Rollinsford, NH is trying to work out a deal with Marshwood to tuition over 140 students here.  They would pay $7,700 in tuition per student.  This may benefit the school in some small way but it is going to be horrible for the people of this town.  Our property values will drop, how could they not?  Why would anyone buy a home in South Berwick when you could buy one in Rollinsford and still get the South Berwick school district.  Our school district is a big incentive for people to move here.  We pay several taxes to be in Maine, income, sales, excise taxes are all something Maine residents pay that Rollinsford residents don’t.  Many of us bought houses in this community for the school district, many of us don’t work in Maine, yet for years we have paid an income tax, not Rollinsford residents.  They knew what school district they were in when they bought their houses.  We can’t let this happen to our community.  We need to get the info out there.

Rollinsford has a web site called the Salmon Falls Education Initiative that gives some of this information.
There are over 100 homes for sale in Eliot and South Berwick, plenty of homes for anyone in Rollinsford that wants to buy one and attend MSAD 35, and contribute to our town.

The next school board meeting is May 20th we need to get people there to be sure that this isn’t something that we get pushed on us.

–Donna Robison
SOBO resident for 10 plus years

The other day Jack Kareckas posted the following comment on a previous story.  I asked him for permission to post his comment as a guest editorial.  I join Jack in his call for great public access to our Town Government meetings.  It is dismaying that so few citizens are at meetings where decision are made that affect all of us.  Some say the low turnout is because people don’t care.  My experience is that citizens of South Berwick care deeply about what happens in Town Government but they are too busy working, raising children, trying to make ends meet to get out to meetings.  We need to be able to have access to meetings via television or podcast or some other available technology.  –Molly

Here’s Jack’s comment:

Public Access to our Elected and Appointed Official’s Meetings

More than ever with the further complications and demands on our time and the rules, regulations and policies surrounding issues which affect our individual lives, Town and Region, we need greater access and information about public proceedings.

The need for filming and broadcast of our local town meetings is greater than ever. Broadcast of meetings seems to be a non-starter from official Town sources or via our cable TV systems.

Does anyone have the knowledge or technical expertise about what is involved with pod-casts or other digital recording of meetings for distribution over the Internet?

It is time to continue the dialogue…

Jack Kareckas

South Berwick will be able to keep those in need warm this winter because of the $5800.00 raised at the “old school” community soup and bread supper held at Spring Hill Restaurant and Banquet Center on Wednesday October 29th. Those who came waited in long lines for soup, raffle tickets and the bake sale while chatting with neighbors and old and new friends.

Many thanks to the following businesses, who made soup or donated bread: When Pigs Fly, Muddy River, Pepperland Café, The Black Bean Café, Nature’s Way Market, the Catered Event, Fogarty’s, Redbarn at Outlook Farm, Brixham General Store, Lew Newsky for some produce, and, of course, Spring Hill Restaurant and Banquet Center.

Cookies were made by Beth Werker, Jane Adams-Budda’s Burning Buns, Jane Cowen-Fletcher, Jennifer Chamberlain, Monkey Business Bakery, Sarah Allis, Susan White and Susan Poulin.

Please support these businesses that donated to the raffle: Abby Chic Flowers, Child light Yoga,  Curves, Gary Trull-G.W. Trull Painting, Historic New England, Salmon Falls Gardens, So Berwick Yoga, SoBo Book and Bean, The Little Hat Company, Roger Dionne for the UNH Wildcats volleyball tickets and Vacuum Village

This event could not have happened without help from Harland Goodwin and Rosalie Scharf of Spring Hill Restaurant and Banquet Center. Others who helped make this happen are Kathy Crafts for the publicity, as well as email lists of Wendy Pirsig, Bonnie Gould, Friends of the Library, The Little Hat Company, Childlight Yoga, and So. Berwick Yoga.  The236diner.com and So. Berwick Shop and Swap posted the information on the website and The Sentinel Weekly newspaper gave us front page coverage. . Sandy Agrafiotis, David Ramsey for helping with the details, Mitch Kareckas and Mary Lou Bagley for help selling raffle tickets, Sobo Book and Bean & The So Berwick Pharmacy for selling raffle tickets ahead of the event, Hanna Bulger –Good Girl Graphics for the poster, the walkers at the So Berwick Senior Center for distributing posters.  Thanks to the So Berwick Senior Center and the Red Hat Hotties for the bake sale.

Many thanks to Steve Lizio for donating $1000.00 as well as inspiring me to organize this event.

Donations can still be made directly to the
Town of South Berwick,
180 Main Street,
South Berwick, ME 03908.
c/o Fuel Fund,
For more information call Vicki at 207-384-3310

–Pat Robinson

My questions included:
- What are the trends in the Town’s total spending?
- How does this compare to our non-property tax revenues? And importantly:
- What are the trends in our general fund balance (analogous in many ways to the Town’s “savings account”).

I took information directly from the Town’s audited financial statements and tax assessment records (removing the SAD 35 and County portions from these figures, resulting in Town-only numbers). I then compared this information to the regional inflation index. This 10-year period includes the tenures of several town managers and Councils.

The resulting information is depicted in the graph below. Take a look. I believe the graphic speaks volumes about where we have been over the last 3 to 4 years. During that period:
- Total expenditures have risen significantly higher than the rate of inflation, and
- The General Fund Balance has been reduced by more than 50%, to very low levels.

In a nutshell, a few years ago, the Town began “buying groceries out of its savings account” consistently spending more than it took in.

Since March this year the Town Council has moved in the right direction with their proposed 08/09 budget. They have stopped the increases in Town expenditures, and are stopping the continued drain on the town’s General Fund (the Town’s “savings account”).

My conclusion is that voters should support the direction the Council is taking since March, and support this budget at Town Meeting on June 2.

- Gretchen Straub

I have stood up on various occasions in this room to express my misgivings about the political process here in town. In the past, I voiced my concern that our town council or the administration had failed to adequately invite or consider public opinion.

Tonight I’m raising my voice again about process, but my concern is not about the undemocratic tendencies of our government. It’s about the attempt by fellow citizens to undermine the most fundamental democratic process of that government: the right to vote. Here in South Berwick, we operate under a blended “Council—Town Meeting—Manager” form of government, in which “the town meeting [or citizens] vote on the budget and our [elected] council tends to all other legislative functions.” This is a close approximation of the republican form of government that applies at the national level, as well.

In our form of government, the representatives comprise an independent ruling body—the town council—which is charged with the responsibility to act in the people’s interest. It is important to understand that they are not our proxy representatives. In other words, they will not necessarily always govern according to our individual wishes. They are expected to function with “enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances.”

There are four or five other forms of municipal government in Maine. Some of them come closer to the “purest form” of direct democracy—one man, one vote. But the essential element of republican government, and the Council/Manager form of government we have here, relies on majority rule. In South Berwick, we elect our councilors to represent the best interests of the town, as they see fit. We do not elect them to do our bidding and I, for one, do not expect to agree with every position or vote they cast. However, I take comfort in the knowledge that they can be retired every three years if enough people believe that someone else can do a better job. So the provision for removing unresponsive representatives already exists.

If a little democracy is a good thing, what’s wrong with more of it? If we feel a misguided councilor has made some mistakes or voted the wrong way too many times, why wait for another regular election to make him or her more responsive to the “will of the people?” Why not turf them out now, which is, in effect, the guiding principle of this proposed charter amendment?

If this amendment is adopted, it will effectively take the power of government out of the hands of the democratic majority who elected our representatives and place it in the hands of a small but determined minority with a large axe to grind. The new provision would make it possible for only 10 percent of the voters in the last gubernatorial election—roughly 280 people—to replace any councilor they wish. This means that about 280 people—out of more than 4,000 registered voters in South Berwick—could oust an elected official for any reason and at any time. Instead of voicing their grievances and competing in a normal election cycle, when far more citizens always turn out to vote, this small but determined minority could disenfranchise a far larger majority of their fellow townspeople.

Setting aside the costs of a petition and two special elections—the first to vote on the recall and the second to install a replacement councilor for the one who was removed—this strikes me as profoundly un-democratic. Democracy depends on patience, persuasion, compromise and respect for one’s fellow citizens. But it seems to me this recall procedure would make old-fashioned values of patience, compromise and respect redundant.

Do I think this will actually happen if the recall provision is adopted? Frankly, I don’t. I believe a majority of level-headed citizens will rise to the occasion and resist any temptation to dump our duly elected representatives—just because an angry minority won’t wait until the next election to challenge them legitimately at the polls. What such a recall provision will do, is derail the process of good government. It will raise the specter of government by perpetual election, government by intimidation and tyranny of the minority. And it will distract and inhibit the neighbors and fellow citizens who represent us from conducting the urgent business at hand.

In that sense, it hardly matters whether the supporters of a recall election win every—or even any—recall vote they attempt. Win or lose, the threat of recall will politicize every issue. It will inject more antagonism, more intimidation, more chaos—and less democracy—in a town whose political life is already reeling.

Is this the South Berwick we want to live in?

–Scott Landis

An 1833 book on population coined the term “tragedy of the commons” to describe a dynamic of medieval village life in which narrow self-interest was allowed to run amok. Over-grazing of the public commons by one individual’s sheep turned out to be a disaster for the herd and its owner as well as for the environment and the community at large. The farmer unwittingly became the agent of his own demise.

This 19th-century concept, which probably has much earlier roots, has been applied to many ecological disasters since. Indeed, it has become shorthand for any condition in which “free access, and unrestricted demand for a finite resource, ultimately dooms that resource to over-exploitation.” The phenomenon has been used to describe the decline of the world’s great forests and the decimation of the North Atlantic cod fishery.

Some might argue that the metaphor only applies to ecological relationships, but it seems to me we are suffering a parallel modern crisis in public communication that is every bit as tragic and perhaps even more dangerous than any environmental disaster we have faced. Thanks, in large part, to the Internet, talk radio and cable television, we have opened the floodgates to an unprecedented outpouring of information, which is seemingly based on the logic that, if a little communication is good, more of it is better, and unlimited, unmediated communication is even better still. Thus, we now “enjoy” the ability to consume—and disseminate—virtually any information we want, from the comfort and anonymity of our own home. Never mind libel, slander, accuracy, responsible journalism or common decency, all this free speech is considered a healthy manifestation of our democratic birthright.

But there’s a difference between freedom and license. And it seems to me that our appetite for information is defined by nothing so much as our own lack of judgment and self-control. I fear it is destroying the social fabric that binds our society together, for it is our ability to communicate that will enable us to overcome whatever environmental and other catastrophes we will inevitably face.

We needn’t look far to see how this tragedy in our communication “commons” has rent the fabric of our own small town. This very web site, launched with so much hope and promise only a few weeks ago is already so infused by the wanton exchange of personal insults, misinformation and vitriol as to undermine its potential as a vehicle for healthy public discourse. Is this the fault of the “236diner?” Obviously not. The same nasty behavior has been increasingly evident in public meetings I’ve attended for the last few years. But it may have something to do with our incremental adaptation to an intellectual environment that is permeated with unreflective and irresponsible opinion masquerading as public information or political free speech.

South Berwick has undergone a crisis in leadership, but the patient is still on the table. Although our wounds will eventually close, whether we are handicapped by our trauma will depend on how well we treat each other. Honest people will always find reasons to disagree about important issues. This seems to me especially true during a period of intense economic, cultural and political upheaval, such as we are experiencing today. Though we don’t agree about the issues, can we not at least agree to some basic rules to govern our civic debate?

I suggest we might begin with the following:

Ask first, shoot later. Better yet, let’s put the weapons aside, and get our facts straight before we level accusations. By all means, ask for clarification where needed and demand transparency in government, but let’s think, ask questions and listen carefully to the response before we speak (or write), and acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers.

Level the playing field. Let’s agree to play by the same rules. This means we all need to follow the same policies when it comes to collecting petition signatures and decorum at public meetings.

Ditch the ad hominem. Let’s not attack the person or the messenger. Challenge the idea, but don’t demean the man or woman expressing it. When we do, we undermine any hope for cooperation or understanding, and we diminish ourselves in the bargain.

Establish respect in a conspiracy-free zone. Conspiracy theories are abundant where crackpot notions are accorded the same value as careful research and reasoned argument. Let’s not assume collusion or corruption and let’s not lump together everybody we don’t agree with as ignorant, in cahoots or a member of some nefarious cabal of special interests.

A republic, if you can keep it. We live in a republic, not a direct democracy. Our councilors are fellow citizens we elected to do our business, and they are ultimately responsible to us through the ballot box. Unlike many of our representatives in Washington, they are not supported by special-interest lobbyists or beholden to political elites. We pay taxes at the same rate, and our elected officials volunteer their time to perform the town’s business to the best of their ability. It is indeed a thankless task. Respect it.

Take responsibility. Anonymity breeds a certain license to say things and behave in ways we might not otherwise countenance. I distrust the use of pseudonyms, initials and abbreviations on this web site or in any other forum, as much as I abhor name-calling and guilt by association. If we feel strongly enough to state our opinion in public, we ought to be willing to attach our full name and credibility to that opinion.

Finally, we need to remember that more information will not make us wise. More words do not make us better communicators. Only we have the power to prevent this modern-day tragedy of the commons from becoming our commonplace reality. We won’t solve all our problems without acrimony, but if we can adhere to a few basic rules of behavior—the kinds of standards we would expect our children to follow—we’ll stand a much better chance of building the community I think we all truly seek.

Scott Landis