wolfeblog

You might think that the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance is laser focused on saving the iconic Brewster Memorial Hall.  After all, they have it on their seven-to-save list, right?  Not exactly.  You see, every year they add seven more to the list, and now it is forty two, soon to be forty nine.

It’s great that these people have dedicated their time and energy to sort through the old stuff in New Hampshire to tell us which they think are in need of preservation.  Would be a little more helpful if they could develop a program that actually does something to help with the huge cost.

Six years ago, we gave a group of like minded local preservationists half a million dollars and asked them to come up with a plan to fix the place.  They hired an award winning Boston Architect and came up with a $6.8 million “all or nothing” plan to restore the place.  So now they want to come here and tell us again why we should spend a lot of money to save the place.  Because it’s really really really significant and historic.  As if we don’t get it.

We get it.  The place is really really really historic.  What they don’t seem to get is that we have already been asked a few times to pay the huge cost of restoring it and said no.  It’s not about convincing us to vote millions for restoration, it’s about coming up with a credible plan that includes realistic goals, realistic cost estimates, and some serious private money consistent with their perceived importance.

The $200,000 Brewster Hall repair warrant article was passed in March 2012.  Four months later, as of July 11, no work had been put out to public bidding.  I had been made aware of the situation by a concerned town employee.  The Grunter and the Town Manager maintain that they intended all along to put the work out to bid.  This page references the timeline and documents that show the town’s intent to go with favored single source providers.

April 6, here’s a memo from the Town Manager informing the Selectmen that Rob Houseman is pursuing replacement windows through the CEO of the NE Pella sales corporation.  It’s crystal clear that Rob isn’t looking for help producing bid specifications.

April 23, a memo from Rob Houseman to the Town Manager indicating that:

• Rob has been meeting with Pella and is expecting prices shortly
• Is working with Knight security and is expecting an installation in late summer or early fall.

May 23,  quote from Pella for 24 replacement windows installed totaling $49,474.  This is a standard price quote that was to be signed and returned for acceptance.

June 18, LindaMurray about bidding from Linda Murray to acting TM Rob Houseman concerning Brewster Hall repair report.  Here she says that it is her understanding that the items have been sent out to bid to three suppliers.  That is, of course, not the case, and also a misread of the Procurement Policy.  Only contract under $10,000 may be handled by selective bidding with three suppliers.  When the estimated amount is greater, the work must be posted for public bidding.  This memo is coupled with a later memo to the Town Manager instructing him to provide this to me as part of my outstanding Right to Know request.  She seems to want to make sure that I know that she was unaware that the Town Manager had not been following the Town’s Procurement Policy.

July 12, the day after I laid out the case at the BOS meeting, Rob Houseman initiated action to produce specifications for public bidding on the alarm, carpeting, and windows.  For the window specifications he provided the Pella quote to NCA Architects and asked them to turn it into a bid specification.  You can see that here NCA Pella specs. So when the Grunter editorial says:

 We think the assumption that the bids will be specifications only Pella could meet is unwarranted.

Maybe they should take a look at these documents and tell us why they think that.

I’m not saying that the Board of Selectmen was complicit in this action.  The evidence is that the Town Manager bears all of the responsibility.  Ironically, he is the only party involved who’s job it is to know better.

I sent this to the Grunter this week.

I had to laugh at the Grunter coverage of the latest controversy framed as another Brewster Hall issue. . They had me wondering if I was at the same meeting. The article was titled “Town Hall repair bidding process criticized”. Actually, the criticism was that there was no bidding process at all.

Watch the five minute exchange on video at the town’s website. (wolfeboronh.us – July 11, public input).Rather than support the policies of the Town Manager as reported, the chairman of the Board of Selectmen distanced the Board from his actions. She said that “last time [meeting] was the first we heard of it”. There’s a subtle but significant difference between the reported statement that the asbestos contract had three quotes and the actual “we were told that we had three quotes”. The paper quotes Linda Murray saying “Let me be clear, the board is following the policy” If you watch the video, she actually says “Let me be very clear from here on out we will be following the procurement policy…”

Bottom line is that the day after that meeting, the town initiated action to put the three projects out to bid.

Government works when all of the elements are in place. Key provisions are open access to information and the freedom to speak out against abuse. When public servants, for whatever reason, forget how to do their job properly, the only safeguard is public exposure.

This isn’t over. The window quote that was solicited from the Pella sales company (not Pella Corporation that makes the windows as they would have you believe), is being used to produce the bid specification. Unless another company can produce windows that are more or less exactly like Pella windows, except for the brand name printed on them, we are probably going to end up paying more than twice the budgeted amount for Pella windows. That’s sad when there is a plant that manufactures custom storefront windows in Gilford, practically in our back yard, that employs our friends and neighbors and contributes to our local economy.

Today I received the proceeds of my latest Right to Know request  from the town.  Among other things I had requested communications concerning Brewster Hall repair activities.  I found three emails from the Town Planner initiating the process for developing public bidding specifications dated Thursday July 12.  The projects were: Fire Alarm; Carpeting; and Windows.

My now controversial “jumping to conclusions” speech before the Selectmen occurred on Wednesday evening, July 11.

It should be noted that the Selectmen could have waived the public bidding requirement for any of these projects had they determined that to be in the best interest of the taxpayers.  They chose not to, and apparently have now compelled the Town Manager to get off his butt and get the job done.

It has been four months since the money was appropriated.

I’m not going to try to go chapter and verse about the “reporting” in this week’s Grunter.  It’s just so over the top.  I’ll just encourage you to take five minutes and watch it for yourself:  Click here.

Then ask yourself if you want to get your future information from the horses mouth….  or the other end.

OK, tonight we’re going to play a new game:  Know your Brewster Hall Facts.

Let’s start out with an easy one:  When was the place built? If you guessed anything between 1890 and say 1905 you get credit for a right answer.  That’s how we’re going to judge it, anything that comes close to a reasonable guess is OK.

Question 2:  What is the primary building material?  If you said brick, you’re right!  But we’ll also accept stuff like masonry, clay, red rocks, you know – anything that comes close to a reasonable guess.

Question 3:  Is the second floor auditorium available for public use?  If you said no, you’re right again!  But we’ll also accept negative, nada, no-way-Jose, or just nope.

How many got all three – can I see a show of hands?  Good for you, specially if you got that tough number three.  But if you got it wrong, don’t fret, you’re in good company.  Apparently none of the Selectmen would have got it right either. The reasonable guess part comes from the fact that there has not been a single event held there for the past 15 years, so anybody that put two and two together gets it right.

At last week’s Board of Selectmen’s meeting, they voted to allow the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance a permit to conduct a two hour, paid admission lecture in the auditorium. The only question asked was “Will you be serving shrimp?”

Having been recently admonished for jumping to conclusions, I took the time to check with the Fire Department to see if they were asked about this.  Apparently they were not.  I reviewed the Brewster Hall file that they had and discovered:

1. The auditorium was last used under special permit in April 1996.
2. Four town officials prepared a code compliance report for BMH in December of 2000 and concluded that to be used for assembly the building needs sprinklers, a fire alarm system, and the staircases need to be enclosed by fire rated material.
3. Usage was denied in March 2002 citing multiple life and fire safety code violations.
4. A couple of structural posts that supported the floor above have been removed.

Add to all that the potential to draw another ADA lawsuit from the DOJ and we have a whole new chapter in the ongoing saga of Selectmen ignoring the public welfare and abdicating responsibility to protect citizens.

This week I took a peek at the Selectmen’s agenda to see if they might possibly be following up on the controversy raised at the last meeting concerning the lack of public bidding on Brewster Hall projects.  Nothing,  So I dropped by to revisit the issues that have been detailed in this previous blog post during the opening public comment period.

I was told that the last meeting was the first the Selectmen had heard of it.  (Maybe you want to take a look at this memo to the Selectmen from the Town Manager on April 6).  Then I was told that all of the contracts are going to be put out for public bidding as per the town’s Procurement Policy, except the asbestos abatement contract.  Apparently, that work has already started.

So I guess a result was obtained, although I don’t know how.  The BOS has not discussed the problem or taken any action at all, despite multiple public complaints.  Doing so outside of posted public meetings is illegal so far as I know, so I don’t know what is going on.  Mr. Owen accuses me of jumping to conclusions because I am unaware of the change of direction.  How would I know when there is nothing in the public record of any action by the BOS?

I was a little disappointed that some of the Selectmen seemed surprised that the alleged previous bid for the asbestos abatement was not a public bid and was five years old. I guess they don’t read the blog the blog.  Maybe there will be some reprimands, but one thing for sure, they won’t hang their dirty laundry out in public.  We’ll have to get by on the satisfaction that a change was made and the rest of the project will move forward in the daylight.

I’m a great believer in what is often called the 80/20 rule.  Simply put it says that you can usually get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost or effort.  The corollary of course is that you typically must pay 80% more for the last 20%.  You can see how that complicates life when your attitude is that you want nothing but the best.

Voters have twice rejected restoring the Brewster Hall and twice indicated a lack of resolve in non-binding referendums and polls.  At the last Town Meeting, the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, in defending the $200,000 requested for repairs, said that we were no longer interested in restoration, just functional repair.  Twenty percent.

So now that they have a bag of money, guess what?  They are pricing out those First Class windows, at more than twice the estimated price.  The NH Department of Historic Preservation has been asked to set a standard for replacement windows that supports the overspending, even though they have no legal say in anything we do because neither the state or federal government is giving us a penny.

The Friends of Brewster Hall were even given a presentation of this effort before anyone else, including the Board of Selectmen.   It’s not only about the no-bid situation.  We know that the town knows what the voters want because that’s what they tell them before the elections.  Once the money is appropriated, however, they do as they please.

You will recall that I recently received a call from a local asbestos abatement contractor who told me that, contrary to what Mr. Owen has been telling everyone, the job was NEVER put out to bid.  Mr. Owen has maintained that the job was previously “bid”, so he didn’t see the need to “rebid” it.

Well…..  not quite.  I made a few “Right to Know” requests to get the details of the alleged previous bid.  Turns out that the town asked Turner Engineers of Concord for an estimate as part of the $4 million proposal in 2009 (actually 2007, see below*).  They in turn asked three companies for prices.  In our  town, there is a definition of what a “bid” is.  There is a policy that says when it is required, how it is to be conducted, and under what special circumstances the Town Manager and Selectmen can waive the requirement.

The lowest price was $14,900 from Enviro-Vantage and so when the town appropriated money for abatement in March 2012, the town simply asked Enviro-Vantage for a new price.  Big surprise, now they want $21,000.

So the local contractor who called me was absolutely correct.  The town never bid the job and he never got a chance to compete for his own tax dollars.  For the Town Manager to represent a three year old cost estimate as the equivalent of public bidding is fraudulent.  When asked about it he says stuff like:

“I don’t know if he mentioned to you that we have already awarded two projects to him this year, as well as other projects in previous years, so he has been doing quite nicely from the Town’s procurement practices.”

Seems to me that’s an excellent reason to ask him to bid on this project.

“As the Town official responsible for letting contracts and administering the procurement process, as well as being the author if the Town’s Procurement Policy, I did not (and do not) see any need to rebid the same scope of work, except now the work will be done at night and on weekends so as to not interfere with the Town workforce.”

I don’t know if it’s laziness, incompetence, or corruption but the whole thing stinks.

In the pipe we have a sole-source proposal for windows that is more than 100% over budget, and have been waiting for a price from an alarm company for several months with no mention of putting the job estimated at $20,000 out to bid.

When confronted about these activities, the Selectmen and Town Manager say that they haven’t yet signed any contracts so they are not in violation of the procurement policy.  What do you think?

* Correction 7/4/2012:  I just noticed a fine print date on the estimate sheet.  Turns out it was 2007 – 5 years ago!  Probably part of the original McGinley Kalsow plan.  It had been represented as 2009 at the Selectmen’s meeting.

Today I got a call from a Wolfeboro citizen that does Asbestos Abatement.  He told me that after the March referendum, he went to the Town Manager and expressed interest in removing the asbestos from Brewter Hall.  He was surprised and disappointed (understatement) that the project was not put out to bid.

In the course of conversation, he told me that the town has NEVER posted a request for bids to remove the asbestos from Brewster Hall.  I’m not sure exactly how Mr. Houseman put it at the June 20th BOS meeting, but he implied that this had been recently bid.  I have asked the Town Manager to provide me with details of any bidding that was associated with this contract.

Regardless, here we have a resident of Wolfeboro.  A taxpayer.  Who says he asked to be considered for this work, and says he was not given the opportunity.  This comes as quite a surprise to me after being lectured by Sarah Silk at the BOS meeting about how local vendors are not interested in bidding for town contracts.

As I read the town procurement policy, open public bidding was required for this expenditure.  It allows the Town Manager to exempt in specific circumstances, none of which apply here.  The policy goes on to say, in section VII, that “contracts entered into without following proper procedures will be voided.”

I have submitted a request to the Town Manager and Chairman of the Board of Selectmen for details surrounding the contract.

At the last Selectman’s meeting, I made an issue of the fact that only one vendor has been asked to provide more than $75,000 worth of windows for BMH.  The Town Manager defended his action by saying it would require developing specifications.

So then along comes Tom Bickford and posts a link to the Town’s Procurement policy.  It would appear that the Town Manager is in gross violation of this policy.  The threshold amount for applicability is $10,000, and none of the conditions that allow waiving the policy are remotely applicable.  There does not seem to be any indication in the public record that the Board of Selectmen were consulted or that they voted to direct the Town Manager to ignore the policy, which has been in effect since 2008.  Then again, none of them seemed to be particularly upset by the revelation.

The TM also takes great liberty with the spirit of the policy when he decided to enter into a $21,000 contract for asbestos removal based on a $15,000 bid that was tendered more than a year ago.  It seems to me that when the contract is 40% more than the original bid, it no longer accomplishes the objectives of the policy, among other problems.  In this case, there no doubt are straightforward specifications for the abatement, and a rebid would be a simple matter of advertising again.

It isn’t easy to spend more than $800,000 on a building and have as little to show for it as we do.  But they’re doing their best.  Wait until they get it up to a couple of million, maybe the public will wake up then.

Just got back from the BOS meeting.  I went there to listen to the update on Brewster Hall improvements.  Rob Houseman went over the activity to date, but it was a closed discussion and the spreadsheet was not made available to the public.  Later, Tom Beeler got a copy and shared it with me.

The asbestos abatement came in at $21,000 vs the original estimate of $15,000.  The reason given was that the price of the scrap metal from the boiler went down.  I don’t buy that.  The contract was not bid because it was bid awhile back when CCI was developing a larger project.  Seems like it would have been easy to rebid that, especially when the “low” bidder sharpens his pencil and increases the price 40%.

Apparently the basement dehumidification project is stalled because they want to have an engineer design the system and nobody seems to be interested.  I don’t know if any of this is due to the comments that I’ve made about the inappropriateness of the proposed $20,000 system, but if so, the engineer that I had consulted expressed an interest in sizing a system.

The big issue, of course, is the windows.  The $49,000 quote for 24 windows that was originally budgeted at $21,000.   During the citizen comment period, I got up and asked about it.  I asked for details about how the original $21,000 was arrived at.  I asked if any other vendors were contacted.  I asked why we were seeking NH Division of Historical Resources approval when the state isn’t giving us any money and they have nothing to do with the National Historic Registry.

It’s altogether possible, that Pella is giving us a great deal on this.  How would we know?  And even if it’s a great deal on Pella windows, these appear to be the most expensive windows that Pella makes, and maybe a less prestigious brand without a discount would suit us.

Mr. Owen was noticeably flustered, and claimed that if we didn’t go with this no-bid deal, we would have to spend a lot of money on engineering to develop specifications to bid it.  I was not quick-witted enough to tell him that the taxpayers already ponied up half a million dollars to develop specifications and they blew it developing plans that the voters have no interest in, and will continue to make payments on for the next 17 years or so.

I personally don’t see the difference between getting prices from several selected companies or a single selected company.  At least that would be better than sole-source and would go a long way toward validating the final purchase.

This episode underscores the problems with public projects.  We probably have a good deal for what it is, but we have nothing to compare it to.  On the other hand, it will be expensive and time-consuming to develop specifications and put it out to bid.  Moreover, the responses to a public bidding process will probably be mediocre and overpriced.  There is no perfect solution.

Before Mr. Houseman gave his presentation, Linda Murray announced that he had presented this information to the Friends of the Town Hall the previous evening.   How is it that this group gets favored access to Mr. Houseman?  Even at the Selecmen’s meeting, the discussion was cryptic because we were not provided with the spreadsheet.  Typically, I have to ask for these things and they charge me 25¢ per page.  Maybe if I didn’t feel like I was on the outside looking in, I would be a little less cynical about the process.

I’ve submitted two Right to Know requests for all information related to Town Hall repairs.  There was little forthcoming.  They are playing this very close to the vest.

There have been no RFPs issued for bidding on any aspect of the project. There is a quote from Enviro Vantage for asbestos removal.  The total amount is $26,650.  The budgeted amount was $15,000.

The Selectmen were informed on April 6 that Rob Houseman was working with David Hadley, CEO of Pella Windows.  They were told that he has taken a personal interest in the Town Hall and has offered us special pricing. There is no written record of the town requesting or receiving a window  quote from any other company.  So far, “Pella” has quoted a price of $49,474 for 24 windows, more than double the budgeted amount of $21,000.

So that’s the sweet deal from the CEO of Pella Windows.  Except that Mr. Hadley is not the CEO of Pella Corporation that makes the windows.  He is the CEO of Pella Window and Doors – New England Windows and Doors in Haverhill, MA.  They are a regional sales company that sells Pella Windows.

So we have a no-bid situation that is more than double what we were told in March.  Of the two items in play so far that added up to $36,000 in the original $200,000 budget,  the current estimate is about $76,000.  There is no record of the Selectmen acting on Mr. Hadley’s offer, or directing Mr. Houseman to pursue this exclusively, or that there have been any written communications with or about any other vendor.

In a memo from Rob Houseman to the Town Manager dated April 23, he was told to expect a revised quote for the Fire Alarm system.  After two months, there is apparently no record of any quote being received.

If you are wondering why the blog has not been keeping up with this project, it’s because the information is not forthcoming.  This isn’t about whether we should fix up BMH, it’s about how we do business.  There is apparently no file in Town Hall that contains details of the effort.  We have a project manager that is trained to be a Town Planner who is apparently managing this project without writing anything down.  There are no logs, RFPs, specifications, working budget spreadsheets – nothing, at least nothing being disclosed as required by law. Mr. Houseman will be presenting a status report to the Selectmen on June 20th.  It will be interesting to see if they get more information than was produced in my two Right to Know requests.

I know that people like to frame the debate as “for or against”.  You know, either you’re with us or you’re against us.  Any kind of dissent means you disagree with everything and therefore have no valid input to the issue. The flip side of that is that if you support something, anything that can be construed as being in the best interest of that goal has to be above reproach.  It’s team sports-101.

The mantra is that after we spend a few million on BMH, it will be good for another 100 years.  On the other side of the debate  we see it as a black hole that will always need more work and will suck us dry over time.  If we could get the army of 1890’s skilled laborers that built the place to go back at it, we might have a chance.  But the reality is that there are few craftsmen left and none that will be low-bidders for any BMH work.  Let’s look at a few recent examples:

Here are the nice period looking light poles that someone thought would make the place look good.  They have leaned over at a 5º angle.  Is there anyone around that can put a pole in plumb?

That probably seems a little picayune.  Remember those new ramps and rails?

Here’s a better example.  Remember the big spruce up project three or four years ago?   The “Romeo and Juliet” balcony was falling down so some restorationist guy volunteered to completely rebuild it.  Remember the thing being apart all summer and finally looking great after a few months work?  Here it is today.  Notice how it’s sagged away from the building and is rotting where the deck attaches to the building.  You have to have a serious water problem to get something to rot that fast.  Romeo oh Romeo, catch me when this thing falls down.

I guess it still looks OK from the street.  Just wondering how it’s going to make it another 96 years?

This is the kind of stuff we can see, and not too hard to understand.  Crooked poles, rusted railings, rotting balconies.  What about the things we don’t see?  Do you really think that after dumping millions into this place we can expect to have a low maintenance budget?

If you took one of those tourists who supposedly come here to see the place, stood out front and asked them to tell you what’s brand new about the place, do you think they would point out the light poles, or the railings, or the balcony?  How about if you asked them what was original?  Most of those things could pass.

If you want an example of something that was done right, look no further than the Cate Park bandstand.  Built with private donations and overseen by people who wanted that investment to last, the place still looks great after more than a decade of being exposed to the elements.

The inflammatory rhetoric has it wrong.  We don’t want to bulldoze BMH.  We just have reservations about committing to a Taj-Mahal town office building based on it.  I don’t know about you, but when I throw my money away, I like to choose the hole to throw it down.

The face of the clock in Brewster Hall is in desperate need of repair, especially the sunny south side. An estimate of around $32,000 was received and a grant for $10,000 was secured.  According to the Town Manager, the Friends of Brewster Hall have agreed to finance the balance of $22,000.

Regardless of the resolution of the town office situation, it makes sense not to allow the clock face to deteriorate to the point where it must be replaced rather than repaired.  For the Friends, it should be a relatively easy lift to get donations for the clock, and maybe a way to see what kind of potential their membership has to take a bite out of the millions that will remain to be done.

The spin from the restorationists is that even though the majority of voters indicated that they do not support the Friends’ agenda of restoring Brewster Hall for use as Town Offices, there was no other alternative endorsed, so just stay the course, whatever that is.

The reality is that voters have also rejected restoration twice at the polls, and the support has been in the minority in both the UNH conducted survey in 2008 and in the Article 30 referendum last March.  If you consider the voters stance toward public funding of any project, the outlook is bleak.

On the other hand, 46% of voters indicated that they would like to sell the place.  That’s without any specific plan, no endorsement from the Selectmen, and no buyer offering cash.  An unqualified “Let’s just sell it”. It has been widely rumored that the Common Family is interested in the building.  They are the folks who were the driving force behind the revitalization of Meridith and who developed the Flying Monkey in Plymouth.

We would only need 50% approval to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with them, and possibly we could salvage some cash to offset the $400,000 we still owe on those over-the-top restoration plans.  With an endorsement from the Selectmen, such a sale would pass easily.

I’m just going to keep throwing out the possibilities, because the referendum said we were on the wrong track and people want some fresh ideas.

These folks have one of the lowest tax rates in New Hampshire.  You don’t have to live in a dump to have low taxes.  See the whole description here.

Here’s one of the possible Library expansion plans that the trustees looked at.  The “old” library is the building at the top. I think it’s about 9,500 sq ft.  That’s about a 50% more space than the current town offices.

A little controversy and vilification is good for circulation, and for better of for worse circulation is the measure of a newspaper’s worth.  So it came as no surprise two weeks ago when the Editor pumped up the volume on Frank Onishuk’s opinion letter by featuring it in his editorial and telling everyone that he was “one of the few, if not the only, advocate of bulldozing…[BMH]”

Like Pavlov’s Dog, Judy Brueninger responds this week with one of her famous diatribes.  Funny thing is, Mr. Onishuk never said anything about bulldozing BMH in his letter.  And so it goes.

One of the things that always amazes me about watching professional sports on television,  especially football, is the way the sportscasters always seem to be able to tell us what the players are actually thinking.  I suppose it’s because most of them once were in the game.  But I think it’s more than that and maybe a few watched a lot of Star Trek to learn the secrets of the Vulcan Mind Meld from Mr. Spock.

So it came as only a small surprise to find that our own Mr. Bowers has adapted this skill, and shared it with us in his “Looking Back” column this week.

I don’t know what brought it on, perhaps it’s consternation over the recent majority rejection of the idea of restoring Brewster Hall for town offices.  Whatever the cause, he seems to have gone into a deep trance to discover the motives and intentions of those who don’t believe that Wolfeboro is a perfect place with no room for improvement.

The revelations are stunning.  The miscreants would:

• Replace all the old buildings with modern ones
• Put parking meters downtown
• Add a Rt 28 bypass around Wolfeboro
• Install traffic lights
• Bulldoze downtown to put up a WalMart
• Bring in a Toyota parts factory and a Tyson chicken plant

Who knew?  Sometimes things are not what they appear on the surface.  Even though I am convinced that I am one of the people he is talking about, I just can’t ever recall having those thoughts.  It’s troubling.

I’m wondering if it’s just me.  Does everyone else know that’s what they really want?  I need to get to the bottom of it.  Perhaps I could undergo hypnosis to discover the full extent of my latent desires.

In any event.  I have to thank Mr. Bowers for taking the time to educate and warn the town about the consequences of having an opinion different from his.  Maybe before the next election we should bring in a few of those sportscasters to reveal the full extent of the subversive mood of the population.

Maybe I’m just a little too picky, but I have a thing about accuracy.  Last year, after the $4 million BMH article failed to get the necessary 60% support, Dave Bowers on at least two occasions stated from his chair on the BOS that it had received 61%.

In today’s Grunter, the editor starts rewriting history again by reporting that Article 30(a) – Do you support restoration of Brewster Hall to serve as Town Offices – received 49.5% approval.  It actually got slightly less than 48%. See the results here.

In the big picture, a statistician would tell you that both numbers are within the margin of error given the sample size, but that won’t stop the spin.  By next month they’ll be back in the majority.