Budget Committee, January 2, 2018

Max LedouxAuthor Max LedouxPosted on Categories Budget Committee

Timestamps available:

Budget Committee
Call to Order / Pledge
Chairman’s remarks
Carla is upset that Max published the per-employee cost for health and dental benefits
0:04:34 Bob: “the enemy”
0:06:53 Carla: It’s illegal*
0:07:25 Gordon: if it’s a violation of the law should the budget committee or selectmen pursue legally?
0:10:00 Jack Parsons
0:23:42 OTHER HIGHWAYS / STREETS
0:27:22 Passed 7-0
0:27:34 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (Revisit)
Add $5,500 to new equipment line for a box plow for the Bobcat.
0:43:25 Passes 7-0
0:45:02 ANIMAL CONTROL
7-0
0:47:00 NON-PROFIT
We pay as much as Conway for Blue Loon Bus Service
0:49:00 John questions why we give money to an NGO for heating assistance, when we also have direct assistance for heating.
1:00:00 Chip “All non-profits have to be approved initially by Town Meeting”
1:00:53 Budget 6-1 (John: Criteria too broad)
1:02:14 REVIEW MINUTES
Carla’s budget committee email: lootenstuftonborobudcom@yahoo.com
1:11:30 CORRESPONDENCE (none)
1:11:45 UPDATED CHARTS (Helen)
1:12:45 UPDATES
1:19:45 Next Meeting Date
1:21:00 PUBLIC COMMENT
Max: We have a difference of opinion. You’re trying to hide information that I believe is public.
Carla: No I’m not; end of discussion!
1:22:15 back to discussion of next meetings
1:23:28 Motion to adjourn

*It’s not. In the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s ruling in Prof’l Firefighters of N.H. v. Local Gov. Center (2010), the Court ruled that the LGC, the parent entity to the New Hampshire Municipal Association, had to provide specific salary information, “including salary and benefit information for LGC employees” under 91-A.

Published in Budget Committee
Max Ledoux

Author: Max Ledoux

I've lived in Tuftonboro since 2014. I grew up in Lisbon Falls, Maine (the Moxie capital of the world). I run tuftonboro.net.

4 thoughts on “Budget Committee, January 2, 2018”

  2. Max, in the supreme court decision you reference does it specifically say names must be included or just salary and benefit info.

    Reply

  3. Rick: Yes, that was one of the main reasons for the lawsuit. LGC had refused to provide Professional Firefighters with names, and instead provided the total amounts for all their employees combined. (Some $6 million and change expended for 112 employees.) Professional Firefighters sued and the lower court ruled that LGC had to disclose names and specific salary information. LGC appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

    From the decision (http://www.orol.org/rtk/rtknh/2009-215-2010-01-29.html):

    Next, LGC argues that the trial court erred in ordering it to disclose records that identify the names and individual salaries of its private employees. LGC disclosed general salary information to Professional Firefighters by providing its total number of full-time employees, as well as the total salary paid to them. However, it refused to disclose the individual salaries of its employees by name. LGC contends that these specific records are exempt from public disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, IV as “confidential, commercial, or financial information” whose disclosure would “constitute an invasion of privacy.” According to LGC, its “private employees have a higher expectation of privacy [regarding their salary information] than those who choose to work in the public sector,” and their privacy interests far outweigh any public interest in the production of this information.

    We reject LGC’s argument that because its employees are “private” by nature, their salary records are entitled to a greater degree of privacy protection under the Right-to-Know Law than are public employees’ records.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *