In a recent statement to the Valley News, Lebanon Police Chief Richard Mello asserted the importance of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants to the city (“Immigration policy will go to voters,” Jan. 24). Lebanon was awarded a COPS grant in November 2017 to help pay for two entry-level police officers
We should consider the “costs” of that grant to the city and to the people of Lebanon. First, there is the financial cost. According to Mello’s statement, the grant covered 75% of the officers’ salaries, or about $192,000, through the city’s 2020 fiscal year. A more accurate cost of hiring and retaining the officers is provided in the City Council minutes from Dec. 6, 2017. At that meeting, Chief Mello indicated that “the total cost for the two officers for three years … (was) $686,320, assuming that they … (were) at the top of the pay scale.” Retaining the two officers for a fourth year, as required by the grant, was estimated to add another $250,000, resulting in a total cost of more than $900,000.
Another “cost” attached to the COPS grant was the chief’s decision to certify a “willingness to cooperate with federal immigration authorities” in order to gain extra points on the grant application. Mello did this even though he was not required to. About 35 cities and jurisdictions received grants that year even though they did not agree to aid in the enforcement of immigration law.
The greatest “cost” may be the effect of Chief Mello’s decision on our immigrant neighbors and on our community as a whole. While we cannot be certain, it is reasonable to believe that the increased presence of federal immigration agents in the city is a result of the chief’s stated willingness to aid those agents in their work. That presence has caused fear and trauma within our city and the Upper Valley.
Given these facts and concerns, many Lebanon residents will agree that the “costs” of the COPS grant are much too high.
KATHLEEN BECKETT
Lebanon
The last three years in New Hampshire have seen an economic boom thanks to the pro-growth and pro-business policies of Gov. Chris Sununu.
Democrats are frantically trying to obstruct the governor’s success, but his work ethic and ability to get things done — despite their resistance — is a testament to how effective our governor is.
Our state’s unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in memory. More people are working than ever before, our exports are up over 10%, and opportunity keeps knocking at New Hampshire’s door.
Democrats like state Sen. Dan Feltes and Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky want you to think the sky is falling, but nothing could be further from the truth. Feltes and Volinsky can harangue as much as they want, but they just can’t challenge the facts: Things are extremely good in New Hampshire under Gov. Sununu’s leadership.
The Democrats’ attempts to hold our state back from life-changing charter school grants or obstructing judicial appointments only give reason to vote for Gov. Sununu and members of his Republican Party this November. That’s what I’ll be doing, and I’d encourage you to do that too.
REBECCA BAILEY
Piermont
In looking over issues that New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu supports and bills that he vetoed, patterns emerge and questions arise.
What kind of governor makes one of his highest priorities a school voucher program that (if it had passed) would have diverted $100 million in taxpayer dollars away from public schools to pay for scholarships to unaccountable private, mostly religious, schools?
What kind of governor appoints a commissioner of education with no experience in public education? A commissioner who has spent his tenure pushing privatization schemes that would undermine public schools while failing to address the funding crisis that’s led some districts to stop offering language, gym, music and even science classes?
What kind of governor vetoes an independent redistricting commission that would end gerrymandering and lead to fairer elections? His veto message states that “Legislators should not abrogate their responsibility to the voters and delegate authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission.” In fact, the bill only authorized the independent commission to make recommendations, leaving sole responsibility for redistricting with the Legislature. Who misconstrues such a simple concept?
Who would veto a raft of bills designed to reduce carbon emissions and increase clean energy in the face of a looming climate crisis?
What kind of governor would veto bipartisan enabling legislation that would allow towns to raise money for transportation infrastructure?
Or veto the repeal of the death penalty that gained broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate?
What kind of governor is this? This is a governor who does not support public education, fair elections, cleaner energy or bipartisanship. Pretty simple.
MAUREEN F. PROHL
Elkins, N.H.
The Los Angeles Times editorial published on Feb. 7 (“Trump’s acquittal: A stain on American history and a dangerous marker of what’s to come”), didn’t tell the entire story of what happened in the recent impeachment process.
The editorial completely skipped over the reality that it’s the House of Representatives’ job, under the U.S. Constitution, to begin an impeachment inquiry, and it did that. No one should be surprised that the Democratic majority in the House, after hearing testimony from 17 witnesses, voted on two articles of impeachment alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. These are hardly crimes, sounding more like the subjects for a high school debate club.
The outcome was never in question because the Democrats have held the majority in the House since the 2018 midterm elections, and in record time it was voted upon to move the articles to the Senate because the president was such a danger to our national security. Not one Republican in the House voted for these articles. Two Democrats voted against both of them, and one Democrat voted against the obstruction of Congress article. After a delay of 33 days, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered these articles to the Senate.
The Times editorial states, “There can be little doubt that Trump abused the power of his office.” I contend there is lots of doubt.
The Republicans and Democrats who voted against these articles, and the attorneys who represented the president in the Senate (when the president finally got to mount a defense), including constitutional law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz, felt these charges fell far short of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the standard required in the U.S. Constitution for impeachment.
Led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, an orderly process occurred in the Senate, including a vote of 51-49 not to call further witnesses. After closing arguments, the Senate voted 52-48 to acquit the president on the abuse of power charge, and 53-47 on the obstruction of Congress charge.
JOHN NELSON
Wilder
This is regarding the recent Perspectives column by Susan P. Thomas (“Trump’s show of power is all show,” Feb. 16), in which she focuses on a recording of President Donald Trump talking with donor Lev Parnas about firing Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
I looked online for that clip. It’s about 20 seconds of bad camera work, then a colored screen and just audio. In this day and age, with people being able to manipulate audio and video, that is a stretch.
As a citizen you have the right of free speech. I find it odd that most states have a fire-at-will employment policy. So I ask this question: Why does the president of the United States not have the power to hire and fire who he wishes?
Like I always say, you know what, you have careful what you wish for.
SALVATORE ZAMPANO
Springfield, Vt.
Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump: a match made in the Underworld. Divorced ex-husbands. Partners in bigotry, hate and homophobia. Both debase the Presidential Medal of Freedom for all the real recipients of that prestigious award. Neither is a role model for anything good; both are contributing to tearing down the fabric of American life.
Pete and Chasten Buttigieg: a match made in Heaven. Legal spouses. Partners in love, compassion and kindness. Both exemplify the courage and persistence it takes for out gay men in America to succeed, to be positive role models and upstanding citizens contributing to the fabric of American life.
As two proud lesbian members of the larger American LGBTQ community, it is important that we publicly refute Rush Limbaugh’s homophobic attacks on Pete Buttigieg and his husband. The concept of bullying those you don’t know because of whom they love and how they choose to show that love to the world is the mark of a true hater.
Stand with us and speak out against homophobia and hate of every kind.
ALIX OLSON
and MARTHA POPP
Canaan