Last week, I summarized a few concerns regarding the Town of Milford’s approach to Communications and Warrant Article 24 (WA24). Those interested in more detail should watch public comments during the Board of Selectman’s Feb. 14 meeting, available at: http://gtm.milford.nh.gov/CablecastPublicSite/show/2241?channel=2.

Previously, I outlined concerns regarding the lack of voter say over the proposed plan, of which WA24 is only a fragment. Today, I share some background information on WA24. The voters deserve to have the full context of this Warrant Article available to them BEFORE they vote.

In August of 2021, Milford’s Police Department signed a 10-year lease agreement for newly licensed space at Crown Castle. I asked the Board of Selectmen (BOS) under what authority they entered into this long-term lease. I never received a direct answer. Instead, the Town drafted a warrant article to “ratify” the lease.

I then raised several issues about the lease itself during a presentation to the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) on Jan. 18 (View at: http://gtm.milford.nh.gov/CablecastPublicSite/show/2206?channel=2 ).

Following that meeting, Milford took steps that appear to try and mitigate some of the issues raised. According to Town officials, the original agreement, which I believe was improperly executed, has been voided. Milford is now party to an active one-year lease agreement. These changes were made within one-to-two weeks of Milford’s Deliberative Session. Town government seems to feel that all concerns have been resolved.

WA24 is now asking the voters for permission to amend the new agreement to last 10 years.

But, as of the drafting of this letter (Feb. 18), Town officials claim they do not yet have the amendment language they are asking the voters to support.

In addition, the complete current lease agreement quickly executed on Jan. 25, was “unavailable” for an extended period. On February 14, it was affirmed that even the BOS had not yet received a copy. Therefore, they could not have read it. My Jan. 26 request for a copy was only fulfilled on Feb. 17.

Your voters’ guide will show that WA24 is recommended by a majority of the BOS and BAC. Yet, no voting member has confirmed that the new lease, or the amendment language referenced in WA24, was reviewed by the BOS or BAC – before or after endorsement.

How can either group endorse an agreement that was both incomplete and unavailable?

More importantly, how can the voters support uninformed recommendations? We can do better.