A second letter to the editor has been published in the Concord Monitor this week attacking a Bow voter’s right to a secret ballot. The more vicious of the two letters was penned by well-known OPM Addict (OPM=Other People’s Money) Jean Rich. In her letter Rich accused five of her fellow Bow neighbors of requesting a secret ballot for “solely political purposes” without providing any evidence to her vicious claim. She also went on to state that any additional requests for secret ballot would be “frivolous.”
Rich’s attempt to tie SB2 and the failed pay-as-you-throw program into her argument was very weak seemed to expose her disgruntlement over someone else exercising their right to a secret ballot and her inability to influence their vote by intimidation.
How do BCC feel about people trying to take other people’s rights away?
Wasn’t Jean Rich, one of those people who voted for a reconsideration vote back in 2002 and almost got us a school that we did not need or could we afford?
OMG, I just went to the CM on line and what a nasty letter by Jean Rich. So now we can’t have secret ballots at town meetings than I am even more for SB2.
Where can I donate to get the message out?
Go to any town report and look for Jean Rich’s names. All she wants to do is spend Bow Taxpayer’s money.
What a nerve… deny us our rights then tell you that you ought to be ashamed for wanting any rights… stick the knife in and dig it around. These people are elitists and apparently not too ethical.
She is all talk and no substance…..and a believer in “MOB” rule by the sounds of things. Maybe we need to have “secret ballots” for all the rest of the Warrant Articles when Town Meeting resumes?
I would respectfully suggest that, contrary to many of the comments here, the right to secret ballot is not under assault. For starters, you have that right under state law, as the moderator repeatedly made clear.
Second, what at least some people have objected to is what they see as excessive use of the secret ballot petitions, in what can reasonably be seen as an effort to–among other things–prolong the meeting and make the meeting more tedious, more divisive and more unpleasant.
I think the motives of at least some secret ballot advocates can be fairly well summed up in Mr. Hiland’s remarkable suggestion/threat above: “Maybe we need to have “secret ballots” for all the rest of the Warrant Articles when Town Meeting resumes?”
I have only recently begun reading the comments and other posts on this site, so I was wondering: Is it typical for so many of the posts to contain such personal insults and attacks as those above? Have some of the posters here decided that civil discussion is too old fashioned and boring? I can understand why calling someone a “pig” feels good, specially if you can do it anonymously, but I have never understood how such behavior has much persuasive value.
Well now you can understand why they don’t want SB2… they don’t want secret ballots of any kind, period. But these are the same people who will bring back an issue that has been voted down, time after time, until they are able to shove it down our throats with threats and intimidation. This is how it’s done all the time. No different than highway robbery. And then they have the nerve to write nasty letters against those of us who might get in the way in the Monitor? Funny how the Monitor won’t print anything counter to the agenda because of one excuse or another, but never fails to give voice to the elitists.
Greengrass: It doesn’t seem to bother anyone else here… perhaps because they are on the receiving end of the bias at town meetings. If it bothers you that much I have to think you identify with those dishing out the abuse. Nevertheless I can ask the admin to remove it as I cannot edit my comment after it is posted.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but 3 of 5 votes taken at the 1st session of Town Meeting were by “secret ballot”. How is that considered excessive?
All 3 “secret ballot” votes were of importance to many people in attendance and possibly controversial in nature in my opinion. The amendment to the municipal budget and vote for Library funds was by card vote and passed. The amendment to reduce the municipal budget to $8 million was by “secret ballot” and failed. When that failed the vote on the municipal budget passed by a card vote. The vote on the PAYT was by “secret ballot” and failed. The vote on the pay increase was by “secret ballot” and it passed.
Three important and possibly controversial votes by “secret ballot” is excessive?
The intimidation comments that petition signers have had to put up with are unacceptable in my opinion both during and after the meeting. These letters to the editor are uncalled for and arrogant in attempts to intimidate and silence a minority opinion while not respecting the rights of voters under NH RSA. I am not intimidated.
Teacher: Thank you for the explanation of how things work. As I understand your explanation, it is in fact the norm for posters to make their arguments through personal insults and attacks, and those insults and attacks don’t “bother anyone else here,” at least in your view. I hope that your view is not typical in that regard.
And further, you seem to say, if a person such as myself questions whether calling somebody names is the most effective way to make an argument for your position, then obviously I must be one of those “elitist pigs” you referred to. An “elitist pig,” I take it, is someone who disagrees with you.
So be it. At least I know where I stand in your book. By the way, in case it matters, I am a person on fixed, limited income, and I am as anxious as anyone else to find ways to keep our taxes and unnecessary spending down. I don’t happen to agree with you on the best way to accomplish those goals.
Mr. Hiland: You say,”These letters to the editor are uncalled for and arrogant in attempts to intimidate and silence a minority opinion while not respecting the rights of voters under NH RSA.”
Some cynics might say that your attacks (and the other attacks above) against the letter writers are an attempt to stifle THEM. But I’m sure that in fact you want to see a real, honest to goodness open debate and discussion. Just as long as nobody is so “arrogant” as to criticize the tactics of you and your fellow petitioners.
I hardly think it was a personal insult or attack since it was not directed at anyone in particular. In fact the only person who ever called anyone a name directly was banned for doing so. In fact, my comment might have even been posted before you came on the scene, I am not sure.
I happen to think that many NH towns are run by ‘elitists’ so I might not have even been talking about Bow. And since I have no idea who you are, only you would know if you identify yourself with said elitists.
But since you seem to think it was directed at you, and you took offense… well do you see what I am talking about now?
Teacher: Your “elitist pigs” comment (which I see has now been removed) was clearly directed to the letter writers (including Jean Rich) and their allies who had issues with the secret ballot petitions in Bow. So, despite what you say now, you were indisputably directing your comments at specific people in Bow who are your political opponents. Just like your other comment above (“These people are elitists and apparently not too ethical”) which was also specifically directed to those same letter writers. And you claim that is not a personal attack or insult?
I never said you used that term about me. But you did say that since I questioned the use of insults by you and others, you concluded that I must “identify with those dishing out the abuse.” I apparently incorrectly concluded that the “abusive” people you were railing against in your explanation to me are the same Bow residents you think are “elitists, “not too ethical” and “elitist pigs.” I certainly apologize if I misunderstood who it was that you were railing against.
Look, I don’t know Jean Rich, but I’m sure she and like-minded people are perfectly capable of responding to whatever names you wish to call them. I just think that the use of that kind of language is divisive and unhelpful as far as any actual discussion of the issues is concerned. You apparently disagree.
Once again no one’s name was mentioned directly, least of all yours… but you seem to want to defend the behavior of those who don’t have time for fairness in procedural issues.
I find the fact that this person would bother to write a letter to the editor after the fact, especially when they got what they wanted anyway (the defeat of SB2) decrying the right of the people to have secret ballots as ‘political manipulation’ to be totally insulting.
I think others would agree that the attitude that asking for secret ballot was inconvenient to you or anyone else is downright elitism. And ranting about it in the paper was even more shameful.
After all, we can’t let anyone inconvenience you so they can have the right to vote without intimidation… we certainly wouldn’t want that.
And anyone who starts a sentence with the word “Look” is definitely condescending.
Wow, Teacher just schooled greengrass. It is interesting how greengrass goes on the attack on many who participate on this website. She is given full reign to express herself anonymously. She is welcomed into the debate but she takes out the hatchet and not the peace pipe. She sounds just like Jean Rich who I have nothing nice to say about so I won’t say anything at all. (The Thumper Rule).
Many thanks to Rick Hiland who allowed me to vote by secret ballot where I was too afraid to stand up myself in fear of having my name read off like his was. If I was to guess the surname Hiland is Scottish and there is only one Scott I can think of when I think of Rick, William Wallace-BRAVEHEART.
FREEDOM!!!!!
Red Flag words ****divisive & unhelpful***** to the elitist these words mean anyone who disagrees with them. How many times have we seen these words together in a letter to the editor? You are divisive and unhelpful if you want a secret ballot. You are divisive and unhelpful if you don’t want your taxes raised. You are divisive and unhelpful if you don’t do things exactly the way I want.
Maybe these people should look in the mirror to find out why sometimes people lash out and get so angry at them — their attitude is beyond belief. That letter was flaunting and taunting. You get back what you give.
No one is hurting more than we on a fixed income, especially now that the current administration’s global market manipulators are seeing to it you make nothing on your savings.
Jean Rich’s letter was divisive and unhelpful. Jean Rich attacking her neighbors was divisive and unhelpful. Jean Rich appointing herself judge and jury concerning when a secret ballot should be used and when it should not, is divisive and unhelpful. Jean Rich is divisive and unhelpful.
Can anyone tell me what Jean Rich has ever done to make Bow better? All I know is that Rich loves to have her fellow Bow Taxpayers pay more taxes.
I take it all back. You all have persuaded me that demonizing people and calling them names is wonderfully productive. You have also persuaded me that there is nothing to be gained by trying to have a real conversation.
If it continues to make some of you feel good by calling people you disagree with “elitists,” “elitist pigs,” “unethical” and the like (especially since you can throw out these epithets anonymously), have yourselves a ball.
I was hoping that Greengrass was going to add something to this website but I was wrong. When her own terms are used against her in the same manner she uses them she just quits and takes her ball home.
She also complains that people are writing stuff anonymously but that is exactly what she is doing. I can see why she agrees with Jean Rich. What a double standard.
PS, I like to be able to write stuff anonymously, there are too many Jean Richs (people who will punish you for expressing an opinion that is contrary to her’s) in my neighborhood.
bowsportsfan: You said, “She also complains that people are writing stuff anonymously but that is exactly what she is doing.”
As you well know, that is not at all what I said. I’ll repeat what I DID say: If it continues to make some of you feel good by calling people you disagree with “elitists,” “elitist pigs,” “unethical” and the like (especially since you can throw out these epithets anonymously), have yourselves a ball.
I am not objecting to people writing anonymously, but I would suggest that maybe it doesn’t take a whole lot of courage to call someone a pig when hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. Many of you obviously despise Jean Rich, but I’d think you would at least give her (and the other letter writers some you disapprove of) credit for writing under her own name, knowing she’d be subjected to the abuse I’ve seen here.
And by the way, I’m not planning to quit and take my ball home, as you concluded. Not quite yet.
Instead of pissing and moaning, Greengrass, why don’t you live up to your accusations and begin some constructive debate here? Stop this sympathy scheming you have been writing about and begin some serious discussion for a change? Set a good example? Isn’t this what you want? Or are you here just to stir the pot?
This is exactly how the Delphi Technique/Helegian Principal works and the liberals & spenders try to use it effectively on unsuspecting people. Read up and learn what is being used against you.
I am calling someone out for denying fairness of process and then gloating about it as a waste of time. This is not attacking them personally but having their ACTIONS criticized.
And this behavior is called elitism. I see it everywhere not just Bow.
The letter from Rich in the Monitor was indefensible. So people wanted to vote privately and some of you were impatient about it. You should have voted in SB2 and then you wouldn’t have to wait for anyone, period. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?
Fair enough Greengrass, I think you do have a point but I also think you are taking some of what people wrote, out of context. Yes there are some high spirited debate going on here and what RLB wrote about Delphi Technique/Helegian Principal is quite interesting. I think the divisive and unhelpful comments fit right into this category. I for one do not despise Jean Rich, I feel sorry for her. She doesn’t have to be so mean spirited and angry in her letter writing but it is her choice.
Greengrass I hope you continue to participate in this informal debate like forum. I have learned a lot here and enjoy my short stays.
I’d like to interject something here. I was sitting next to one of the petitioners at the meeting. When ballot voting commenced a fellow townsperson approached the petitioner and asked them not to do so many of these as we were all gathered there to do the towns business.
I then saw the petitioner look their fellow townsperson in the eye and say “if you don’t like it, then vote for SB2.” Clearly this person was using the secret ballot option for political reasons and showed their intent then and there. And I swear to God that this happened.
I think you are wrong. I think that in order to preserve the RIGHT to a secret ballot, in light of the fact that the person was feeling ‘inconvenienced’ by that right, the petitioner gave them a solution to the problem. SB2 is indeed the solution to the problem of those who feel intimidated, inconvenienced or otherwise politicized by the town meeting vote.
enoughalready, I was one of the petitioners. I was accosted by several people saying you are doing this because of SB2 are you sure that isn’t what you heard? I filed a complaint with Peter Imse and he did absolutely nothing. Imse’s juvenile roll call of petitioners’ names emboldened other people to harass me throughout the remainder of the meeting
While I was in line I was harassed by several people one of which I recognized as a town employee. This behavior is unacceptable but apparently tolerated. Perhaps what you heard was frustration from one of the petitioners who was sick of being harassed?
The fact is that I was not doing this because of SB2. Anytime anyone has asked me to sign a petition for a secret ballot I sign. I always will sign, I have done so many times in the past. I like the ballot because it is a documentation of the proceedings of what happened at the town meeting. I am never going to forget reading in the Concord Monitor that the people of Bow passed a 20 plus million dollar School Budget unanimously and that didn’t happen but there was no proof. The ballot results are proof. This year the pay as you throw program went up on a ballot vote and it lost by a 2-1 margin. This is important because some people are already talking about bring this back. Perhaps this year with the reconsideration vote (the reconsideration vote should be outlawed). Lets hope these people are deterred by the 2-1 vote and that doesn’t happen.
Hope to see you at the meeting Wednesday.
Van
Is it fair to assume that Van is Van Mosher? It must be because you were one of the ones who was singled out by Jean Rich. All I have to say is Thank-you. You are always there for the little guy who are is having a hard time paying taxes that keep on going up, up, up every year.
I always see you volunteering for one thing or another, If Bow had more Van Moshers and less Jean Riches than we would be a lot better off.
Oh, I forgot to say that I saw this big tall skinny guy “get into your face” at the meeting was he one of those people who were harrassing you?
Van, Thanks for asking for a secret ballot. I felt much more comfortable voting that way. Van, you said: “This behavior is unacceptable but apparently tolerated.” What did you mean by apparently tolerated?
I agree that harrassment at town meetings is totally unacceptable and that is one of the reasons that I support SB2.
At home enjoying vacation and see some posts addressing me. Let me try to answer your question:
Yes, this is Van Mosher and you are welcome with regard to the secret ballot. The reason why I volunteer is because the town of Bow has given so much to me and my family. There are so many great organizations in Bow, like the Bow Rotary, the Bow Community Men’s Club, the Bow Garden Club and the Bow Pioneers.
I want to send a shout out to all the Bow Organization. Thank-you!!
Yeswecan, yes that skinny tall guy as you say was in my face. He was telling me what I should do and what he wanted me to do. He was the person that I filed a complaint about with Moderator Imse. I know who this person is but I do not wish to expose him like this on-line.
Bowsportsfan, let me answer your question about apparently tolerated: This is my opinion but I believe Imse’s roll call of petitioners’ names was completely unnecessary and I told him so. Also I think people who support issues that the Moderator supports gets preferential treatment and feel that they can do whatever they want with indemnity.
Let me give you an example, I was manning the SB2 information booth when a very nice gentleman came up to me and asked some questions about SB2. The SB2 booth was behind the electioneering line which allows people to approach us at their will and people who already know where they stand can and should pass without obstruction. Well right after this gentleman left the SB2 information booth a person who was carrying a SB@ No sign & one for Dr. Elgert dropped her sign ran right to this gentleman who was in the no electioneering zone. Because this was a clear case of electioneering happening right in front of me I reported it to Moderator Imse. Moderator Imse came out and witnessed this apparent electioneering occurring and never said a single word to the person doing the action. He just let her finish her conversation and watched her return back to her position behind the electioneering line with her sign.
I hope that answers your question about my opinion.
Van, that was probably why the petitioner said it. Just putting out there what I heard; good, bad or indifferent.
The taunting and bashing should never be tollerated. However, as has been pointed out, the petitions are a public document and anyone could have asked. I dont’ think Imse should have just read off the names. I’ve seen him do it before, but that was more for a meeting where it had gone into the wee hours of the night and he had to make sure thee petitioners were still present.
enoughalready, I have been reading your posts and I very much like what you have to say. : ).
I agree 100% with your last post.
Van
Van, do you think that the Delphi Technique/Helegian was used on you at last year’s School Meeting? After reading breiefly what this technique is all about I think it was used against you.
Van, is it fair to opine that the deck is stacked against us who are concerned about our taxes and would like to have fair SB2 elections? I bet if you who was the one who was electioneering you would have been spoken to and perhaps even worse.
Taxed2death yes I think Hatem used the Delphi Technique/Helegian on me. Hatem was breaking the rules as a moderator I had thought I caught him red handed and he turned the tables on me by getting me upset.
Live and learn
Yeswecan, I once had Imse speak to me about shaking hands outside the electioneering zone when I was running for office. When Imse came out to speak to me I was “behind the barrier” in other words I was 100% legal (I was always behind the line). Imse still spoke with me telling me that someone complained.
Do I think there is a double standard. In my opinion until everyone is judged by the same standard I do think the deck is stacked.