Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says town omitted required budget details; Select Board removes recommendation wording for Article 4
Summary
At the Feb. 3 Lee Select Board meeting a resident warned the board that required budget items were missing from published materials under RSA 32:5; later the board voted to remove the 'Select Board recommends/does not recommend' wording from Article 4 in the voters guide to avoid voter confusion.
A resident, Chantal, told the Lee Select Board on Monday that the town’s budget materials omitted sections required by the municipal budget law and urged clearer revenue disclosure ahead of the town meeting. "The voters have not been provided with all the information that's required by the municipal budget law," she said in public comment, citing RSA 32:5 and specific account sections she said were missing.
Chantal said the town handouts omitted account section 4915 (transfers to capital reserve funds) and 4916 (transfers to trust and agency funds) and that the omission appeared in multiple meeting attachments. She raised concerns about tax impacts, saying the town estimate could increase by $1.10 and the school district by $1.56 for Lee, and that the combined effect reflected roughly a 10.6% increase after prior years' larger increases.
The board discussed the procedural implications. Members noted that RSA 32 allows the Select Board to re-vote recommendations if voters amend an article during deliberative sessions. The town administrator and others had previously discussed whether the voters guide should state the Select Board "recommends" or "does not recommend" an article after a post-delivery amendment. A board member moved to remove the "Select Board recommends/does not recommend" wording for Article 4 in the voters guide; the motion passed on a voice vote.
Board members said the change was intended to reduce voter confusion after an Article 4 amendment added $6,000 for the Strafford Regional Planning Commission. One member described removing the wording as a compromise to avoid mixed messages to voters; another noted the board could vote again on a recommendation if the article were amended by voters.
The hearing record does not show a roll-call tally for the vote on the wording change; the public record indicates the motion was carried after a voice "Aye." Chantal’s request to improve the timing and transparency of revenue calculations prompted board members to discuss posting supporting documents online before future sessions.
Next steps: the board agreed to remove the wording in the voters guide for Article 4 and to improve access to budget materials; no further formal action on budget figures was recorded at the meeting.
