To The Daily Sun,
As the current and former mayors of Franklin, we wish to encourage the voters of Senate District 7 to support Kathy Rago in her bid to become our next state senator. We have observed Kathy as a member of our Zoning Board, our School Board, and ultimately as a state representative.
Rep. Rago has always acted in the very best interests of the working families of New Hampshire, and particularly for our children. She is the mother of a special needs child, and we highly honor her commitment to, and sacrifices for, all New Hampshire children in need. Kathy Rago's work on behalf of education opportunities for needy students is to be commended, and must continue in the New Hampshire State Senate.
Protect your family's future and finances by sending Kathy Rago to the State Senate.
Mayor Ken Merrifield
Mayor David Palfrey
Mayor Tony Giunta
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:51
To The Daily Sun,
My name is Sofia Spanos, and I am writing today to urge all eligible voters to vote on Nov. 4 for my dad, Peter J. Spanos. I realize that it is virtually impossible to objectively support my father for office so I just want to tell you what I think qualifies him to be your state representative.
First off, he is uncanny when it comes to looking at both sides of an issue and determining the best solution going forward. With this said, his decisions are unfailingly sensible, reasoned, and most importantly, fair. As a state legislator, you may count on him to make the difficult decisions that will certainly arise while always keeping an eye on how these decisions will benefit the present and future.
My dad is not particularly concerned with who gets the credit when working on solutions with others. He is primarily concerned with achieving successful results. When it comes to small business my dad feels Concord should be far more of a help than a hindrance in promoting their present and future success. I do not believe there is a stronger choice for a Laconia-based state representative than Peter J. Spanos.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:33
To The Daily Sun,
Deliberate untruths have been circulated by those who do not want Dave DeVoy, a strong candidate, to be elected county commissioner in Belknap District 1.
Dave has always agreed with fully-funding employee health care premiums in accordance with contract provisions.
Dave is for capping the cost of renovations or construction of the county jail and has pledged to stay within the Laconia tax cap. He is fully committed to the jail meeting all essential mandates.
Dave will bring an end to needless lawsuits. He will follow the provisions of state law.
Dave is courteous and committed to fair play. He would never agree to a meeting at the County Nursing Home and then simply ignore that commitment. For anyone to arrange such a meeting, fail to inform Dave of its occurrence and then suggest that he is uncaring because he did not appear is most unprofessional.
Dave has been consistent, committed to fair play and brings reason and a clear vision to the problems which plague Belknap County.
We have all been subjected to political campaigns which intentionally distort the truth. The fact is that Dave is not only successful in his business ventures and in his Army career but is also a deeply caring and compassionate man.
Please vote on Nov. 4.
State Rep., Belknap District 5
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:28
To The Daily Sun,
Laconia voters may have no idea what is involved with the seven Charter Amendments consisting of seven long-running sentences, a selected summarization of each question:
"The first presentation "Option #2 - With AG Changes" consisted of 10 page: Article II, Elections and Election Officers, Sections 2:01 – 2:11, Article IX Board of Education and Article X Police Commission. The word "Question" did not appear nor did the number of Amendments / Questions exists.
Of the seven Ballot Questions/Amendments, not one regarding Article IX or Article X are on the ballot. However, each will be impacted if Question 3 Section 2:06, Question/Amendment 4 Section 2:06 more importantly Amendment 6 pertaining to Section 2:06. which will "requires a minimum number of 35 write-in votes be received to declare any write-in primary candidate as nominated for the municipal election and to declare any write-in regular election candidate as elected for all offices" ALL OFFICES." (EMPHASIS ADDED)
Plagiarism has no place in charter amendments or charter revision without citing the RSA. No New Hampshire law empowers the city, to govern the number of write-in votes and nomination. The city is attempting to invoke a state primary election procedure,
RSA 659:88 Write-in Votes and Nomination, I. (a), A person whose name was not printed on the official state primary election ballot or a political party shall not be entitled to the nomination of that party for any office unless the person received at least 35 write-in votes.
This is not applicable considering the number of voters of a city's ward or mayoral election, in comparison to a statewide election. Moreover, the New Hampshire Legislature has never empowered a provision for a city minimum write-ins. The New Hampshire Constitution Part One Bill of Rights Article 11 Elections and Elective Franchises ''all elections are to be free," "Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office."
As for Question / Amendment 7, Section 2:10 is the inclusion of RSA 669:31, II, which consist of four subsections dealing with recount fees and 669:31, III and IV. Also, no cell phones may be used because they have a camera and the public recount cannot be recorded or photographed.
If you don't know what your truly voting for, vote "No."
Thomas A. Tardif
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:25
To The Daily Sun,
Even though the City of Laconia admitted that there was a human error in the Sept. 10, 2013, Ward 5 Primary Election, the city went forward with the court case. After the November 2013 election the newly elected Mayor Ed Engler, City Councilors Ava Doyle, David Bownes, Henry Lipman, Brenda Bear, Bob Hamel, Armand Bolduc had the opportunity to save the taxpayers $2,727.38 in legal fees. City Manager Scott Myers, supporting City Clerk Mary Reynolds through the city's attorney, Laura Spector Morgan, tried to force me to fill out an IRS W-9 Form claiming that my court fees were income, before they would return the court fees. The city said in its Superior Court filings, "The city is well within its right to require a W-9 form. Whether the city's payment to petitioner is 'income' is a determination he will have to make with his tax adviser." Yet in the city's Supreme Court reply, "It is worth noting that the City Clerk is not taking the position that costs are, in fact, taxable income which must be reported." Then why did the City of Laconia spend $2,727.38 plus $280.76 my court fees for a total of $3,008.14 in their frivolous attempt to bully me into filling out a W-9 Form?
At the Superior Court level Judge Larry Smukler did not support any of his rulings with any case history supporting the city's position requiring the completion of a W-9 Form. All the city's filings lacked any supporting case history. Their only argument was that Laconia's internal control policy which requires a W-9 Form for vendors. The "IRS W-9 Form "Purpose of Form" is to report income paid to you."
In the Supreme Court order on Oct. 10, 2014, "Regardless of whether the city's internal control policy requires that payees of court-ordered costs provide W-9 forms, nothing in Rule 45 purports to obligate a prevailing party to comply with a defendant's internal accounting policies in order to be entitled to an award of costs." "Because Rule 45 generally entitles a prevailing party to certain costs as a matter of right, we conclude that the trial court erred by conditioning its award of costs to petitioner upon his providing a W-9 form."
The City Council's response to this court case is to place a number of Charter Amendments on the ballot, one of which will make it impossible for a write-in candidate to have their name placed on the ballot. This Charter Amendment would Require 35 right-in votes before the 36th vote counted. This is all about protecting the incumbents, mayor, city councilors, school board members and police commissioners from an unwanted election challenge.
This is an unconstitutional attempt to limit your ballot access. Vote "No" on all Charter Amendments.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:19