Saturday, February 13, 2010

No Let Up . . .

NH Online's ongoing antagonism on the transparency issue is getting onerous! Since I am not as . . . ahem . . . long-winded as my learned opposition (my original post was about 5 lines long) I will ignore the implication that I am lazy by not having attended the last board meeting and confine myself to one key point (quoting from her blog quoting me and her response):
Strike wrote that I said:
Supervisor Tyksinski could have discussed the topic during executive session and then merely come out of executive session to adopt the resolution after the public left . . .
And Strike replied:
Oh really? And under what provision of the Open Meetings Law would such a discussion in executive session have fallen?
My answer:
under section 105-f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
My response to the above, of course, is that a discussion of the Police Commission is NOT a discussion of "a particular person or corporation" (emphasis supplied).

There! Short and to the point!


Helen of Troy said...


I must disagree with you on this. Don't you know you will never get it right when dealing with a woman?

Anonymous said...

Actually, this is s small issue given the scope of the changes we need in NH. To think that all of us reform minded NH residents are always going to agree is not realistic. In this case by both of you taking it up a notch you are starting to embarass yourselves. Give it a rest and move on. BTW, if you really need an issue to gripe about lets start asking about the 2.8 MILLION $$$ that is missing from the town's rainy day fun. Who obligated the funds? when did it happen? What were the funds spent on?

Anonymous said...

The NH Online group. or at least some, are carried away with their self importance.They are not the end all be all of good or open government.

Concerned Voter said...


Self-importance? When was the last time you ever devoted your time to making town government Open?

The NH Online group has been doing a public service for the past four years. If it had not been for them Earle Reed would still have been in office and your tax rate would have gone up 50% next year.

Anonymous said...

Concerned Voter proves the point. Earle Reed himself is responsible for his own failures. One does not knock a good government group as a whole. But, boy some of their egos are way out of balance. Don't forget a key lesson of history-- the reformer often becomes in need of reform.

Strikeslip said...

Don't confuse persistence with a big ego. Concerned Citizens has done an awful lot of research on the issues and can back up their positions with documentation. For that we all owe Concerned Citizens a big Thank You.

That said, different people can look at the same facts and arrive at different conclusions. I think our disagreement brought out some of the finer points. It's too bad we seldom see similar deliberations in our representative bodies such as the County Legislature.

Cathy & I decided to have a bit of fun with our disagreement.

And now everyone knows that she thinks I don't go to enough meetings . . . and I think she is long winded :D

As the French say "Vive la difference."

Anonymous said...

Does CC like anything in the town?