If ever there was an extracurricular program that gives students the skills they’ll need for a successful future, FIRST is that program.

For those who haven’t caught on to FIRST yet, it’s a program that asks high school and college students, along with their parents and business partners, to build robots to play a game. But it’s not really about building robots – it’s about spurring an interest in science and technology among our students and about teaching them how to get a difficult project finished, as well as many other skills used in business. FIRST encourages “gracious professionalism,” a phrase you hear over and over during competitions. This organization rewards both competition and cooperation so that we all benefit in the long run from improvements not only in technology but also in the way people treat each other and how businesses are run.

All three city high schools, Pembroke Academy, Trinity High School and Bishop Brady High School participated in the regional competition this year. West High School’s team, which includes Hooksett students, is in Annapolis, Md., this weekend for another regional competition, and will also be going to the national competition in Atlanta in April. When West won the regional Chairman’s Award, they proved that they are changing the culture by making science and technology an important part of their school curriculum and showing the residents and businesses in this area what FIRST is all about. We think they stand a very good chance of winning the national award next month.

And even if you don’t think science and technology are important – though we can’t imagine why – FIRST competitions are just plain fun. These games may use robots on the playing field, but it’s high school and college students who are making them work, scouting out the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents and alliance partners, and helping other teams who need help with broken parts. The games may be over for this year in Manchester, but there’s always next year. And next time you see a robot on display or a kid raising money for FIRST, go talk to them. You’ll find out just how much this program teaches these students about making it in the business world and maybe catch a little of their enthusiasm.

With students this smart and motivated, it’s going to be a bright future for us all.

-Ginger Kozlowski, Editor

Regardless of the issues or your stance on them, it was great that so many of you came out to cast your ballot!

I am honored to be the newest member of the board of selectman, and look forward to being able to serve you in this capacity.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my family, friends and campaign staff for all of their efforts.

Even though I did not win, it doesn’t change anything I’ve said before. I’m still here ready to listen.

I plan on joining some committees, keep attending selectman’s meetings, and just get involved in as much as I can within the town.

If you would like to contact me with questions, concerns, or comments, please feel free at RedBrennan@earthlink.net. Again, thank you.

This article would provide the conservation fund with additional revenues to use in protecting undeveloped land, keeping it as open space.

Development is inevitable, but with financial support provided by the warrant article, we’ll be able to permanently protect some larger tracts of unbroken forest and fields, river corridors and wildlife habitat.

Your vote is vital to keeping Candia the beautiful, rural community we all love.

One unsuspecting, concerned citizen was trying to voice his opinion about the school renovations, and unfortunately a motion to proceed with voting sans any discussion or debate had already taken place. This gentleman was confused as to why he was not being allowed to speak, as were many members of the audience. The moderator did nothing but raise his voice, demand the man’s name (which he had already declared) and speak in an abrasive manner to him.

Is it too much to ask that those of us that are not extremely familiar with the protocol of these School District/Town Meetings be treated in such a manner? A brief explanation of what was expected at that particular time frame would have sufficed and the meeting could have continued. I realize that the rules had already been mentioned but all that was needed was some clarification.

Regardless if people had already made up their minds about voting, regardless of the “snowy” day, many in attendance had been waiting for the opportunity to be able to speak their minds, raise alternative scenarios and have a chance to be heard.

We are an intelligent community, and after attending this meeting, I truly wonder, where has common courtesy gone towards our fellow neighbors? A few moments was all it would have taken. Instead, rude tones, demeaning looks and sighs of disgust coming from the people that have the final say? Maybe next year people will recall what occurred and will decide to vote some “new” blood onto the committee. People with personal agendas should not apply for these positions.

Let us all remember what is important here: the safety, health and education of our children as well as a cohesive community that treats one another with respect.

I hope the Town Meeting is not so malicious, that the business at hand will be taken care of and that the citizens of Candia will be able to ask questions and have their voices heard before a motion to vote comes on the heals of the speakers.

If you didn’t vote, shame on you. The polls are open all day and a number of volunteers dedicate their time for this democratic process to happen. If you didn’t vote, you threw away your right.

I am curious. How many parents drop their kids off at Cawley School? And of that number who were already at the school, how many went in to vote? How many people travel Whitehall Road every day and pass the Cawley School? When you passed the school last Tuesday, did you take 10 minutes to vote? My guess is that very few people in either scenario took the time to vote.

Underhill School is in need of some very important repairs and renovations, but I guess less than 5 percent of the voter population cared enough to support Article 2. This article did not require additional taxation as it would have been funded by the money leftover from the original bond issue for Cawley and Memorial Schools.

We all live within a budget, but as our families grow, our budgets expand and we work harder to meet the budget. We are not all family in this town, but we do share a common interest in good schools for our children and the teachers who offer exceptional educational programs for our kids’ futures. Hooksett is growing. Nobody can argue this statement. If we don’t at least meet the minimum requirements of a solid school infrastructure, what kind of message are we sending to our children?

I would like to thank those that did support the Special Education Expendable Trust Fund and the $10,000 that should cover unexpected repairs for three schools this year.

The school board feels that it is not in the best interests of the students or the taxpayers of the school district to have such a committee. We believe that the Candia School Board acts in a fiscally responsible manner. A budget committee would add an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy to a process already overburdened with laws and rules. The Candia School Board takes very seriously its responsibility for providing the best education possible at a level of funding the town can support.

We do not believe that a budget committee would necessarily improve the current budgetary process.

It is incumbent upon all the citizens that we keep our town financially strong. Over the past years, our town and school budgets have continued to grow, and in 2005, the combined budgets have now exceeded 7.3 million dollars.

In the coming years, the financial pressures and burdens will only increase and an independent budget committee solely dedicated to that endeavor will be best able to help make those prudent and responsible financial decisions.

I urge all voters to come to the town meeting this Saturday, March 19, and support the formation of a budget committee.

I oppose the proposed amendment to the Hooksett Zoning Ordinances to include a chapter on growth management.

The preamble states that the ordinance is intended to regulate and control the timing of development in accordance with the objectives of the master plan and capital improvements plan. Is that statement accurate or is it deceptive?

The master plan, which has been in effect for 15 years, does not call for this growth management plan. Hooksett has grown, but in truth, the master plan anticipated significantly greater growth than what has actually occurred. The town of Hooksett is managing that growth. The planning board had developed a capital improvement plan which is updated annually and the town council has met the objectives of the CIP.

The growth management enabling legislation, Section 674:22 of N.H. General Laws, states that any (growth management ) ordinance “shall be based upon a growth management process intended to assess and balance community development needs and consider regional development needs.” No evidence has been presented that any attempt has been made to meet those requirements in the crafting of this ordinance.

Unlike the studies commissioned by the town council, which demonstrated the justification for impact fees, no such studies have been done to demonstrate any justification for growth management.

The proposed ordinance sets an annual limit on building permits at 2 percent of the dwelling units existing on Dec. 31 of the prior year. It further addresses the “equitable distribution” of those permits. The equitable distribution section states that permits will be issued on a “first come, first served” basis with a limit of five permits to any one individual corporation, partnership or entity. It also reserves 25 percent of the permits to “landowners building their own home.”

The “equitable distribution” formula falls far short of any reasonable test of equity on its face in that it treats different classes of landowners differently and not equitably. An owner of a 1,000-acre tract of land would be eligible to secure no more than five permits in a given year. Similarly, an owner of a five-acre parcel could also secure five permits. How is this equitable? There is no attempt to proportion the number of permits to the landholdings of the applicant. This greatly disadvantages the owners of larger tracts, who bear a significantly greater burden of property taxes and other upkeep costs. It is entirely possible that every landowner who wishes to build his/her own home can secure a permit. However, because of the arbitrary five-permit limitation, larger land owners would be denied the permits that they seek even when the 2 percent allotment of permits remains unused.

The likely outcome of adopting this petition will be a slew of lawsuits challenging the legality of this seriously flawed ordinance. Our legal budget for the coming fiscal year will be painfully stretched defending the numerous challenges to this ordinance. By failing to identify a rationale for withholding permits, the town could be found liable for any damages incurred.

What growth-related problem does this ordinance seek to address? None has been stated. None has been identified.

Are schools the problem? Just three years ago, the schools were overloaded. Since then, a new school was built and Memorial School has been renovated and expanded. Our schools are now in great shape with excess capacity for years of growth.

Neither commercial nor industrial permits are to be restricted under this measure. Since commercial development contributes heavily to traffic volume, it is only reasonable to conclude that traffic issues are not the concern behind the growth-management measure.

How will this growth-management measure assure the town’s ability to maintain service levels? The police chief and fire chief have repeatedly identified daytime hours as their busiest. The daily influx of shoppers and workers and passers-by contributes to significantly higher incident levels during those daylight hours than expected in a town of our population. Since no limit is proposed on either commercial or industrial growth, one can only conclude that safety services are not the motivation for these growth management measures.

It is also important to understand that developments approved prior to the adoption of any growth ordinance are not covered by its provisions. The town has already adopted a growth ordinance in the form of the impact fee ordinance. That impact fee ordinance has raised and continues to raise substantial funding to pay for our schools and safety service facilities. However, in the process of assessing those impact fees, we have learned that developments approved prior to the adoption of that ordinance are exempt from them.

How would that fact affect the equitable distribution of permits? Assume that prior approved developments draw 100 permits next year. Would that preclude any permits from being issued to “new” lots or “landowners building their own home(s)” or would it add to the 2 percent number? In the first case, that would yield a total prohibition of “new” permits. In the latter case, the growth management measure would be totally ineffective as unlimited exempt permits would be added to the 2 percent figure.

In summary, the planning board and town council and school board have planned for our anticipated growth, and, as a result, this town is moving forward smartly! This ordinance can only serve to trip up that progress.