LOCKED TOPICS

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:35 pm

I see blatant lies as insults. How about you uscitizen?
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby uscitizen03054 » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:29 pm

I see blatant lies as insults. How about you uscitizen?


Yes, I would not like to see this either but if you're referring to the solid waste debacle, I don’t know who in this town knows the actual costs involved. To me, it appears as if this entire effort is being investigated and implemented simultaneously! I would have rather the costs be determined and reported by public officials and not Merrimack Citizens. Having said this, it is my opinion, if Dennis quoted numbers that were not correct I doubt he did this on purpose. He's not a hauler so he has little to gain in this brouhaha.
User avatar
uscitizen03054
 
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:31 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:43 pm

Actually US, my numbers were correct and Norman Phillips confirmed it. The only problem is how the numbers are added up and the assumptions you make in doing that process. For example, I do not feel adding in the cost for the current CS contracts or for an estimated self haul cost are appropriate.

I do however change my positions once new information is available. A good example of this is on the issue of multiyear contracts; Norm Carr had said the town can't enter in to them so the analysis of the numbers was based upon a single year vs multiyear contract. Since he and the rest of the BOS just voted for a multiyear contract, it is obvious that we can do this and thus the 1 million in savings I had found with the TS dropped to $400,000 since a multiyear contract is appropriate.

When I am wrong, I admit it. I am frustrated when people I put my trust in provide misinformation. I do understand the frustration of the LR people and of David, their champion, as we should all debate the ideas fairly. We can honestly disagree on what numbers should go in or out but to say we could not use a multiyear number when we just signed a mutiyear contract is just wrong.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby uscitizen03054 » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:57 pm

Actually US, my numbers were correct and Norman Phillips confirmed it. The only problem is how the numbers are added up and the assumptions you make in doing that process. For example, I do not feel adding in the cost for the current CS contracts or for an estimated self haul cost are appropriate.


I thought so. I do agree with your assumptions as well, they are fair. The presentation of the numbers could have been done better though. The curbside should just include the contract cost divided by number of households/businesses, end of story. The TS should have had two year costing. The first year's cost figure should include contruction and operation costs while the second year would reflect the operational costs only. Is there a post that lists this information or could you provide it?
User avatar
uscitizen03054
 
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:31 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Muriel Lortie » Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:05 pm

Dennis King wrote:Actually US, my numbers were correct and Norman Phillips confirmed it. The only problem is how the numbers are added up and the assumptions you make in doing that process. For example, I do not feel adding in the cost for the current CS contracts or for an estimated self haul cost are appropriate.

I do however change my positions once new information is available. A good example of this is on the issue of multiyear contracts; Norm Carr had said the town can't enter in to them so the analysis of the numbers was based upon a single year vs multiyear contract. Since he and the rest of the BOS just voted for a multiyear contract, it is obvious that we can do this and thus the 1 million in savings I had found with the TS dropped to $400,000 since a multiyear contract is appropriate.

When I am wrong, I admit it. I am frustrated when people I put my trust in provide misinformation. I do understand the frustration of the LR people and of David, their champion, as we should all debate the ideas fairly. We can honestly disagree on what numbers should go in or out but to say we could not use a multiyear number when we just signed a mutiyear contract is just wrong.

Dennis


Dennis,
Yes, I hold Dave McCray in the highest regard. He was our "ONE" honest & open voice on the previous BOS.

I wonder why Norm Carr had an about face with the multi year contract?
Muriel Lortie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:23 am

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:12 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:I see blatant lies as insults. How about you uscitizen?


How about insinuations that every action of anyone connected with LR has nothing to do with safety concerns and has underlying political motives to simply shut down the TS? As someone with true concerns about the safety of mine and other families as a result of the TS I take such a statement as a direct insult.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:16 pm

uscitizen03054 wrote:Yes, I would not like to see this either but if you're referring to the solid waste debacle, I don’t know who in this town knows the actual costs involved.


A lie can be by omission as well. It has clearly been shown that this town had lower quotes for CS (even Dennis was man enough to admit this) yet when town officals and TS supporters tried to compare it to CS they used the highest single year quote they had to work with.

uscitizen03054 wrote:I would have rather the costs be determined and reported by public officials and not Merrimack Citizens. Having said this, it is my opinion, if Dennis quoted numbers that were not correct I doubt he did this on purpose. He's not a hauler so he has little to gain in this brouhaha.


That's just it US... town officials and haulers used the incorrect numbers as well... and since the town bought on to the lie it's a little late now for the truth to come out.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:08 pm

Muriel,
I would not even speculate on that. I can only say the issue is a bit disquieting. I was troubled by the vote to bring the case against David just as much as I was in David's outburst and attacks on his fellow board members. Still, I remain hopeful that the issue will be resolved. Last I heard it was before one ourt or the other. Hopefully we can move on once the final decision is in.

Dennis


US,

I suggest you ask Norm to look up those numbers. He has them handy.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby Muriel Lortie » Thu Dec 04, 2003 6:27 pm

Dennis King wrote:Muriel,
I would not even speculate on that. I can only say the issue is a bit disquieting. I was troubled by the vote to bring the case against David just as much as I was in David's outburst and attacks on his fellow board members. Still, I remain hopeful that the issue will be resolved. Last I heard it was before one ourt or the other. Hopefully we can move on once the final decision is in.

Dennis


US,

I suggest you ask Norm to look up those numbers. He has them handy.

Dennis


Dennis,

I do realize you have personal issues with David McCray. I feel David was not attacking his fellow Board Members but attempting to tell us what went on behind closed doors. It was and is our money and should have been brought before the townspeople. I supported many of the previous BOS believing they conducted our business before us. BOY, WAS I WRONG! David brought to light the backroom dealings. It was and is our money and we had and have a right to know how it is spent.

Why is Norm Carr now suing us?
Muriel Lortie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:23 am

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 6:33 pm

Muriel, my understanding is that he objected to David's vote to get himself off the case and also the reason they brought the case forward in the first place, ie disclosure of non public information.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby Muriel Lortie » Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:56 pm

Dennis King wrote:Muriel, my understanding is that he objected to David's vote to get himself off the case and also the reason they brought the case forward in the first place, ie disclosure of non public information.

Dennis


Dennis,

I disagree! The previous majority of the BOS had no right to decide behind closed doors a supplemental retirement policy that involved over 100,000.00 dollars of our money. These employees made a wrong judgement in their choice and "WE" the people should not be expected to compensate for their mistake.

You should be thanking Dave McCray for bringing this injustice to light. Aren't you outraged that these lawsuits are now costing us money?
Muriel Lortie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:23 am

Postby RBarnes » Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:36 am

Dennis King wrote:Since he and the rest of the BOS just voted for a multiyear contract, it is obvious that we can do this and thus the 1 million in savings I had found with the TS dropped to $400,000 since a multiyear contract is appropriate.

When I am wrong, I admit it.


Dennis, again you are still off with the $400,000 in savings... to come up with that you are using a total cost of 1.8 million for the TS. Next years budget has it coming in at 2.4 million. $600,000 MORE then the amount used in your figures. So even by your calculations CS is at least $200,000 CHEAPER.

You are wrong, I expect you to be man now and finally admit CS is cheaper! But since this isn’t the first time this is being pointed out to you I doubt you will. After all it took weeks of multiple people badgering you for you to finally admit the 1 million in savings was based on incorrect information.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:31 am

Dennis,

There is a HUGE difference between disagreeing about what costs should be included in a debate and stating unequivocally before the town that the money in question (private collection costs) don't even exist.

If you had just once at least acknowledged this money existed then I would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you didn't, you stood before the town spewing your $1,000,000 figure without any qualification. That is dishonest Dennis, there are no other words for it.

I've asked before so I'll ask again in hopes of one day getting you to be honest:

How can you on one hand claim the private collection costs don't exist yet on the other use them to offset TS operating costs? Either they exist in both balance sheets or neither, but you can't simply pick and choose where they're applicable and where they're not.

Your integrity is at stake here Dennis.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Dennis King » Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:58 am

I'd respond to the two previous writers but wonder, why bother?

Nothing I say will ever be good enough and they have both called me a liar which I now understand means saying things they do not agree with.

I did not respond to any badgering but did respond to a vote ( a selective ommission by one writer).

I have posted my rationale before.

These posters need only go back an read it.

Trouble is, they will continue to call me a liar and ridicule me because I simply see it differently.

Kinda puts the topic of the thread back in to perspective.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby RBarnes » Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:14 pm

Dennis King wrote:Trouble is, they will continue to call me a liar and ridicule me because I simply see it differently.


Dennis, when things are in black and white there is no way to see them differently. Facts are facts and to ignore or omit facts is just another form of lying.

You have been told countless times that even the $400,000 in savings you continue to spout is wrong. You use 1.8 million as the total costs of the TS but that number is just plan wrong. We have actual budget numbers to work with and they show the TS costing the town $2.26 million.

To continue to spout off that the TS is $400,000 cheaper then CS when your numbers have been pointed out to be incorrect is a lie. There's no other way to describe it. This isn't meant to be an insult, it is just pointing out a fact.

If I were to make comments about your weight or appearance then I would agree you have reason to cry about being insulted but all I have done is stated FACTS. To use incorrect data or omit data is the same as LYING. And you have done both.

Further more as Mark has tried very nicely to explain to you a number of times is that you cannot use revenue from haulers to off set a cost in one example then say it shouldn't be used when comparing in another example. That too is dishonest and you have done that as well.

So I suggest you take a long look at what you are saying before you want to cry victim. The fact you can’t even back up your 1 million shortened down to 400,000 in saves claims with actual numbers and have to screen look at Norms numbers says everything. Just once I would like to see you actually back up your statements and if questions about actual numbers (as I am questioning the total cost you are using for the TS) to respond as an adult rather then use the martyr routine.
.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

PreviousNext

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron