Public Forum

Comments

Please enter the code ↺
* Required fields
Please be aware that the contents of this form are not encrypted

  • John (Saturday, July 20 19 05:38 pm EDT)

    Nick doesn’t care about sports betting, he is more interested in changing the law that would allow him to turn his place into a Strip club.

  • Todd (Saturday, July 20 19 05:38 am EDT)

    Has Nick Koloski started the ball rolling for an ordinance to allow sports betting in Claremont for his establishment? I'll bet he has behind the scenes. Now that he got the food truck ordinance passed for his benefit this will be his next project. It's all about him.

  • Ben (Friday, July 19 19 05:27 am EDT)

    Things won't change until we kick Lovett and her tax and spend cronies on the council out of public office. New councilors with sound financial judgement to change priorities and cut the size of the city budget and tell the local municipal unions that they will not take advantage of the taxpayers anymore is the only way for Claremont to move ahead in a positive direction.

  • David (Wednesday, July 17 19 10:30 pm EDT)

    I think the directors get paid enough and no raises are necessary. If they want to leave let them. The city and the school budgets need to be put on a big diet. Cut the budgets of the fat and give the taxpayers a break.

  • Rick (Wednesday, July 17 19 03:38 pm EDT)

    I see that Mr. McLean is trying to give a big pay raise to all the directors before he departs. Gee, that is very nice of him since he does not pay taxes here. Naturally, Damren, Pope, and Lovett are right on top of this because they constantly pandered to the employees anyway. Koloski and Kier will have their rubberstamps ready at the proper time too. Look at all the mayor declarations Lovett is giving out like candy. I wonder if she prints them in the basement of City Hall because they are as meaningless as counterfeit money. She is just pandering to as many different constituencies as she can to get her and her cronies on the council votes in the ballot box in November. It is obvious and pathetic all at the same time.

  • Chris (Wednesday, July 17 19 02:03 pm EDT)

    The pleasant restaurant property renovation project has me concerned. The Sullivan Report did an excellent job intertwining the Farwell project and the brown block project into the article to give a little bit of history and some excellent advice. This pleasant restaurant project is haphazard as it has no real plan and no real funding but let us move ahead anyway. No one does that in the real world only when there are public funds at hand and tax-and-spend imbeciles in charge does this sort of thing happen because they know there is an inexhaustible supply of taxpayer money to bail them out if needed. The taxpayers should be outraged about this but they will stay at home, do nothing, and complain when the much higher tax bill comes due. In a way, the apathetic citizens of Claremont deserve the abuse that they are receiving.

  • Jessica (Wednesday, July 17 19 12:36 pm EDT)

    I agree with Abby. Anyone who has no respect for rules and regulations has no respect for their elected position or the constituents who put their faith and trust in them. It is time to oust all the incumbents in November.

  • Abby (Wednesday, July 17 19 10:41 am EDT)

    I do not like the councilors who keep breaking the rules to suit their purposes. Lovett, Damren, Kier, Koloski, Pope & Lessard all have no problem breaking rules and ignoring regulations whenever they feel like it. I believe the job has gone to their head and they think they are the rulers of Claremont. It’ time to dissuade themselves of that opinion in November.

  • Jim Sullivan (Wednesday, July 17 19 10:05 am EDT)

    George, we were wondering if the City Administration had followed the purchasing rules to seek bids regarding this contract award as well. This is why I have requested a copy of the bid tabulation form that will list all of the vendors who submitted a bid and the price that they quoted. I should have it in about a week or so and then I will report the findings.

  • George (Wednesday, July 17 19 09:25 am EDT)

    I’m wondering if the city really did get a good deal on electricity. We only have the word of an interim city manager to go by and he made a deal with a CDA member. Perhaps everything is on the up and up but I’m suspicious. It seems just a little too cozy a deal to me.

  • Sarah (Wednesday, July 17 19 07:52 am EDT)

    I’ve never really trusted Charlene Lovett anyway so it really does not surprise me that she would write misleading statements in her articles. She strikes me as the type who will say or do anything to achieve her goals whatever they may be. She wants the city of Claremont to look like this shining example of success because it reflects directly back on her tenure as Mayor. The reality is the city is a failure trying to turn direction but is unable to because the leadership that created the failure is still in power. The voters can correct that in November and I hope they will.

  • Simone (Tuesday, July 16 19 03:03 pm EDT)

    The Mayor is going to propose changing how we elect out elected officials.
    Currently, all 9 are up for re-election every 2 years. The new proposal will be to stagger the elections.
    Elect 5 one year, the other 4 the next and continue so you will always have experience members on the council at all times.

  • Jim Sullivan (Tuesday, July 16 19 02:26 pm EDT)

    American Recycling Transfer Station Proposal Update. Full details on the News Flashes page of this website.

  • Jim Sullivan (Tuesday, July 16 19 12:42 pm EDT)

    Bob, yes I did see Francis Gauthier’s request for information. In regards to the secret Charter change, I am the one who brought it to the public’s attention by publishing an announcement on this website after I saw it on the first version of the July 24 Council meeting agenda. I have absolutely no idea what it is about and no one is talking at least at the present time. The Council information packet will be published on either Monday or Tuesday of next week on the City of Claremont website, although there is no guarantee that any information regarding this Charter change will be included within it because Administration Officials sometimes “forget” to include documentation about certain agenda items, especially if they are controversial. I do not know if Francis Gauthier had better luck in finding out what this is about than we did, you would have to ask them directly. There is no need to panic because there are proper safeguards in place in regards to making any changes to the City Charter. For an amendment to the City Charter, the Council would have to hold a properly noticed public hearing and then vote to place any proposed amendment changes on the ballot. It would then be up to the voters of Claremont to decide whether or not they want to support this proposed change or not. Despite with the Council may think and no matter how many rules and regulations they want to suspend or outright break they do not have the power to change the City Charter by themselves. No amount of political manipulation by Mayor Lovett or anyone else can change that. You are right that Claremont needs new leadership and hopefully the voters will come out for this next election and make that change a reality.

    Barry, currently the Mayor is the one who sets the agenda. The City Manager & the other Councilors all have the right to recommend agenda items but it is the Mayor’s final call as to what is placed on the agenda for any given meeting. This current City Council very stupidly gave Mayor Lovett that extra authority. When I served on the Council, the City Manager & the Mayor had equal authority to place items on the agenda. It always worked well but for some reason Lovett wanted complete control of the agenda and now she has it because we presently have an incredibly weak Council. November’s elections can fix that but only if good people run and the voters then elect them and vote out of office the incumbents who have done a terrible job overseeing city affairs, most of them for many years. In my opinion too many of these Councilors have grown arrogant thinking that they are a power not to be trifled with, which is why the rules are either suspended or broken altogether time and time again. Look how many times that issue came up just this one meeting, Mayor Lovett and company are using the suspend the rules law far too often to push forward their political agenda. It needs to stop and only the November elections and smart choices by the Claremont voters will do that.

  • Barry (Tuesday, July 16 19 11:11 am EDT)

    Jim, does the mayor have the authority to slam non important items on the agenda without bringing it up under future agenda items at a previous meeting? Word around town this was done without the other councilors knowledge at all. Didn’t we just go through this same issue a few months ago? This is not good for Claremont’s image. Looks like the very ones wanting to improve the image are hurting it. Need some new blood with ba**s.

  • Jim Sullivan (Tuesday, July 16 19 10:57 am EDT)

    Three new articles.

    1) American Recycling Transfer Station Public Hearing rescheduled.

    2) July 10 Council meeting synopsis.

    3) The local housing market is not as rosy as the Mayor would have us believe.

    Full details on the News Flashes page of this website.

  • Bob Gravel (Tuesday, July 16 19 08:37 am EDT)

    Mr. Sullivan, have you seen the latest RSA 91-A request on the New Hampshire Gov.Watchdog page that was directed toward Mayor Lovett? What's up with the secret charter change? The impression I get after reading the request is that Mayor Lovett is again pandering to Sam Killay and his little band of radicals. Only this time she seems to be ashamed of it so she's doing it in secret. The way I understand it, after talking with some people around town, the city councilors haven't been given any information about the charter change so they're also in the dark about this. I also hear that Mayor Lovett has placed this item at the very end of the agenda on July 24, after most of the public have left. That way it could be rammed through without much public oversight. And the city wonders why the citizens don't trust Claremont government! The city doesn't make any effort to develop better relations with the public because they know they already have the union votes and that there will be a very low voter turnout in November. Then there are all the proclamations the Mayor has given out to stroke their egos and assure their votes. But this can be fixed. This can all be turned around if conservative Claremont voters will turn out en masse in November.

  • Bob Gravel (Tuesday, July 16 19 07:35 am EDT)

    Tab, are you out trolling?

  • Jim Sullivan (Tuesday, July 16 19 06:08 am EDT)

    Tab, I am not the person who snapped the picture that Nick posed for and then posted on the Internet. Perhaps I'm just not as "sensitive" as you because I am not homophobic but I never saw that photograph as being as you put it "gay". I still don't. However, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and we will simply have to agree to disagree.

  • Tab (Monday, July 15 19 11:40 pm EDT)

    Jim,
    How dare you sit there and tell these people you never thought Nick was gay.
    The picture you post of Nick is as gay as it gets.
    Shame on you Jim.

  • Jim Sullivan (Sunday, July 14 19 05:59 pm EDT)

    Tab, I am not sure if your comments are directed at either Todd or me but I wish to answer for myself in case any readers believe that these baseless accusations are directed to myself.
    First of all this is the first time that I ever heard anyone even hint at the fact that Nick Koloski might possibly be gay. Quite frankly, I could care less if he is or he is not because it does not influence in any way his job performance or actions as a City Councilor or as a local businessperson. A person's sexual orientation is irrelevant just so long as no laws are broken. Speaking only for myself, my opinion of Koloski is based solely on his past actions. In regards to Koloski's weenie wagon, Nick publicly stated that he owned one during a Council meeting regarding the food truck ordinance, when this discussion first began many months ago. So if you want to criticize the source, properly point your ire at Nick Koloski.

  • Tab (Sunday, July 14 19 05:39 pm EDT)

    Your criticism of Nick just shows how homophobic you are.
    Nick is a gay business man in a straight world and has had to overcome this kind of bias his whole life.
    You would think, after the city embraces “ Pride” month, that Nicks lifestyle would no longer be food for fonder.
    As far as food trucks are concerned, I am not aware he has one. I am aware his life partner is in that business, but I haven’t seen that truck set up in town.
    So I’d like to know how Nick is benefitting from this new ordinance?

  • Todd (Friday, July 12 19 10:26 pm EDT)

    Now that Gov. Sununu made sports betting legal watch how fast Councilor Koloski gets enabling local legislation passed in Claremont for his sports bar just like he did with the Keno and the food trucks. It's all about Nick.

  • Jim Sullivan (Friday, July 12 19 03:44 pm EDT)

    The City Administration published the agenda for the City Council's July 24 meeting and the agenda states that the Council is going to have a discussion about an amendment change to the City Charter. I wonder what they are up to this time?

  • Rae (Thursday, July 11 19 09:19 pm EDT)

    Deb was a "shoe in" to fill the city council seat. There are rules about how many city councilors can be on the city manager search committee. If she had won city council she would have been sworn in last night and taken her seat at the next meeting. Did the meeting on Saturday get canceled after she didn't win?

  • Scott (Thursday, July 11 19 08:31 pm EDT)

    Did the council secretly pick their city manager candidate already? Is this another rigged application process?

  • Jim Sullivan (Thursday, July 11 19 12:49 pm EDT)

    Council hiring session for the next City Manager abruptly canceled. Details on the News Flashes page of this website.

  • Jack (Thursday, July 11 19 06:20 am EDT)

    Sure sounds to me as though sumpin" was left out of the charter.Council seats and school board seats were never meant for self-enrichment.Seat members,spouses,or immediate members of family should hold no office if under the employ of the city,directly or indirectly.
    You all should check out Maryland.The property taxes are 1/3-1/2 that of Claremont.The electricity rates are 33% cheaper than those of us(suckers)in New Hampshire.When the carbon cops tell everyone that they can no longer burn oil,pellets,or wood for heat,due to carbon output,places like Claremont may revert back to nature,because they've been abandoned.

  • Kevin (Thursday, July 11 19 05:02 am EDT)

    Kenniston is a better choice but her connection to the Fire Department through marriage is troubling. Contracts with the Fire, Police, DPW and the Clerical Unions will all be under negotiation real soon and I doubt that she will be unbiased towards raises or support municipal employees paying a greater share of their insurance premiums. I remember her on the school board and she was a big spender so I see no difference here and that is probably why she was chosen because she will be another administration tax and spend rubber stamp. I hope I am wrong but I do not believe that I am.

  • Jim Sullivan (Thursday, July 11 19 12:58 am EDT)

    According to the Eagle Times, Kristen Kenniston was chosen to fill the empty Council seat vacated by Jeremy Zullo. Also, the Council voted to transfer ownership of the Former Pleasant Restaurant Building to the Claremont Development Authority. More details will be in our article the beginning of next week.

  • Todd (Thursday, July 11 19 12:24 am EDT)

    I see the Sullivan Report beat everyone to the punch again. The Editor of the Eagle Times is leaving. He has another rambling, boring, worthless editorial in today's paper but at the bottom it says that he has been the Editor for 14 months and this is his last editorial. No other statement of his leaving or why. Gutless to the end.

  • Rae (Wednesday, July 10 19 08:57 pm EDT)

    Jack the pregnancy center in the Moody Building is actually the opposite of an abortion clinic. It is Christian based but open to all, it offers some prenatal services, but also parenting classes. Abortion is actually not anywhere in it's mission.

  • Ken (Wednesday, July 10 19 12:19 pm EDT)

    Perhaps they changed the venue because they are expecting a very large crowd of citizens. There are a lot of folks against the location of this transfer station.

  • Molly (Wednesday, July 10 19 12:04 pm EDT)

    The Eagle Times has a scoop right under their nose when the advertisement was placed about the public hearing relocation and they don’t even print story about it. Typical.

  • Jim Sullivan (Wednesday, July 10 19 11:56 am EDT)

    Special Report! City Council to hold hiring session. Full details on the News Flashes page of this website.

  • Randyy (Wednesday, July 10 19 11:38 am EDT)

    It is really becoming obvious that Claremont has bad management in all three of the local governments. City, School and County are all loaded with terrible administrators and elected officials who think the only way to solve a problem is to spend more money without any real plan how to put that money to good use. The only shining hope is Mr. Tempesta at the school because he’s new and we have to give him a chance. I agree with a previous poster, I have little hope for the next city manager because of who is doing the choosing. I also think Deb Matteau will be widely chosen as the next City Councilor tonight because all of the Councilors have prejudged this vote even though it is a violation of their rules. Unfortunately, integrity is not a prerequisite for a City Councilor because if you look around the table during the Council meeting you will not see much integrity or any other impressive qualities among any of them.

  • Sam (Wednesday, July 10 19 10:21 am EDT)

    Sam,
    Claremont has been on the decline for decades. I believe it finally has reached the point of no return at this point we need to make a hard choices one of the would be to take a look how Berlin closing its school system is working as that is a major expense for Claremont maybe we need to downside it or just close the system down. The Fire Department May give a cost saving by making it a volunteer department.
    On closing Claremont is a Democratic run city and it shows.

  • Dave (Wednesday, July 10 19 09:26 am EDT)

    Claremont is becoming a dumping ground for all the unwanted businesses and social services and section 8/welfare population. This is Charlene Lovett’s and the rest of the city council’s welcoming community political agenda at work. Section 8 housing, ex-convict housing, teen pregnancy housing, expanded dental clinic, nonprofit music center, needle exchange program and I hear that city officials are pushing for a marijuana storefronts too. That’s when they’re not give them away incredibly large tax breaks to out-of-town property owners. All at taxpayer’s expense.

  • Jack (Wednesday, July 10 19 07:54 am EDT)

    So,I guess construction waste and non-profit social services are the only business that Claremont can drum up.
    I drove down Pleasant St. yesterday,all the way to the square.I purposely paid close attention to what the storefronts actually were.I cannot even describe how grim the feeling was.This is no longer Claremont.Half of the stores are empty.Legal aid and some pregnancy place (abortion clinic?)dominate the square.The huge construction of low income housing where Nana's was was really disturbing!
    I have been in Claremont for 20 years.I made it my home.It's shockingly obvious that I will be needing to find a new home.

  • Jim Sullivan (Wednesday, July 10 19 07:27 am EDT)

    American Recycling Planning Board Hearing location changed. Full details on the News Flashes page of this website.

  • Brad (Tuesday, July 09 19 03:23 pm EDT)

    The seven elected officials on the Claremont School Board are no prize either. Hundreds of thousands of dollars lost to the taxpayers in missed school aid opportunities and all of the IRS penalties just for 2016 with more penalties for several other years possible. None of them was watching out for the taxpayers. I do not know what they were doing but they certainly were not performing their due diligence. Presumably, all of the bad staff members are now gone within the SAU office and Mr. Tempesta can begin the work of rebuilding a competent staff. It is up to the voters to rebuild the Claremont School Board with competent leadership. None of the present-day members qualifies in that regard.

  • Jennifer (Tuesday, July 09 19 12:49 pm EDT)

    I am less hopeful about the next city manager considering who is doing the picking. The councilors and local kingmakers who all had a hand in creating the problems we are facing today will be making the decision and in all likelihood will choose a like-minded city manager, who will wish to continue the tax-and-spend policies of the past while ignoring the consequences those policies create. Following the quality journalism of the Sullivan Report, with their in-depth exposes it seems to me that Claremont’s municipal government is running out of time before it all hits the proverbial fan. Presumably, this is the reason why several present-day city councilors will not be seeking reelection in November because they know that their decisions have created an untenable situation that they are incapable of fixing without making some incredibly hard choices, which could include layoffs and large property tax and water, & sewer rate increases. All unpopular choices.

  • Abigail (Tuesday, July 09 19 11:40 am EDT)

    I am hopeful that the new superintendent of schools will be able to hire new staff that will actually do the job they are hired for without costing the Claremont taxpayers hundreds of thousand dollars in lost federal and state aid and IRS penalties. I still cannot believe how poorly managed the school district and the SAU were managed by the administrators and the school boards.

  • Industrial Property Owner (Tuesday, July 09 19 11:17 am EDT)

    While I thoroughly enjoy reading the Sullivan Report’s exposés, I must say I do not enjoy what they generally mean for the much-abused Claremont taxpayer. The exposé about the Claremont Development Authority and the Board’s unprofessional manner of conducting their business is quite disturbing. The CDA Board’s predisposition towards operating in secret and preventing government transparency whenever possible even when certain details could be revealed is troubling when their actions could have some very real serious negative consequences for the Claremont taxpayers. I sincerely applaud Mr. Sullivan’s efforts to have a similar property tax stipulation placed on the Former Pleasant Restaurant Building similar to the deed restriction placed on the Farwell Building. However, I have serious reservations that this present day Council will listen, as they seem to have a propensity to grant favors and lavish public funds on public employees and special interest organizations and individuals with close political ties to members of this Council. I predict that no such covenant will be placed on the Former Pleasant Restaurant Building and an opportunity to generate additional revenue for the Downtown TIF District will be squandered. Just as the Former Eagle Times Building will leave the tax rolls once the property is turned over to Sullivan County for its ex-inmate transitional housing program that will greatly stifle Downtown Claremont’s economic vibrancy, which is presently struggling. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Maranville raised a valid point regarding the stingy 6% contingency fund for this project when the normal industry-standard is 10%-15%. An example of making the project fit the budget, which is sometimes a recipe for disaster. Another area of concern is the CDA’s operational management of the Farwell Building in regards to rental rates. Even in 2008, $.36 per square foot was unheard of especially for the largest tenant of a building and then cementing those rates for 20 years. It is bad business and it would never be done in the public sector. Of course in the private sector the taxpayers can always be allowed bad investments especially if those investments turn bad because of incredibly bad management. If I recall a member of the City Council at that time was the project manager for the Dental Clinic, and she later became a hygienist with the Clinic after their grand opening. I also recall that another member of the City Council voted approval of this sweetheart deal with the other members of the CDA Board and although no longer a member of the City Council, he remains a member of the CDA Board. Cronyism was running rampant at that time but I do not think it is gone away entirely given the actions of this present day Council in regards to the Topstone Building, the Goddard Building Project and 147 Main St. owned by the same owners of the Goddard Building to cite a few examples. I predict that the Dental Clinic will get another 20-year lease with an incredibly low cost per square foot rental agreement for the upper floor and West Claremont Center for Music & the Arts will receive similar sweetheart deal for their occupancy of the Old Pleasant Restaurant Building. If any operational losses occur with either building, the taxpayers will in some way make up the difference. These abuses of public office will continue so long as those responsible for these terrible decisions remain in power.

  • Laura (Tuesday, July 09 19 08:38 am EDT)

    I hope the new publisher will hire a better editor this time around. My husband and I canceled our subscription after reading Mr. Chaisson’s editorials declaring that the taxpayers need to shut up and pay more money when he himself does not live in Claremont or pay any taxes. I also do not like the political slant of the reporters as they continually side with the local politicians and either sugarcoat or ignore any problems that could potentially embarrass any of these local municipal or school or county government officials. The Eagle Times is supposed to be a hard-hitting newspaper that provides solid journalism to their readers and yes sometimes that will include critical news articles and editorials when necessary. The publication has failed in that regard for several years so perhaps this personnel turnover may turn out to be a blessing in disguise and bring back something that Claremont needs, a legitimate newspaper. The Sullivan Report does an excellent job reporting the political beat but there are other new stories that also need attention and that is where the Eagle Times could do a wonderful public service if management chose to roll up their sleeves and do so.

  • Rachel (Tuesday, July 09 19 06:31 am EDT)

    Did the hiring of a new publisher have anything to do with editor Bill Chaisson's departure?

  • Jim Sullivan (Monday, July 08 19 01:56 pm EDT)

    Two new articles.

    1) Major personnel shakeup of the Eagle Times.

    2) CDA moves ahead with renovation projects.

    Full details on the News Flashes page of this website.

  • Jim Sullivan (Saturday, July 06 19 07:37 pm EDT)

    I was saying that several Councilors may have prejudged this vote regarding the Councilor appointment and that is a violation of the City Councilor rules if they cast a vote anyway. Of course following the rules requires honesty and ethics. I agree with you Lee the fix does seem to be in and we are not the only two people who see it.

  • Lee (Saturday, July 06 19 07:43 am EDT)

    Jim... are you saying a candidate or candidates have this issue ?
    You have been around long enough to know when the fix is in.
    Deb Matteau did not gather enough votes the first time to be legitimately placed on the City Manager search committee, so what did they do?
    They changed the rules .
    I feel sorry for the other candidate’s, they are just wasting their time.

  • Jim Sullivan (Friday, July 05 19 08:01 pm EDT)

    Food for thought regarding Councilor prejudgement. Clause Number 50 of the Council's Rules and Regulations states as follows.

    "50. - Conflict of Interest.
    Conflict of Interest—If a potential for Conflict of Interest is identified, it should be brought to the attention of the entire Council at the time of discovery. Any member of the Council who might be shown to have clearly prejudged an issue or have a conflict of interest on an issue before the Council, places that issue in doubt and the City at great legal risk, therefore he or she should not take part in discussion or voting on the issue. He or she may, however, participate in the public hearing as a private citizen.

    If anyone, on or off the Council, raises the question of prejudgment or conflict of interest on the part of any member and that member is unwilling to voluntarily step down, the remaining members of the Council shall hear any evidence the challenger and the challenged may have; subsequently, the Council, by two-thirds vote, shall decide whether the challenged member may sit. If there is substantial evidence of prejudgment or direct financial interest, the vote should be to require the challenged member to step down. Any two (2) members of the Council may request that the chair or the city manager secure a written opinion as to the potential conflict of interest of any Council member.

    Do you think that there will be Councilors who will willingly violate this Council Rule when they select their Councilor appointee?

Print Print | Sitemap
RESTORING BALANCE THROUGH FULL DISCLOSURE

Web ViewMobile View

Logout | Edit page