State Rep. Aylward: A Mea Culpa On 'Danbury's Phantom Firehouse'

Standing Corrected!

Oh! Mea culpa, mea culpa! In my article “Danbury’s Phantom Firehouse’ I misheard at the bond hearing and wrote that the budget committee ‘did not recommend’ the article pertaining to the $3.2 M bond, when indeed the Draft 2025 Warrant Article 2, BOND FOR COMBINED POLICE AND FIRE SAFETY SERVICES BUILDING indicates the budget committee DID recommend! Therefore, I stand corrected and my most humble apologies are in order.

However, as of today, Wednesday, Feb. 5th, at 3:00 p.m., just a little over 24 hours before the Deliberative Session, I find ZERO information by way of budget committee meeting minutes on the Town website that addresses 'when' a vote to “recommend” was taken; 'who' voted in the affirmative or the negative, but more importantly ‘why’ members voted the way they did.

The budget committee minutes stop at Dec. 19th, 2024 on the town web site.

My goodness! Why would the minutes of the meeting at which such an important decision was made not be posted to the Town website for the public’s benefit well in advance of the Deliberative Session being held (weather permitting) on Thursday, Feb. 6th? Though not compelled by law to post the committees minutes on the website, I would think it would be the chairperson’s responsibility to assure the minutes are kept updated online. . .and posted as soon as they are ready.

There is currently no posted schedule, or indication of ‘when’ Budget Committee meetings occurred to determine when the "five (5) days" after a meeting the minutes of this particular meeting must be made available to the public.

I often hear from citizens that they are highly frustrated when minutes are not timely posted to the site — or not at all. I mean, why are the people often forgotten in the process of conducting the people’s business?

And about those minutes that ARE posted regarding board and committee meetings, I find that the ‘deliberations’ (or discussion) that precede an official vote are rarely included in the minutes. More often than not, minutes are devoid of substantive explanations from each and every board member for ‘why’ they voted the way they did, especially when a matter is not unanimously passed.

As for this Draft Article 2 “recommendation", I want to read detailed description of the discussion that allowed budget committee members to arrive to such a decision. I want to know exactly what each committee members' ‘reasoning’ was for voting the way they did! I say this because if not giving their respective explanations about whether in favor or opposed, and if not duly recorded in the minutes, it gives the appearance of pre-determination, in other words, the act of deciding or determining something beforehand, and outside of a public forum.

I want to know if the Budget Committee considered 'future population’ of approximately 2,200 (75 years from now) based on census or other statistics, that do not support a ‘career' or even a ‘partly career’ fire department, and ‘affordability’ based on an aging population that will be living on fixed incomes.

With the median value of homes in New Hampshire being $485K, and in which case, at $1.64 per thousand of assessed value, the 2026 tax bill(s) would reflect an additional $795.00 total for the year, or a $397.00 bi-annual, additional cost tacked onto the regular (and ever increasing) property tax ! And if not, exactly what did the committee consider before arriving to a vote to recommend? In other words, I want to know what facts the members relied upon for making their decisions to ‘recommend’.

It is my understanding (but not confirmed due to lack of meeting minutes posted online) that committee members Tracy Feinauer and James Phelps voted ’NO” to ‘recommending' the $3.2M proposal, and that if the case, they are to be highly commended for allowing their good judgement and reasonableness to prevail.

To the public officials responsible for conducting the people's business. . . in meeting minutes:

1. Disclose the details (facts, circumstances, expert testimony, etc.) of what was discussed/deliberated before an official vote, and;

2. Further disclose each board member's substantive explanation, or the 'reasoning' for the way they intend to vote, and;

3. Identify each member by name, and indicate if they voted either 'aye' or 'nay' when a motion is not passed unanimously

The people should not settle for less than excellence from their public officials.

DELIBERATIVE SESSION SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEB. 6, 2025 (weather permitting). Watch Town website and Facebook Page for notice of postponement to FRIDAY, FEB. 7th if there is inclement weather.

Notwithstanding the fact Danbury Town Hall is not large enough to hold all registered voters, the Deliberative Session goes on and it is YOUR meeting! All registered voters constitute the ‘Legislative Body’ of the Town. The"Legislative Body" votes on the warrant articles, and the results are the will of the people. Those that show up are permitted to speak after being recognized by the Moderator, Mr. Mark Zaccaria, to make motions, and debate the issues at hand, and of course ‘vote’ when necessary.

Long gone is the ’town meeting’ style of government. Danbury is an SB2 Town, and the first session is the Deliberative Session and the second session is voting day in March when you can vote for candidates running for office and the various ‘warrants’ that addresses matters of town business, that is YOUR business!

Stay warm!

The sample ballot and draft warrants are found posted to the Town website. Read and heed!

Deborah Aylward is a resident of Danbury, NH since 2006; a state lawmaker, and citizen activist.