Amherst Republican Committee

To the Editor,
As the 2011 session of the New Hampshire legislature approaches its conclusion, I think it is time to take a look at the great progress our new Republican majority has made in bringing fiscal sanity back to State government and making New Hampshire an attractive place to do business. These were the promises made by our Republican candidates, and in the House of Representatives they have delivered:
• A constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority vote in the House and Senate to raise taxes or borrowing (CACR 6)
• A constitutional amendment to expand local control of education funding by returning the authority to elected officials, not unelected judges (CACR 12)
• A fiscally responsible budget that uses realistic revenue projections, does not create or increase any taxes or fees, does not downshift costs to local communities, and does not increase borrowing. (HB 1 & HB 2)
• A bill to allow local communities to enact spending and tax caps (HB 341)
• A small business tax cut, which is quite a reversal from the Democrats’ infamous LLC tax. (HB 557)
• A cigarette tax cut to enhance cross-border sales. (HB 156)
• Right-to-work legislation to preserve worker’s rights and attract employers to New Hampshire (HB 474)
• Legislation to move the state pension system (HB 580) and the retiree health plan (HB 231) back to fiscal solvency
• Legislation that enacts a performance-based measurement system for state government (HB 508)
• Elimination of the gambling winnings tax that was costing the state revenue. (HB 229)
• Repeal of the cap-and-tax program known as RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) thereby reducing everyone’s utility bill (HB 519).
All of these items were passed by the New Hampshire House this session in addition to numerous other bills reducing unnecessary business regulations, reforming and bringing transparency to state government, and protecting civil liberties and parental rights. The budget agreement between the House and Senate reduces spending by an incredible 12.8%. This is the largest spending reduction since World War 2 and a welcome change from the massive spending increases we saw under Democrat control in Concord. I would like to thank our Amherst and Milford State Representatives: Bill Belvin, Sean Coughlin, Gary Daniels, Peter Hansen, Steve Palmer, Bob Rowe, Steve Stepanek, and Bob Willette for all their hard work during this busy legislative session. Well done.

Mark Vincent
Amherst

June 13, 2010

To the Editor

Hooray! We stopped the Milford District Court from closing. OK, but at what cost.

Last year the Judicial Branch decided as a cost savings to close the Milford District Court and transfer the court function to the newly constructed, large and efficient courthouse in Merrimack. This would require the citizens and police in the towns of Amherst, Milford, Mont Vernon, Lyndeborough, Wilton, Mason and Brookline to travel to the court in Merrimack located near Baboosic Lake Road and Route 3A – over a half hour drive for some of the communities. Also included in the economy move was the closing of district courts in the communities of Claremont, Colebrook and Keene.

The consolidation of district court districts has been a long term policy for the judicial branch. The Judicial Branch has decided to construct large efficient buildings, that have every conceivable courthouse amenity facility requirement and serve a larger population area. Ignored is the traditional that goes back to the 19th century that the Municipal and District courts were the peoples court; the courts closest to the citizens. True, the court houses in towns were small and did not provide the desired court house amenities; some borrowed space in the town hall. When I served as a judge in Wilton the court met in the selectmen’s room, heated in the winter by a wood stove. True facilities were lacking, but the court was part of the community, and the court functioned for the citizens, often open on Saturdays and evenings for the convenience of the citizens.

So now we are allowed to keep the Milford Court open, but only if the towns pay much of the cost. Starting in July, the seven local communities serviced by the Milford District court must pay the non-personnel and rental costs totaling $97,680.20 a year. The rent for the building is almost $80,000 a year. With the towns paying the costs, the Judicial Branch saves money in that the building is on a long term lease that is still in effect that they are obligated to finance. Had the court been moved the state would be obligated to pay the rent for an empty building until the end of the lease term; now we must pay. Here are the costs apportioned to the towns: Amherst: $30,573.90, Milford: $36,141.87, Brookline: $11,330.90, Lyndeborough: $1,562.88, Mason: $2,051.28, Mont Vernon: $4981.69, and Wilton: 11,037.86.

So how do we save our local courts? First, we can offer legislation to stop the District Court relocation to Merrimack. Second, we can pass legislation that gives the towns the court fine money to offset the cost; currently all fine money goes to the state.

Last, there may be two Constitution violations. First, the courts are a state responsibility; it may be discrimination to have some towns bear the costs of courts and the state pay for others. Second, there is a provision in our constitution that states that if the state mandates a program to the communities, the state must bear the mandated costs.

If I was a selectman in the communities served by the Milford District Court, My answer would be not to pay and to take the position that the law is unconstitutional. After all the towns have passed budgets in March and this cost was not included.

Your representative,

Robert H. Rowe