Election fortunes change in Winchester following recount

By Ethan DeWitt and Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff
 

WINCHESTER — Two election results were overturned in a recount Tuesday, in a process that revealed a broad discrepancy in vote counts. The recount saw Ben Kilanski elected to a three-year term on the Winchester School Board, and Kenneth Berthiaume to a one-year term as a Thayer Public Library trustee. Both had been just shy of victory on election night last week; both filed for recounts soon after.

In the original vote on March 21, Kilanski finished two votes behind Nicole Pelkey, with 295 votes to Pelkey’s 297, for one of two, three-year terms on the school board. Incumbent Kevin Bazan took the other seat with 321 votes.

Following the recount, Kilanski received 296 votes to Pelkey’s 295 votes, thus winning by a single vote.

But the bigger upset came from Berthiaume’s race. The original tally showed Berthiaume, who was seeking re-election to the library trustee post, receiving 271 votes to challenger Janet Marsh’s 276 votes.

After the recount Berthiaume received 309 votes to Marsh’s 304 votes. The discrepancy in that race is sizable — 66 fewer votes were counted on election night than in the recount.

Town Clerk Jim Tetreault said that all of the extra votes counted in the recount were a result of ballots that had not been properly marked the first time around. The AccuVote machines that Winchester and other New Hampshire towns use can pick up only votes in which the bubbles are entirely filled in, he said.

In cases where voters circle options instead of filling them in, the machine will not count the result; in situations where both options appear filled in because the voter changed his or her mind, the machine will also not count the result, Tetreault said.

Tetreault said he didn’t know why the library trustee race had received so many more unreadable votes than other races. In an interview, Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said he also didn’t know why.

Tetreault added that he didn’t see the case as evidence that the machines are faulty, an opinion shared by Scanlan.

Rather than a fault with the machines, Scanlan said that the wide difference in vote counts was likely a result of an addition error by those working the polls.

“On a discrepancy that big, I would definitely take a look at the human factor,” he said this morning, speaking on Winchester’s results.

Keeping closer track of the overall vote count would have allowed Winchester election workers to notice that one race had received substantially fewer votes than the other races, Scanlan said.

Tetreault agreed with the diagnosis, saying that the long working hours on election day may have caused officials, who are volunteers, to make some addition errors during the original ballot count and not see the machine wasn’t counting a number of votes.

“This is a great learning opportunity that our team has to review things a bit closer than we did,” he said.

Space crunch puts Winchester before- and after-school program in jeopardy

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff
 

WINCHESTER — A popular before-and-after-school program is being forced to find a new home after nearly 20 years operating out of the town’s elementary school. In a letter Monday, Winchester Superintendent James M. Lewis wrote to ACCESS Chairman Nicholas Raymond that the school district won’t renew the nonprofit organization’s agreement to run the program at the elementary school.

The letter didn’t explain the reasons for not renewing the organization’s agreement, but says that ACCESS should vacate the school with all its property no later than June 30.

Lewis said Wednesday that ACCESS was told it must leave the kindergarten through 8th-grade school because the school needs more space to grow.

ACCESS is an acronym for All Children Cared for Educated Supported and Successful.

The program, which started in 2000, serves children in kindergarten through 8th grade from about 75 families, Executive Director Beth A. Baldwin said Wednesday. Besides providing activities for children before and after school, it also has a summer program, she said.

About two-thirds of those families receive scholarships because they couldn’t afford the program otherwise, she said.

The program has an office at the school, and uses the cafeteria as its main hub to conduct its programs, she said. It also uses some classrooms for breakout sessions with students.

ACCESS has an annual budget of about $250,000; $80,000 of that comes from a federal 21st Century Community Learning Center grant, she said. The rest of the funding comes from other small grants and fees.

Every family pays something to have their students attend the program; payments are based on how much a family can afford, she said.

By using the school, ACCESS doesn’t have to pay rent or utility costs, and that helps to keep the costs of running the program low, according to Baldwin.

At this time, ACCESS doesn’t have another place to go, and other than the school there aren’t a lot of spaces available in town that could accommodate the program, she said.

“I’m concerned a lot of families who rely on this program won’t have child care next year,” she said.

The decision to have ACCESS leave the school was made administratively, and had nothing to do with the program or its leadership, according to Lewis.

“I feel terrible about it, but we need space, and that’s what it comes down to,” he said.

One possible solution to this problem is to reopen some space at the former Thayer High School, which closed in 2005, according to Lewis. However, doing that would cost money and, from a logistical perspective, couldn’t happen right away, he said.

With the $11,270,287 operating budget voters passed earlier this month, the school district will be able to add the much-needed positions of a health teacher and a foreign language teacher to better prepare students to attend Keene High School, he said.

School officials are also mulling hiring a third 6th-grade teacher, given the large number of students in the current 5th-grade class, he said.

“It’s a pretty exciting time for us and the school. It’s been my priority to get the school to be as good as it possibly can be,” he said.

However, Lewis’ decision, which the school board backed last month, is now taking some heat from those involved with the ACCESS program as not being in the best interests of the school district and its students.

Baldwin said she’s concerned about how school officials made the decision without involving ACCESS staff and community members.

She said that when she started working for ACCESS in August, she began corresponding with Lewis by email about making changes to the organization’s agreement with the school because she wanted it to have more details.

At some point, the emails stopped, and in February, Baldwin said she asked Lewis about it. He said he wanted to meet with her, Baldwin said.

Eventually, she said, Lewis told her school officials had decided to sever ties with the program.

ACCESS’ board of directors met with Lewis and Winchester School Principal Mike Duprey on Monday, but attempts to negotiate other solutions weren’t successful, Baldwin said.

“I’m new here, and my goal is to provide services to families that depend on the program, and also make it a good program. I want to work collaboratively with the school, and I just feel I haven’t been given that opportunity,” she said. “I’m willing to make whatever modifications we can make so that we can continue to provide services. The indication we got on Monday was that this was a done deal, and there was no negotiating.”

Lewis said he and other administrators didn’t approach ACCESS personnel to let them know what would happen if the budget passed at the school district’s annual meeting. In retrospect, maybe that notification should have been done before the annual meeting, he said.

He added that he hadn’t expected voters would pass the school district’s 2017-18 operating budget, and was pleasantly surprised when they did.

Baldwin said ACCESS will appeal its case to the Winchester School Board tonight at 6:30 at the school board’s meeting at the school library. She and other ACCESS officials are encouraging parents to attend the meeting to speak in support of the program and the importance that it continue at the school, she said.

Meghan Foley can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or mfoley@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @MFoleyKS.

Conservation Commision Meeting Minutes

By law, meeting minutes are to be published within 5 business day.. Guess our Conservation Commission didn't get the message or perhaps they just don't want people in town knowing what they are up to. Not up to date or complete.

Meeting Minutes posted here:

http://www.winchester-nh.gov/Pages/WinchesterNH_ConCommMinutes/

( simply highlight the link and right click on it, then choose OPEN IN NEW TAB )

Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes

Like the Town's Planning Board Meeting Minutes, slow to be posted and incomplete.

Viewable here:

 http://www.winchester-nh.gov/Pages/WinchesterNH_ZBAMinutes/

 ( simply highlight the link and right click on it, then choose OPEN IN NEW TAB )

Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Never up to date and never complete and always being "updated", which by the way is ILLEGAL

Viewable on the Town of Winchester's website, here:

http://www.winchester-nh.gov/Pages/WinchesterNH_PlanningMinutes/

 ( simply highlight the link and right click on it, then choose OPEN IN NEW TAB )

BOS Meeting Minutes 3-15-17

If you are having trouble reading what is posted you can view on the town's website here:

http://www.winchester-nh.gov/Pages/WinchesterNH_Selectminutes/

 ( simply highlight the link and right click on it, then choose OPEN IN NEW TAB )

Hypothetically speaking on Ridgeline application

Because the Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment chose to create threatening zombies out of Ridgeline’s applications for a special exception and a variance, Winchester residents can’t forget about potential risk to their peaceful well-being, and just move on. The neither-dead-nor-alive determination of the ZBA only invites further anxiety, scrutiny and most of all ... questions.
Did town counsel advise the ZBA to act on a hypothetical situation (land sale may be reversed) rather than on the actual situation (legal landowner requested withdrawal of the applications from consideration)? That would seem odd ... perhaps even suspicious.

Yet the board, upon leaving a nonpublic session in which they discussed only “legal information regarding Ridgeline application,” voted (without discussion) to table the applications. It would be even more odd for the board not to follow legal advice received.

When Ridgeline filed its lawsuit requesting a reversal of the land sale, the terms of its sales agreement became public. Ridgeline originally asked for 45 days to acquire all necessary permits (plus a 30-day extension) before closing. That was later extended multiple times.

I look forward to reading the arguments of the plaintiff and defendants as the lawsuit proceeds, and I can’t help but ponder some of the questions that may arise.

One question screams out above all others. Why would a business, obviously backed by big money, represented by a top-tier law firm that surely knows the intricacies of land-use laws and permitting processes, believe that it could sail through the ZBA, receive approval for a site plan before the planning board, acquire a wetlands permit from the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, perform soils tests and acquire septic approval, and obtain all other permits required, in a mere 45-75 days?

Ignorance? Arrogance? ... Assurance?

In theory, the court will administer justice. What would that entail?

What would be the consequences of a property sale reversal? The seller would have to return the purchase price to the buyer. What if that money had already been expended and the seller was unable to comply? That might leave the buyer with no recourse but to sue a bloodless stone. Would that be just?

Would the court consider the seller’s ability to refund the sale price in arriving at its decision? Is Ridgeline suing the new owner in attempts to undermine its right to equal justice as an innocent party?

Certainly a court couldn’t require a seller to not only lose a proven buyer, but also pass up other potential buyers, for an indefinite period of time. Would that be just? No.

So a court would have to limit the amount of time the seller would be mandated to let Ridgeline hold its property hostage. What would be a fair and reasonable time to deny a seller access to its wealth, particularly in the face of what are arguably steep — and more likely insurmountable — odds for permitting success? Three months? Six months? Two years? Ten years?

It really all boils down to one question. How responsible is a property seller for the ignorance, arrogance or confidence of a potential buyer?

I know what my answer would be.

But I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. I don’t know the legal weight of the phrase “for now” added to the agreement termination notice, nor do I know if “seller’s agent,” from whom the words came, was legal counsel or just a real estate agent expressing a personal hope that another buyer would back out and the Ridgeline agreement would be revived and yield a commission.

SUSAN M. NEWELL

Winchester