person board (don’t quote me on that number, I’m just spouting here) only one was voted in. The rest were appointed, some by the budget committee itself.

Which raises an interesting question: what role does a self-appointed committee have in a democracy? It’s only self-appointed because there isn’t the interest among residents to fill the seats through elections, true, but the committee makes serious recommendations for the rest of the town and they are not appointed by the people.

Like with the school. The budget committee cut 11 percent from the school’s $33 million operating budget. The voters have the option to add back most but not all of that. $700,000 they just can’t get back. That means an 11 member board decided to cut the school budget, and even if the entire town showed up to protest the closest they could get is $700,000 less. Direct democracy could be restrained by a self-appointed group.

And who would people have to blame? Themselves. Anyone who wants to run can, but in the past they haven’t. This year, however, there is a lot of interest in civic duty. Maybe it comes with challenging times. It certainly has been interesting to report on, and it is only going to get more exciting.

Three Dollars

Members of The state legislature are trying to add a $3 fee to overnight accommodations in the White Mountains to help pay for hiker rescues. I keep calling people to get their opinions on this, and it turns out they have not yet heard about the effort. Even the senator who proposed the bill wasn’t clear on the specifics. Not the easiest story to report, but whatever. I figure people ought to know so they can weigh in.
They should also know that hikers require roughly seven times as many rescues as any other user group in New Hampshire, and they currently do not contribute to the state’s search and rescue fund.
So what is fair? I’m interested to hear where this goes as the story develops.

Election Night

Tonight is going to be busy. At 8 p.m. I head to the office to put together Wednesday’s paper, which will have all the latest news about the 2010 election, assuming the ballots are counted by 11 p.m. tonight. At the mayoral election last year I was able to tweet the race results as they came into Berlin city hall, but this overall is a much larger effort. 2009 was not a banner year for races, other than local ones, while this should be.

The daily news cycle is a different beast than that of a weekly, and the differences are worth experiencing. The push for a morning paper that has all the results is something I never worried about before; with a Monday deadline, Tuesday’s results never made it. Any big stories would be addressed the next week, and smaller issues would fall to the daily. Now I am the daily (although not in the grand form of how I was the weekly, where I did everything in the paper, including photos), and those tasks fall to me.

I talked to the woman who is taking my place at the Reporter yesterday. I did what I could to reassure her that the job is not just doable but rewarding. I remember the first day I started, and the first week, having no idea what I was going to write about to fill the paper. Reporting, largely, is about knowing a community. In a job like the Reporter, where there is no permanent staff, no permanent foundation, it’s a rebirth every time a new reporter starts. I felt a bit of that my first week at the Daily Sun, but it is entirely different. The fact there is an office, other reporters, and a phone messaging system means the same realities do not apply.

And they teach different things, different skills. I see stories everywhere now, even in places I don’t know well. That is a result of working for the Reporter. If you ask enough questions, everyone has a story to tell, some just take digging to get to.

The Sun, however, is about finding those stories, digging, and telling those stories quickly. Deadlines are no less important than facts in many news environments. So for that, I’ll be up tonight, counting the votes.

Senate Bills and Such

Senate Bill 500 has been a hot topic in the state, and already I’ve written three stories on it in my new job. It deals with parole and release from prison, and what supports the state should provide to people getting released.

SB 500 has exploded in recent weeks because of some of the people it will affect. One of them is a registered sex offender who was out on parole when he assaulted a 16 year old girl.

It’s an interesting discussion, particularly because when the words “sexual predator” come up emotions trump reason. I’ve been told privately by several people they’d like to see sex offenders thrown in jail for life, killed or sterilized. That’s a far cry from an early release with state support to reintroduce them into society.

I’m still looking for facts on this, not just figures, but the discussion really comes down to whether sex offenders are fundamentally different than other criminals, and if their rights under the law are therefore different. What should happen when a sex offender reaches the end of their sentence?

According to the state attorney general’s office, the research shows that criminals are most likely to re-offend in the first eight months after their release from prison. By that rational, it makes sense to give former inmates supports for that period. Now, that research doesn’t deal with sex offenders specifically, so in the Conway case that is still up for debate, but otherwise it seems a win for both those convicted and society as a whole: individuals get supports that keep them from re-offending, and society experiences fewer crimes.

But this breaks down about where victims enter the equation. For some people prison is about rehabilitation, but for others it’s about retribution. Some people are bound to look at nine months of freedom as nine months those people don’t deserve. And they aren’t wrong.

And, when it comes to sex offenders, those emotions are understandable even if you don’t agree.

But how should it be enshrined by the law? SB500 has two parts that trouble people: the 90 day limit on parole violations, and the nine month early release program with monitoring. The monitoring structure hasn’t been set up yet, and victims don’t want to see a violator going to prison for 90 days if they have committed a crime.

There seems to be a solution for both: set up the monitoring program, and differentiate between parole violations and criminal acts. The monitoring program will cost money in the short term, but over the long term it will save corrections dollars and provide benefits to both convicts and society. That makes sense, even if it costs now. And tweak the law so if a parole violation is as a result of a criminal act the 90 day limit does not apply. That would give victim’s families confidence they won’t be subjected to repeated run-ins with offenders every six months, but it sets up the guidelines to govern parole violations that SB500 was enacted to address.

But in an election year, where this has become debate for the partisans, discussion is hard to come by. I’ll be interested to see where this goes, and whether people backpedal from what is essentially a good law.

And no one disagrees on that. Even the law’s most ardent critic, who’s daughter was targeted by a registered sex offender, thinks the law has value. He is concerned about specifics, however, and rightly so. But it seems the debate over the law has been fueled by an imprecise reading (and imprecise characterizations in the media). There are several measures to roll it back that will go before the house and the senate this week. It will be interesting to see where they go, and to see how the debate evolves over time.

Back to the Struggle

I got to interview an interesting man last week, an artist from Berlin who made his way back from a stroke to paint once again. He had to learn to use his left hand instead of his right, and his technique now involves a computer, but it is a fantastic story. (If you’re interested, his name is Daniel Roberge, and his show opens tomorrow at St. Kieran Arts Center.) He described getting back to creating art after being told he would struggle to ever sit up again on his own as “getting back into the struggle.” What elegant language.

And the struggle is back in Berlin, full swing. On Tuesday, before an empty chamber, save Bobby Haggart, Jon Edwards got up to speak during the public comments phase of the city council meeting. He talked about what he’d seen at the Laidlaw hearings in Concord, where he said numerous companies already invested in biomass raised concerns about the Laidlaw project.

He got about four minutes, and then Mayor Paul Grenier cut him off. Mayor Grenier smashed the gavel into the block, and he told Mr. Edwards not to lecture the council. Councilor David Poulin said he was interested in what Mr. Edwards had to say, and Mr. Edwards continued.

Maybe two minutes later Mayor Grenier was again pounding the gavel, loud enough to drown out everything else. He asked the city manager to call the police and to have Mr. Edwards thrown out. Mr. Edwards left a moment later.

What a scene. What a debate. I have come back, I feel, to the struggle.

More, but Lighter

Here is another look at informing the public, this time from the New York Times:

It’s an interesting model, and they urge people to become involved in local government. They are supporting democracy, using marksmanship as “a hook.”
I don’t have much to add, but this fit with the early post about involving people in democracy and connecting them to the realities of the larger world. Is it a conservative movement? The video implies it but doesn’t explicitly state it. But the program encourages civic participation, even if it has partisan leanings. It’s hard to criticize that.