To the editor,
In Tuesday's Daily Sun, in an article by Gail Ober about the Winnisquam Fire Station, she stated that the Laconia Fire Department calls automatic aid for a reported fire at Lakes Region General Hospital. Gilford and Belmont along with Laconia's two stations would respond. It further stated that for other fires Laconia responds alone, unless the Incident Commander requests assistance from a second or third community.
The Laconia Fire Department requests automatic aid from Gilford, Belmont, and Meredith for several different scenarios, including any building fire. Any report of a fire in a building in Laconia gets a response from both Laconia stations and an automatic response from Gilford. If the fire is reported in the north end of the city then Meredith also responds; this area has no fire hydrants. If the fire is in the south end of the city Belmont also responds as many areas have no fire hydrants close by.
There are also numerous alarms in Laconia that get automatic response based on a risk assessment and vulnerability assessment that was conducted by Laconia firefighters. We have several dozen buildings that we consider high-risk and we get automatic aid for any alarm activation or reported fire. These buildings are nursing homes, mid-rises, a few large apartment buildings, and a school with no sprinklers. In addition any water or ice rescue also gets an automatic response.
All these types of calls or particular buildings require extra resources and the sooner they can arrive the greater the chance of a successful operation. The buildings may be very large or have numerous floor levels, be very combustible, or have a big population, or a population that is high risk. A quick response with an adequate number of firefighters is critical to controlling a fire in these buildings, and getting the occupants out safely.
Chief Ken Erickson
Laconia Fire Department

To the editor,
In a few weeks, residents of Meredith and the Inter-Lakes School District will go to the polls to elect local officials. It is my hope that partisan politics will not intrude in this process, that neither the Tea Party nor the Democrats will attempt to influence the voting outcomes, and that candidates for office will be motivated by community spirit and not a political agenda.
For years now, Washington and Concord have been paralyzed by partisan wrangling and partisan gridlock. Republicans and Democrats both have moved toward more extreme positions in response to each other's rhetoric. Their uncompromising my-way-or-the-highway stance has done immense disservice to the voting public. Voters have expressed their displeasure through low approval ratings and by kicking each party out of office in alternate election cycles. Neither party has gotten the message that they need to find their way back toward the middle and rediscover how to effect compromise.
We little people can't do much to fix Washington or Concord. But here in Meredith and the Inter-Lakes School District, we have an opportunity to get it right, to achieve productive outcomes, and to guide our community in healthy ways. The intrusion of party politics, however, threatens to make a mess of local governance just as it has in our state and national capitals. Let's not bring that dysfunction here.
Party politics has intruded in greater Meredith in recent years. I will cite a few examples.
(1) When Mark Billings ran for a seat on the School Board several years ago, the Meredith Democrats opposed his candidacy. The eve before the election, they phoned the party faithful and urged them to vote for Mark's opponent, Richard Hanson. I know this is true because my wife Dotty is a Democrat and she received such a call.
I respect the Meredith Democrats, and I have voted for candidates they have supported for state and national office. However, I was appalled by the tactic they employed against Mark Billings. Mark was not running as a Republican or a conservative or whatever. He was running as a concerned resident of the Inter-Lakes District. The position the Democrats took seemed inappropriate and out of place. To the best of my knowledge, the Republicans took no similar action against Richard Hanson.
(2) When Carla Horne ran for a seat on the Meredith Board of Selectmen, one local resident, in a letter to the editor opposing her candidacy, trumpeted all the liberal causes found on her Facebook page. Those causes seemed to have scant relevance to the sort of issues selectmen decide. Carla stated that community service, not a Democrat agenda, was why she was seeking office. Thus, to quote a famous line from a certain famous movie, I wanted to say to that letter writer, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" what's on Carla's Facebook page. Meredith voters gave a collective yawn, too, putting Carla in office by a sizable margin.
Just a few short years ago, party politics were much less intrusive here. When I had the privilege of serving as Meredith Selectman from 2004–2007, no one ever inquired about my political affiliation. I had done significant service to the town through my participation on its Conservation Commission. That seemed to suffice for most voters.
My fellow selectmen during those last years of the three person board were Bob Flanders and Frank Michel. The three of us are different animals politically. Yet, those differences did not influence our deliberations. Issues, facts, and details were the decisive matters. We sought to get the most "bang" from every tax dollar, and we almost always achieved compromises the three of us could endorse. We were inspired by a shared vision of community. We tried to operate as statesmen, not politicians. Some people don't understand the difference between the two.
During my term of office, I also had the privilege of being Meredith's representative to the Inter-Lakes Elementary Enrollment Advisory Committee. The hot button issue was the declining enrollment at the Sandwich School and the future of that school. This committee, after crunching a lot of numbers, recommended the one compromise that made the most sense for Sandwich, Center Harbor, and Meredith alike. It recommended that the Sandwich School implement multi-age classrooms. This would enable the size of the staff to shrink or expand in relation to enrollment, preserving the school in a cost-effective fashion. Partisan thinking never, ever impacted the deliberations of this committee, to my recollection. The current School Board would do well to follow our example.
Once again Mark Billings is seeking election to the Inter-Lakes Board. I hope the Meredith Democrats hear my plea and stay out of it this time. I hope some will even vote for Mark. Chris Mega is an exceptionally fine person who I respect deeply. Yet, I believe the Inter-Lakes School District will be better served by someone who has no ties to its staff and who brings a completely independent, objective mindset to the board's decision making.
I recognize that Mark holds some conservative perspectives. Without question, he is more conservative than I am. However, he is not a "typical" conservative, whatever that is. This is shown by his commitment to conservation and environmental causes, not exactly conservative priorities. A mind as complex as Mark's can't be pigeon-holed with a single label. What I admire about Mark is his original, outside-the-box thinking. He is articulate, he is quick, and he is his own person. He will bring fascinating, well thought-out points of view to School Board deliberations, to the benefit of students and faculty alike. I encourage voters to listen to what he has to say with an open mind.
There is a danger that partisan politics could intrude in the race for Meredith selectman, too, particularly the contest between Jane Greemore and Lou Kahn for the seat Miller Lovett has held. I respect the Tea Party for the fiscal restraints it has been advocating. Nonetheless, I have the same request of it that I do of the Democrats. Confine your attention to Concord and Washington. Stay out of local affairs.
Because of his lengthy service to the Town of Meredith, I will be voting for Lou Kahn, and I invite others to do likewise. Lou has served as Town Moderator, and he has been a long-standing member of the Planning Board. He has donated two substantial conservation easement land gifts to the town, and he has been generous in other ways. When it comes to local commitment, Lou hasn't just talked the talk, he's walked the walk. He's been a model citizen, and he deserves public support. His leadership will benefit the Board.
I will conclude with a few general observations.
When Dotty and I married in 1994 and relocated to Meredith, we were drawn here by three things: The town's natural beauty, the reputation of its public schools, and its wealth of social capital. Dotty had lived in Laconia for many years; I had lived in Plymouth. Both of those towns seemed split by problems that could not be resolved. Meredith, in contrast, seemed much more cohesive. It seemed to possess a positive future. We were impressed by its forward-thinking business community and its vibrant service organizations. Visionary entrepreneurs were active here, attracting others who had been influential in their former abodes and who wished to make a difference here, too.
During the nearly 20 years Dotty and I have lived in Meredith, we have witnessed how people of different political persuasions have worked together to achieve common goals. Youth sports, open space conservation, and the creation of the Community Center are just a few of the examples that could be cited. Look at any sector of Meredith — business, education, local government — and you will discover the common element that has made our town exceptional: community trumps partisan politics.
Let's keep it that way.
Peter Miller
Meredith

To the editor,
In politics, we are all aware of deception, lies, spinning the truth etc., but Mr. Meade, in his most recent column, introduces us to the use of "paraphrasing". It seems that in "paraphrasing" you don't have to report an accurate account of what happened — you only have to narrate whatever information serves your political interests, no matter how blatantly misleading.
Mr. Meade, in his inimitable way, fails to give us all the facts of Secretary of State Clinton's response to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He conveniently paraphrased her comments to read, "What difference does it make if it was in response to the video or if it was some guys out for a walk who decided to attack the consulate and kill four Americans." Clinton's actual reply was, "But with all due respect, the fact is that we had four dead Americans. What difference, AT THIS POINT, does it make? IT IS OUR JOB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENDED AND DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT IT FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN." These points, made by Clinton, were left out of Mead's column under the pretext of "paraphrasing".
In essence, what Clinton was emphasizing to the hearing committee was that conflicting reports of the cause of the attack were not the critical (or even significant) issue. The loss of American lives and analyzing what happened and preventing it from happening again, were the critical points in question.
Mead's depictions of Clinton as being "insensitive" and "callous" are politically motivated. She had the temerity to face down a political witch hunt in which she was being asked the same leading questions over and over again by partisan senators who demanded she confirm their accusations instead of providing unwelcoming truthful testimony. The most egregious, was Republican Senator Ron Johnson who, while performing his political theatrics, embarrassed himself, his constituents, and the Republican Party. He admitted to not having reviewed tapes or information provided to the committee regarding the attack. If he had taken the time, he would have been provided with a complete and detailed description of the events as they unfolded. His admitted lack of knowledge and information of the attack make it clear he was more interested in securing political points rather than obtaining the information being sought during the hearings.
Perhaps, in his next editorial, Mr. Meade will elaborate on the 12 attacks, the 56 killed and the 74 injured at United States facilities abroad during the previous administration; more than any administration in our history. Whereas, the present administration has experienced three such attacks, and one of those was in a war zone.
L. J. Siden
Gilmanton

To the editor,
For as long as I can remember, Republicans have always maintained that: "They represent the heartland and they believe in personal responsibility, family values, and 'getting the government off our backs'". This indeed has been their mantra which seems to work in "red states". Social scientists and economists have long questioned whether Republicans practice what they preach.
The statistical reality according to these learned men is that: "the red states are, on average less prone to pay income taxes, more prone to receive subsidies from the federal government, less physically fit, less responsible in their sexual behavior, more prone to inflict harm on themselves and on others through smoking , drunk driving, and misuse of firearms and more prone to "free ride" on the health care system compared to "blue staters".
Economists have long known that in spite of the rhetoric about "getting the government off our backs" , the red states receive more federal spending net of taxes than the blue states. Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, and North and South Dakota top the list of what Mitt Romney labeled as "moochers". Republicans fall far short of "practicing what they preach". Democrats in blue states on the other hand are guilty of "not preaching what they practice". ObamaCare, better known as the Affordable Care Act, champions personal responsibility. The states that hate it don't!! Establishing personal responsibility, not socialized medicine is the reason why conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation proposed the idea of a "universal mandate" in the first place and why Mitt Romney enacted it in Massachusettes when he was governor.
In order for Republicans to have any chance at all in reclaiming legitimacy they are going to have to quit being the "stupid party"; quit believing their own rhetoric , and of course, marginalize the Tea Party.
George Maloof
Plymouth