We are the original group who encouraged the creation of the Charter Commission at last year's town vote. We thought a thorough review of our current form of government was overdue, and that an analysis of what other forms of government are available and may be beneficial, was in order.

Why do we now oppose the proposed charter? Simply stated, because what is being proposed will not serve the best interests of the community.

Let us explain.

When we urged the board of selectmen to form a Charter Commission, we had no agenda to create any particular form of government. We simply believed that it was time to take a look at everything and determine if a change was needed. We were encouraged at the first public hearing held by the Charter Commission when several of the commission members asked the rhetorical question "what needs to be fixed?" And we were further encouraged that night when the Charter Commission heard many members of the public say to them, "Whatever you do, don't concentrate a lot of power in the hands of just a few."

Unfortunately, those views seemed to be ignored once the commission proceeded with its work.

If you read all of the commission minutes it's clear that the initial question posed - what needs to be fixed, and do we need a change at all? - was never addressed. The commission simply launched into a process of voting on what portions or provisions of charters from other town's would be in Goffstown's new charter.

What happened to answering the underlying question first - are any changes needed at all? Only then, if the commission determined a change was needed, should the commission have drafted a new charter.

Unfortunately, what we end up with is something that looks very much like what we have, but with one very dangerous exception.

Currently, a five-member board of selectmen, a town administrator and department heads administer the prudential affairs of the town in accordance with what voters have decided at town meeting. The new charter simply proposes to add two more members to the board, and call it a town council.

The proposed charter retains a budget committee, and all of the features of the deliberative town meeting/town balloting format that it can - the so-called SB2 provisions.

But what is very disturbing is that the town council form of government requires that the town administrator's position change to a strong town manager position.

As the chief administrative officer of the town, this gives the town manager hire and fire authority, and would eliminate the town department head system now employed so successfully in the community.

We do not believe that a strong town manager form of government would be beneficial to the town. We tried it briefly once before in our history, and it was an abject failure. Moreover, it violates the very principle many people supported at the first public hearing the charter commission held.

It concentrates a lot of power in one individual.

There are several other problems with the proposed charter, including the fact it's too wordy; it writes New Hampshire statutory language from existing law into the charter, which will be very problematic when a law is changed; and it removes the authority of the current board of selectmen to set the default budget. It gives this authority not to the new town council, but to the budget committee.

All of these changes, and the citing of existing New Hampshire statutes in the body of the charter, are recipes for conflict, confusion and inefficiency.

We're told that much of what is in the proposed charter is modeled on Hooksett's town charter.

While we like and respect our neighbors to the east, we don't believe that Goffstown should look like Hooksett. You should also know that the charter commission did not unanimously endorse the proposed charter.

For all of these reasons, we encourage everyone to vote no on Goffstown's proposed charter.
Michael Ryan
Stephen Monier
K. Brian McLaughlin
Michael Massey
William Gleeson

There is little change here from current practice; town treasurer and tax collector are just as they are today.

The treasurer will continue to be elected to three-year terms and the tax collector to be appointed annually.

An investment advisor to the council is added, to help assure the security, liquidity and return on invested town funds.

While the town finances section changes little, it does spell out clearly the matters of fiscal year, budget and financial operations, allotments of appropriations, reductions, transfer and lapses of appropriations and budget reports.

It sets new limits on borrowing, requiring bonds of $100,000 or more to passed by a vote of five or more councilors and 2/3 of the voters who vote.

Procedure for purchasing, contracts and special assessments are spelled out.

The administrative code sets purchasing and contract procedures. Trustees of trust funds and trust investments are unchanged; investment is often specified in a trust fund.

Dedicated funds are to be administered by the department to which dedicated. The town manager would set a schedule for submitting to the council and the budget committee such items as proposed operating budget, appropriation and revenue articles, capital improvement plan matrix and collective bargaining agreement appropriations.

The operating budget procedure is slightly changed, but hearing, notices and dates will remain as they are.

The default budget requirements are made more specific and the default budget would be determined by the budget committee, whereas it is now made by the selectmen.

The capital improvement plan would continue practically as is, with the minimum capital items set at $50,000, excluding vehicles.

The CIP committee would classify projects according to the urgency and need and put them into a time sequence over a term of six years.

As in the past, the purpose is to even out the budget totals, to avoid great valleys and peaks.

Town audits and auditors requirements are spelled out rather specifically, as are bonding and indemnification of officers, board member and employees.

Town auditors would be changed every 10 years.

Personnel policies address appointments and the personnel plan. Appointments shall be made solely on the basis of merit, considering the applicant's ability to meet the requirements of the job, as spelled out in the personnel plan.

The plan may be amended from time to time, based on recommendations by the manager to the council.

Specifications are spelled out for personnel records, job descriptions, compensation and changes therein.

Only the voters can change compensation for councilors, but voters cannot change individual salaries.

To the extent allowed by the law, all personnel records would by under the auspices of the town manager.

For town officials to be elected or appointed, one must become a resident within a year. Employees are not eligible for town offices. Conflicts of interest preclude one's participation from consideration of matters of transactions and disqualify one from taking part in decision making.

No employee may devote town property or labor to private use, or may accept gifts or gratuities nor may use or dispense information gained on the job for personal gain.

Individual concerns and appearances before the council are provided as are initiative and referendum petitions.

Initiative petitions require signatures of 50 registered voters, while referendum petitions require 500; the latter must eventually be submitted to the voters.

A new provision permits petitions for recall of officeholders. Initially, such petition requires 250 signatures, but a follow-up requires 750 signatures. A procedure is spelled out for this; it involves careful scrutiny of signatures and whether they are registered voters.

This seems like a good place to stop. There may be two more of these letters.
Charles Carr, Goffstown

In Letters to the Editor on Feb. 3, Jan Worthen did just that and I want to thank her on behalf of all the "Christians" that did not vote for George Bush.

To wrap oneself in the flag, call oneself a Christian, and then spout such venom seems to be a way of life lately in our great country. To believe that one party has cornered the market on honesty is dangerous.

Agreeing to disagree with another person's point of view requires a certain amount of civility, insight and some knowledge of where that individual is coming from.

I will not dissect Ms. Worthen's comments. She has a right to her own interpretation of today's dilemmas.

I would like to suggest to her that she contact her own Congressional representatives and ask them if Social Security has ever been "raided" by Congress to support other programs. I believe Ms. Worthen will have an eye-opening experience that will aid her in future comments.
Elizabeth Jefferson, Goffstown

On Saturday, Jan. 22, 2005, at 11 p.m., Bedford, N.H., was reported by the television station, WMUR, meteorologist to have 6-plus inches of snow already on the ground, with snow falling at the rate of 1 to 2 inches of snow per hour. I had the winning number of inches of snow, "at least 6 inches," as your contest dictated, on that exact date of Jan. 22. After calling your office and speaking directly to the editor's office, I was told that the winner picked was for 11 inches of snow on the next day?

My, my, the rules changed right under my nose!

Shame on you, Neighborhood News!
Barbara S. Stevens, Concord

Editor's note: The contest was for the total amount of snow at the finish of a snowstorm that had to amount to at least 6 inches, which was on Jan. 23. We had many entries for both Jan 22 and Jan. 23, and the official measuring station at our office did not record 6 inches on Jan. 22.

Therefore, we took our measurement on Jan. 23, with the total snowfall as the tiebreaker. Since two entries were the closest to 11 inches, we conducted a random drawing. The rules never changed.

We're sorry Ms. Stevens is unhappy with the result, but we also said Neighborhood News' determination of the winner was final.

We hope our readers had fun with the contest, which had a record number of entries for contests run by this newspaper.

I have been a substitute teacher and school volunteer throughout the 14 years that I have been a Weare resident. It bothers me to send my children to the middle school in its present condition, knowing that it does not meet state fire code standards, building code, or have handicap accessibility to the white building. If it were a multi-family dwelling, it would have been condemned and the landlord served for code violations.

It also bothers me that my kids have to walk in rain, snow and frigid temperatures to get from one building to another. I have seen many kids this winter walk between the buildings with not much more than a Tshirt on. There have been electrical and plumbing problems at the school. Parking leaves a lot to be desired - as in another parking lot. The faculty have to park three deep most days just to fit everyone.

I appeal to all the residents of Weare to support our children and vote for a new school on a new site. I know that there is a proposal on the table about rebuilding on the current site, but in a few short years, we will again face the issues of adequate parking and recess areas as the student and faculty population increase.

Our children need to know that we value their education. They need to have access to current technology and data, and they need to have a conducive environment.

Our job as parents and citizens is to make sure they have what they need to succeed. The success they have now in middle school will lay the foundation for high school and beyond. I would rather have my taxes increase a small percentage, knowing that my kids are learning and are safe, than to have my taxes increase due to an increase in entitlement programs such as welfare because their education didn't properly equip them for the future. I understand why Mr. Spadaro left. How do we pay someone to do a job and then not give them the space and supplies and equipment to do it?

As the saying goes, you can't get water from a rock. The staff has been working hard for our dollar. It is time to support them in their work. Our future is in their hands and ours.
Michele Goudreault, Weare

They did their homework - did you? Are you an informed voter? This is an extremely important issue that the voters will be voting on March 8. Please be an informed voter. Ask questions, get the right answers, come tour the buildings that children spend seven hours in each day, find out why the need is so great for a new middle school. Don't vote without knowing all the facts.

No one likes the fact that the taxes are going to go up. Explain to the students who breathe in moldy air and high levels of CO2 each day or study in cramped classrooms with asbestos floors that they are not worth the extra money.

Explain to the students that it is OK for them to continue learning in an unfit environment. Explain to them why it's OK for them to go between buildings in bad weather and in between cars and buses.

Whether you have children at any of the three schools or your children have graduated or you do not have children in the school system, it is your obligation as a community member to do the right thing for the children in this town.

They are our future.

The time is now! Did you know that within two weeks time, the state aid went from 40 percent to 30 percent? Next year we will probably get no aid whatsoever and if we do, very little.

Both John Stark and Center Woods' bonds are done this year. Bonds that the taxpayers are used to paying for. The town of Weare is considered a "richer" community due to its growth, which means less state aid.

We need to invest in our children of this town. Many supported John Stark's addition and Center Woods addition - its time the middle school gets some support, too.

Come show your support on Tuesday, Feb. 8, at the deliberative session and especially at the polls on Tuesday, March 8. All we ask is that you are an informed voter.

A new Weare Middle School supporter.
Cheryl Levandowski, Weare

Thanks to the many sponsors and people who volunteered their time, more than $2,800 was raised for the Cook Children Education Fund.

The mood of the entire evening was one of community, support and caring. Chad's parent's, wife Betsy and two children, along with many of his family and friends were present. They were appreciative beyond words of what was done that evening in memory of Chad.

Below is a list of all the sponsors who made this event so successful.

We would also like to recognize the countless people who donated dessert items.

Thank you all very much for your support:

Weare Friends PTO; Weare Athletic Club; Linda and John Ford; The Weare school administration; Stockholm DB7; CB Sullivan; Shaws; Hannaford; Advance Auto Parts; Speedy Lube; Curves for Women in Weare; Nextel at 591 Mast Road; Manchester Coca Cola; Cookie Lee Jewelry, Cheryl Bartolucci; Mary Kay, Sharon Rizzitano; Bergeron Photo Studio, the Pineault family; the Anderson family; Tire Warehouse; Country Three Corners; Usborne Books; Subway; Avon Store in Weare; Yoga, Body & Mind, Catherine Martin; The Montshire Children's Museum; SEE Science Center; The Christa McAuliffe Planetarium; Greater Manchester YMCA; Neighborhood News; Howe's Pharmacy; Melissa and Ed Fleming; Advantage Motorsports; New Wa-Toy Chinese Restaurant; Steve Law, JSRHS; Lynn Hanna; Katie Wuebbolt; Becca Hines; Melanie Beaudroin; Contessa Arts, Maria Contessa; Kim Stollard; Bob, Diane and Adrien Korda; Amy Conley; Frank Rudolph.
Joan and Dennis Aubin, Weare

Hidden in the Water Works published annual report is the simple admission that "infants can be particularly at risk for infections" when consuming Manchester's fluoridated public water supply.

The Water Works never bothered to contact local medical providers of health risks that exist or help the medical profession get the word out to the public.

The Department of Agriculture stated in its yearbook "Fluoride interferes with normal calcification of the teeth during the process of their formation so that affected teeth are structurally weak and deteriorate early in life. For this reason, it is especially important that fluoride be avoided during the period of tooth formation, that is from birth to the age of 12 years … this dental disease is found when water containing even as little as one part per million is used."

The American Medical Association warned, "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisions which cause fluorine intoxication in drinking water containing one part per million or more of fluorine."

Even the American Dental Association editorialized in the association's magazine, "Our knowledge of the subject certainly does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies because we know that the use of the drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteoporosis, as well as goiter."

Fred Rusczek, head of the health department, has been equally guilty of covering up the truth.

To this day, the Water Works and Health departments have never issued a health warning to any local doctor, nurse, hospital maternity ward or mother. As a matter of fact, the Health Department has recommended the use of a chemical compound as the fluoridation agent that contains arsenic, lead and 12 other poisons.
Lloyd G. Basinow, Manchester

Many of us have taken the time to thank our brave and unselfish military personnel over the holidays, on Memorial Day and when they come home from far away. Another way to show our appreciation is by exercising the freedoms which they have ensured for us - one of which is the freedom to vote. Voter turnout in the United States over the past several decades has been pathetic.

It must be a real insult to our veterans who have so valiantly protected us. I urge all who are eligible to register to vote. If you are not sure if you are still registered or if you have moved, go to the voter registration office where you live. And, of course, learn about the issues that will be on the ballot. Remember the saying, "No taxation without representation"? If you don't vote, you will be taxed without representing yourself. Then, you will have also no right to complain!
Michele Goudreault, Weare