Category: election

Is it over yet?

I know, election season is supposed to be fun, but I’m looking forward to it ending. In many ways it did for me tonight, though I know it hasn’t.
I live in a parallel world where anything that happens after Monday doesn’t matter. I won’t be reporting on the election next week because by the time my paper comes out the election will be over. Sure, I’m partial sponsor of a debate Wednesday night, but I won’t cover it in the paper. In reality I’m off the election ride, while Berlin has a week left to go.
The council meeting tonight was basically one stump speech after another, but the only people who heard it were Mel Liston, Bill Gabler, Barry Kelley and Jon Edwards. Sometimes I wonder if all the rhetoric is just for me and daily paper reporter, or does everyone like hearing their opinions supported by the group? The council is annoyed with the county commissioners. OK. They don’t like what PSNH is doing. Fine. They are more favorable to Clean Power than Laidlaw. Great. They go around and around saying the same thing over and over again, each backing the other one up. Honestly, it might be nice to have a strong pro-Laidlaw voice on the council—at least then there’d be someone to disagree.

I have been trying to visit entrepreneurs while reporting for the Reporter. I like pointing them out because they often get missed in this downtrodden city. As a result I am often surrounded by people who see Berlin’s future 30 years down the road, with creative ideas and amorphous plans. The city will be completely post-industrial, they say, without any of the squabbles now flying around city hall.

That leaves out what the heck people will do for work for the next 25 years, a time-frame city leaders will likely have a hard time making so blissful.
Mr. Grenier might win the election. His signs are crap, but his experience and dedication to the city is real. He disagrees with the current council, and his tactics have raised some eyebrows, but as I understand it this has been a clean fight by Berlin standards. He is advocating for the unemployed and the underemployed, by talking to them instead of by talking about them. In an election, being able to communicate with constituents is key, and Mr. Grenier does an excellent job of it.
I would think this council would get that. They hate the way Laidlaw does everything in the dark, and they love the way Clean Power holds their hand every step of the way. But the council is running city hall more like Laidlaw, and Mr. Grenier has taken the CPD approach.
I don’t have any idea what’s best for Berlin. What if CPD never comes to fruition? Or Laidlaw? Or neither makes Fraser viable, or no light industry follows suit? The Vote Jobs crew is right, the city needs jobs, but it needs more than that for a future. It needs an infrastructure that draws talent back to the city, and I have yet to hear anyone mention a good method for doing that.

I read Norm Charest’s economic report for BIDPA the other day. I’m tired of the doom and gloom. I’m not sure how many of these reports I’ve read that mention we’ve entered a post-industrial economy. So what? Berlin has to change? No kidding. I wonder just what these are reports are supposed to accomplish. They make a good downer; other than that I’d say they’re useless.

I like Norm. He has some great ideas. His challenge is the same as the rest of Berlin—he knows the city too well. It’s hard to come up with possibility in the place that for too long has suffocated your best ideas.

The seed is in Berlin to move forward. It has anything to do with who is elected to city hall. It has has nothing to do with Laidlaw or CPD either. These are symptoms, traits of a city that is still learning to walk without a smokestack for a cane. The creativity is draining from Berlin like blood on the pavement, and no one knows how to scoop it up. But it will pool regardless.

You know who’s cool in Berlin? Pam Laflamme. Andre Caron. Corinne Cascadden. They look to the future. They have unique perspectives and creative ideas and a capacity for problem solving. These are the bureaucrats, and they blow most Berlin’s “creative entrepreneurs” out of the water! What’s wrong with this picture?

Berlin has the people it needs to be great. Interesting things happen where different words meet, and worlds collide in Berlin. Creativity breeds there. It becomes infectious. The city has to harness that energy, but that won’t come from city hall. If the current council isn’t the next council I won’t complain, because tonight’s meeting was nothing but politics. The game the council accused Mr. Grenier of playing last week was in full swing tonight in the chambers. Luckily the real Berlin isn’t contained within city hall. It’s in the streets. It’s on the pavement. It pools where you’d least expect it.

Undecided?

I just realized something I wanted to ask LPJ readers. I know this is a heated election, but are there any undecided voters out there? I was just thinking about the debate, which, if last week’s council meeting is any indication, will likely have some spirited discussion. But will people be there to make up their minds, or is it more just to see a little sport? I feel like most of the people I interact with have their minds made up already. For them, they could vote now without fear of changing their minds in the next week.

Are there any undecided voters out there? If so, please speak up.

Thanks.

Sign of the Times

I just wanted to post a quick comment someone made this morning. I drove into town and noticed that many of the signs were missing for Paul Grenier, Michael Rozak Beverly Ingersoll and Robert Danderson. Because they were put up in groups they were hard to miss, but now as you drive into town there are empty wooden stakes sticking up everywhere. My first thought was someone had pulled off the signs—maybe a Bertrand supporter got aggressive and took matters into their own hands.
That thought was wrong, though; it was the weekend weather that did them in. As I drove on upper Main Street I saw four of the Vote Jobs signs, only two still on the stake. The other two were laying on the ground. Someone told me there are signs strewn across the city. I haven’t noticed them, but I have noticed all the empty stakes. In fact, I only saw one three-pronged Vote Jobs flower with all its pedals intact.
The Bertrand signs are still up, however, and so are new ones for Ryan Landry. I don’t know when the Landry signs went in, but the Bertrand ones withstood the weekend weather.

Here’s the comment worth posting: Someone said this morning the election should be decided by the quality of the election signs. I couldn’t help but laugh. What an interesting version of democracy that would make. Its foundation is a little shaky, having no roots in the Magna Carta, but it would be one way to choose officials.

Another week of elections ahead. Make sure you don’t miss the debate Wednesday night, and if you’ve got questions for candidates please send them in. Thanks.

Update: As I left city hall last night I noticed a number of the signs had been repaired or replaced.

Councilor Evans Backs David Bertrand For Mayor

Councilor Mark Evans, the fiscal conservative from ward three, has announced his support for Mayor David Bertrand. The efforts of candidates Paul Grenier, Bob Danderson and Michael Rozek appear aligned to remove a number of the incumbents, and my conversations with these men indicate their politics run close to those of Mr. Evans. Both Mr. Danderson and Mr. Rozek called themselves fiscal conservatives, and Mr. Grenier was pushing to cut capital improvement spending at last week’s council meeting. Their political rhetoric seems like they would line up well with Mr. Evans, but apparently he doesn’t agree.
I have yet to get back to Mr. Evans to talk more about this. He recently emailed me with his endorsement of Mayor Bertrand. I will hopefully have something about it in next week’s Berlin Reporter.

An a side note, why do people feel they know which way the election will go? There have been a lot of comments on LPJ concerning how the former councilors and mayor are likely to sweep the election, and that it will be the end of forward progress from city hall. Is that based on some sort of polling? Or conversations with lots of people? Or the word on the street? I have spoken to a number of people, including candidates and city employees, who feel the race will be tight, but they don’t know which way it will go. I’m wondering what information people commenting on LPJ have that these people don’t have? Are you stating your fears, or do you have some reason to think the election will go one way or another?

Update: I just spoke with Councilor Evans. Look for a story in next week’s paper.

Taxes, Improvements, Politicians and Papers

I am supposed to meet with Ron Goudreau and Paul Grenier (separately) to talk capital improvements and taxes. Mr. Grenier said the bond will result in at least a $1.67 increase in the tax rate, which currently is $29.82. Mr. Goudreau said the $29.82 includes the first year’s repayment on the bond. There won’t be a tax increase, he said, because the bond payments are already figured into the tax rate.
I minored in economics, so hopefully I have enough financial understanding to sort this out for the voters. I don’t think it’s enough for a reporter to write down what people are saying; they have to dig into the numbers and analyze what’s really there. There were sharp words at Monday’s meeting, and I reported them as well as I could. Now it’s time for me to look into the numbers behind the numbers.
So expect that in next week’s Berlin Reporter. I’m glad there are still people out there willing to pay the 50 cents. It keeps me in a job, doing what I love.

Side notes:

  • Mayoral debate at the Berlin city hall auditorium, Wednesday, October 28, at 6:30 p.m. Come see who you’re voting for and learn their positions.
  • It is constructive remarks like those LPJ has received recently that convince me to allow anonymous comments. Glad to see the discussion stay clean. I appreciate people posting, no matter the viewpoint, as long as their goal is to build a better Berlin. So thanks.
  • I bought the domain lastprintjournalist.com. I just put in a placeholder because I haven’t built the site yet, but I feel like I’ve got a fairly consistent thing going here, and I’d like to build it out. Journalists have to have websites these days, and I’m no exception. I’m not looking to move on from the Reporter, but I’m always looking for freelance opportunities, and if I’ve got a website to direct people to so they can see some of my work, it helps. Eventually I hope to have the the blog there, to house everything in one place, but for now I’m just saving my spot.
  • There’s a public hearing next Tuesday about the ATV trail.
  • It’s time to donate to NHPR. I freelance for them occasionally, and I’ll be reporting on Berlin’s ATV trail sometime in the next few weeks. They need money to pay me, so please, help me out by helping them.

I reread my story about Laidlaw investors saying they intend to send Mr. Grenier campaign contributions. It’s funny, but by the time stories come out I haven’t looked at them in a week. When I received calls and criticism about it, I hadn’t looked at it in a while. But after reading the story today I realize how off base those comments are. I thought maybe I’d screwed something up and been unfair to Mr. Grenier. But no, I was right on, and if I had to do it again I’d write the same story. I represented Mr. Borowski fairly, including his ties to the area and his good reasons for wanting to see Laidlaw succeed. I represented Mr. Grenier fairly as well, including his hesitation before he said he would reject any money from outside the city.
I thought maybe I’d left those things out. I thought maybe I’d been too worried about length and edited the story down. But no, I didn’t, I represented the various parties fairly and accurately. And in the end, no one in the story looks all that bad.

Sometimes accurate reporting makes people look like crap. That sucks, but that’s what I’m there for. Maybe there is some meeting going on in Berlin that, if made public, would make everyone look like jerks. I hope to be there. A few phone calls and complaints aren’t going to scare me off. My goal isn’t to make anyone look bad. In fact, no one has to answer to me. They are answering to the residents of Berlin. And of Gorham. And Milan, Dummer, Randolph and Shelburne. I’m asking questions for those people, because they don’t have the time to. It takes more than calling a fair story biased to make me stop. Or a page full of numbers.

P.S. Ryan — You don’t want to buy the paper if you stay in city government, because I won’t be able to curb my reporting for your sake. Sometime you’ll make an asinine comment that I’ll put in the paper, and you’ll want to fire me, and I’ll only have been doing my job, and it’ll be a great big mess. I agree, I’d like to see more people reading the Reporter. But the paper doesn’t come with the printing press. The daily owns their press. It’s in Conway and it prints three other daily papers; that makes their business viable. The Reporter is owned by Salmon Press, which owns 10 other weeklies around the state, which makes their business viable. Buy a press to print one paper and you’ll lose money at the speed of sound. Launching an online paper cuts that cost, but the advertising revenue online is negligible, not enough to pay for quality reporting. Berlin is struggling with the same challenges the rest of journalism is: how do you support quality reporting in the Internet age? Luckily community papers are successful enough to continue surviving. As far as I know, our market isn’t growing yet. I hope my reporting will change that, but in a world where people live more and more online that may not be realistic. There are blogs, yes, but few places online for high quality local news. Residents don’t need to read people’s opinions about what is going on in Berlin—they need the facts about what is going on in Berlin. There is not, at this time, a good model for how to provide that. I’m trying to resurrect a dinosaur here, singlehandedly. Berlin has a shot at rebirth, and it’s much greater than that of newspapers.
And Jon, thank you for the compliment on LPJ as a news destination. I’m glad people come here for news and to share their opinions, but there is 10 times as much news in every Reporter than goes on here and more in depth analysis. My story about shareholders didn’t break here, remember, it broke in the Reporter. We all come here talk about it, and people add value to my work by commenting here, but the fact is this is a side project that doesn’t pay for groceries or pay my rent. The real news is in the paper; this is just the 21st century water cooler.

I wish I had an answer for newspapers. They are so valuable. I love my work, and I think it is integral to maintaining democracy. I’m lucky to have a community and an employer that supports me. What the future holds I don’t know. Will Berlin support two papers when everyone gets high-speed Internet and starts posting their ads on Craigslist? I doubt it. Which paper will fold, or will both? I don’t know. But right now, at a time where Berlin needs quality reporting so residents can make important decisions about their future, the two papers are still there. Hopefully a new model will be created before the old one dies. Otherwise there won’t be anyone out there to find out who is giving money to what causes or who’s numbers about the tax rate are accurate.

So buy a paper. Maybe a subscription for your mom for her birthday? I don’t know, but I hope everyone reading this realizes the value of quality journalism. We need it, and the fact is, it isn’t free.

Anonymous Posters

I’ve had several people tell me I should restrict comments from anonymous people. I don’t want to do that, because I don’t like imposing restrictions on ideas. during tense debates, however, like are occurring this election season, commenters call people liars and thieves without signing their name. That is a sad. Everything I write has my name on it. Matt Borowski and Jon Edwards stridently disagree on politics in Berlin, but both men have the decency to sign their posts. The Internet has given people anonymity, which doesn’t help improve the discourse. Don’t be a coward and post without signing; stand behind your convictions and let us know who you are. Mr. Borowski has, and so has Mr. Edwards. Mr. Grenier has, and so has Mr. Bertrand. These people are willing to attach a name to their comments, whether they are online or in city hall. Before you jump to criticize their beliefs ask whether you’d be willing to do it publicly. If not, don’t do it, either out in the world or online.

I feel like a middle school teacher who has to occasionally quiet the class. There are great debates going on in Berlin. I’d like to have them go on here too, without the dead weight brought by a few individuals.

To everyone engaging in the great discussions: thank you.

Election Season

Last night’s city council meeting could have filled a paper. There were more public comments and back and forth than I’ve ever seen there. I had 600 words to capture the entire meeting. That sucks. 600 words is enough to cover one issue in depth, or two issues briefly. I chose one issue in depth, which of course meant I left a lot out.
The city needs to start videotaping the meetings. I, and no other print reporter, could capture the energy of last night effectively. But I could make residents aware something worth noting happened, and then they could watch for themselves to see what really went on.
To me, last night’s meeting was almost entirely political. Both sides made their stand, their appeal to the voters. Paul Grenier, Bob Danderson and Mike Rozak could be accused of provoking the politicization of the evening, but Mayor David Bertrand’s written mayor’s report was not a reaction to their comments. Both sides were taking advantage of the opportunity.
But there were some really interesting developments. Councilor Ron Goudreau’s challenge of Mr. Grenier’s numbers was great, if for nothing else than to clearly portray the differences in the two camps. Councilor Ryan Landry passionately urged Berlin to reject Mr. Grenier’s and Mr. Danderson’s ideas. His comments were emotional, clearly rejecting the return to the past these two men represent. They would resonate with some residents, but whether they represent the views of the majority of voters is unclear.
I couldn’t imaging a more interesting meeting. The entire city should have been there to watch. The next two meetings should have even more fireworks, particularly the one the night before the election, on November 2. That will be the public hearing for the capital improvement plan resolution, which, despite the candidates’ comments, the council moved forward. I can’t wait for that one.

But I didn’t even have room for the resolution the city did pass, to allow the police department to get a $10,000 grant. And I didn’t have room to talk about how the city decided to file for interveener status with the PUC in the Clean Power/PSNH affair. I didn’t get to talk about Jon Edwards’ comments, or Barry Kelly’s comments, because I was so pressed for space.

The newspaper is a tool, but it is no substitute for civic engagement. For the next few weeks, I hope people put down the paper, shut down the computer, and come to the meetings. See what these people are really saying. Try to understand it better. The Berlin Reporter or the daily paper are a horrible filter for what happened last night. So is the opinion of almost anyone who was there, because it’s nearly impossible not to have an opinion on these issues. But if you are there you can make up your mind, without having to rely on anyone else.
I am going to meet with Mr. Grenier to try to better understand his numbers to see if what he said last night was true. I am also going to meet with representatives from the council to see if their numbers for the capital improvement plan make sense. That is the job of a paper—to try to find the truth, not just print what people say. But the two different groups have such different visions for the city, it almost doesn’t matter what they say. Their views for Berlin are worlds apart, it seems, and Laidlaw is only part of it. The community needs to make an informed decision, and it needs to make sure its city council reflects their vision of the city’s future. What does that mean? Citizens need to show up. They need to learn what these people stand for. They have to hear the arguments for themselves. No amount of mediation from the media will do it justice. Their words are more powerful than mine, and I implore Berlin to come out and hear them.

It’s a Dirty Job…

…but somebody’s got to do it.
Several members of the city council said they wanted to step aside before the election, that they didn’t intend to run again. I’ve had conversations with almost all the incumbents, and several told me they decided to run the evening the registration period expired. One councilor even said he was torn as to whether he wanted to win or lose because of the four-year commitment a victory would mean.
I have no doubt about the motivation of every person running for council: there isn’t a person there that doesn’t want to see Berlin improve. Paul Grenier might think Laidlaw is the way to do that, and David Bertrand may have a different vision, but both are fighting for what they think is right.
What I wonder though, is how do you make committed public servants and keep them interested in serving? At some point it isn’t about an issue; it’s about how you foster civic engagement.
Tim Cayer is running unopposed for the four year seat in ward four. That’s a shame, simply for the fact that people ought to have choices. If no one is willing to challenge a candidate, the result is weak democracy. Does ward four support councilor Cayer’s stances on the issues, or do they simply have no one else to vote for? In this election, we won’t know.
Councilor Ron Goudreau is running for ward three specifically because he wanted there to be a choice. His positions contrast Mike Rozek’s sharply, and so he ran to make it a race. He didn’t want to see in ward three what is going on in ward four, so he stepped up to the plate.
In a community that is a shell of its former self like Berlin, it is understandable there might be trouble finding candidates, but at the same time the passion of the people here makes me think there must be hundreds willing to sacrifice their 300+ hours.
I know council is a big commitment, but Berlin’s work ethic is legendary. I find it hard to believe the residents of this city, who prove time and time again they will not lay down and die, are unwilling to take on a part-time job for their city.

As I understand it, it’s better now than it was. At one time there were vacant seats on the council, I’ve been told. I haven’t verified the truth of those claims, but it seems Berlin is in too exciting a time to have people sitting on the sidelines. Laidlaw or no, there is a federal prison, ATV trail inter-connectivity, new businesses and new people coming to town. Millions of dollars is being spent to remove old houses. The burned out buildings on Main Street are about to come down. The Notre Dame school will soon be changing hands. There are signs all around pointing forward, upward, and there is no better time to be involved.
I get paid to sit through those meetings every Monday night, so I can’t claim to know how it feels. But I also don’t the investment in this community the residents do. I meet people every day who have lived in Berlin all their lives and would never consider moving away. They care about this city. How do you enlist them to start acting in one more way? How do you convince them to throw their hat in the ring?

David Bertrand’s candidacy is of the utmost importance to this city. So is Paul Grenier’s. With only one of these men, democracy would fail in Berlin. It takes both of these men to offer residents a choice. Having a challenger in a race may be a bad thing depending on which side of the issue you stand on, but in terms of the health of democracy in the city and the right of residents to have their voices represented it’s invaluable. If it takes an issue like Laidlaw to get people fired up and engaged in the discussion, I hope the fight goes on for a long time. It’s better than empty seats at city hall.

Update: What a city council meeting! Can you imagine they don’t videotape those? Real life drama for political science nerds; better than Lifetime. I’ll try to put something up tomorrow, but my writing is no match for being there. If you weren’t there, you missed one heck of a show.

Hole in the ground…

I wonder if communities really want to know what is going on. Do they have a real interest in journalism that looks past the bake sales and the town events to what is going on behind the scenes?
I am working to raise people’s awareness, or at least access, to what is going on in Berlin. I intend to incorporate video, audio and written reporting on the city, because every bit of openness is more information for people to make decisions from.
People like the idea of openness, just not when they are under the microscope. But it takes an informed citizenry for democracy to work.
I didn’t pick sides, but stories quickly become partisan issues. Last week I spoke to Paul Grenier about receiving money from out of town donations, and I wrote a story that quoted him as saying he would not accept such money. I also called Mayor David Bertrand to ask him the same questions, and I investigated reports he had accepted out of town money in the past. I challenged both candidates because that is what I am supposed to do as a reporter. Both stories appeared in Wednesday’s Reporter.
People didn’t like it. I received complaints and accusations that the stories were sensationalization. It makes me wonder what people would like from their paper. Do they want to become an informed citizenry, or do they want to have their views reinforced?

The big news, to me, was what Laidlaw investors were trying to do. NOT what Laidlaw was trying to do, because they weren’t trying to do anything, and NOT what Mr. Grenier was doing, because he was doing exactly what he should: he said he wouldn’t accept those contributions. So I started the article with what those investors were trying to do, and I included Mr. Grenier’s response that the mayors seat couldn’t be bought.

And yet someone posted on LPJ that Mr. Grenier was basically running for financial gain, while people who side with Mr. Grenier said I’d thrown him under the bus.
Maybe no one reads papers anymore. Maybe they get through the first paragraph and then make up the rest of the story themselves. Maybe they just read the headlines. The story I wrote quoted Mr. Grenier as saying he wouldn’t take money, and it quoted Lou Bravakis as saying Laidlaw hadn’t tried to give money to any candidate. It laid out the facts in a pretty clear way, which may not have made the investors look great, but it pretty clearly absolved Mr. Grenier and Laidlaw from blame.
And there was a story about Mr. Bertrand. No one cared that Mel Liston of Clean Power offered Mayor Bertrand money, which he turned down. Interesting.
I don’t get it. Maybe I need tweak my writing to better focus people’s attention on who they should get mad at. I don’t believe that’s the case, however: if you’re reading a newspaper, you are intelligent enough to make up your own mind. It’s my job to lay out the facts, not to interpret them.
Was it easy to assume Mr. Grenier was at fault for investors’ actions while excusing Mayor Bertrand for Mr. Liston’s offer? Maybe he inspires stronger feelings, and therefore stronger reactions? I don’t know. Did no anyone even make it down the page to the story about Mr. Bertrand?
How about both men acted admirably in the face of attempts by out-of-town groups to influence the election? That’s what I thought the stories said, while highlighting the flagrancy of the Laidlaw investors’ actions, but that’s not what people read. I must be making a mistake in my writing, or I’ve got too high expectations for readers.

I guess it all does come down to Laidlaw. A former reporter said they stayed away from of the issue because people lost all capacity for reason whenever it came up. I learned what that reporter meant for the first time this week. That doesn’t mean I will be anymore delicate about how I report, because I don’t see any other way to get the facts out, but I will be more prepared for criticism and biased comments from both sided.

What are the community’s expectations for openness? How much of this stuff do they want to know? Are they able to make decisions if the facts are before them, or do they need to be spoon-fed their opinions? Judging by the number of people who attend city council each week, people have other concerns than how the city officials are running things. I am not trying to disappoint them by reporting on more than the latest flowerbed renovation. I see in depth coverage as what I’m supposed to do, but maybe I’m disturbing people who just want to be left alone to think the way they want to think. People want to be mad at Mr. Grenier and excuse Mayor Bertrand, without ever making it far enough into the story to see that both men are rare examples of people in Berlin who actually care. Or they want to be mad at me for exposing investors’ actions, without reading far enough to see I never accused either candidate of wrongdoing.
Both men want to do what is best for the city, but they have different views of how to get there. I do not support of oppose either one; I am a referee working to ensure a clean fight. But what people want is to have their opinions supported and a hole in the ground to stick their heads in.