Annual report of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire

Brian Lacey offered the following amendment, seconded by Michael
Plouffe. Delete all but "Shall we discontinue the board of Cemetery Trustees by
delegating their duties and responsibilities to the Town Manager?
It was moved and seconded to end discussion on the amendment.
The
motion passed by the required vote. The Lacey amendment passed.
Frederick Rice moved to end discussion on the article. Seconded by
Bonnie Searle. The motion did not received the necessary 2/3 vote.
Ann Kaiser moved to add "this is not recommended by Town Meeting
Seconded by Edward Buck. The
of January 31, 1998" to the end of the article.
Kaiser amendment passed.
Seeing no other person wished to speak, Moderator Walker declared that article
45 as amended would go on the ballot.
Article 45 now reads. "Shall we discontinue the board of Cemetery Trustees by
delegating their duties and responsibilities to the Town Manager?
recommended by Town Meeting of January 31, 1998"
RESULTS OF BALLOTING ON MARCH 10, 1998
YES 624
NO 2057
ARTICLE 45 FAILED
"This is not
ARTICLE 46
Whereas the Town Meeting in 1996 adopted, by an illegal procedure, a
petitioned article to skim 20 percent of the Town's parking lot revenue to be
used only in the Hampton Beach Village District area, which is zoned Seasonal
Business, for infrastructure purposes, thereby denying that traditional revenue to
benefit the entire Town; and,
Whereas, the use of those funds are operationally controlled by the
three Village District Commissioners, who are not Town officers but elected by
the small voter checklist of that self-created, self-governing special taxing
district — a situation that has the Commissioners operating outside their oaths of
office and, contrary to State Law, controlling Town Officials (the Town
Manager and DPW Director) who are a minority on the determination and de
facto operational five-member committee, which for two years has violated the
Right-to-Know Law by not posting public meetings or keeping official minutes
of proceedings; and,
Whereas, some projects and expenditures to date have violated the
State Law under which that Special Revenue Fund was created by spending
funds on non-highway projects as well as on non-Town land, in direct violation
-56-