In their enthusiasm to once again demonstrate the charitable nature of  their social souls, our selectmen have obviously lost sight of one of the most fundamental principals on which our federal, state and local governments was founded.

The premises of “majority rule” in our democratic society has always been tempered with the safeguard that at no time should the will of the majority be permitted to infringe on the rights of the minority, or even an individual.

Governments were established to undertake those unique responsibilities which it was assumed private individual could not do alone.  National defense, law enforcement and public education were three of the earliest and most obvious examples of these activities.  Local governmental bodies are not designed to act as fund raising, taxing

and/or collection agencies for private enterprises, no matter how noble or sacred their mission.

For years, however, Amherst’s selectmen and voters have passively approved “just a few dollars” to support what less than a decade ago were three  local health-related agencies at a cost of only $2,000 to $3,000.  There were protestors who were soundly voted down and frequently ridiculed as being insensitive and uncaring . . . neither characterization being accurate or true.

This year, buried the Welfare section of the Town Warrant we find:

                Souhegan Nursing                    6,500.00

                St. Joseph’s Elderly                     600.00

                Souhegan Handicapped         3,000.00

                Nashua Mental Health            2,845.00

                Milford Counseling                 3,000.00

                Nashua Meditation                     750.00

                                                      ============= 

                                                              $  16,695.00 

This amounts to a 100% increase in the number of “budgeted” agencies and  a 500%+ increase in dollars being appropriated!

In addition, we find two separate Warrant Articles seeking an additional $6,000.00 in funds for two other private, non-municipal activities:

  • Article #15            $ 1,000.00 “… to join with seven neighboring communities in funding the Gateway Family Planning satellite clinic …”
  • Article #23            $ 5,000.00 “… town’s “share of the fire protection installation planned by the Congregational Church . . .”

Few would argue that the services provided by each of these organizations do not benefit some of the citizens of our community.  Nor is the few cents by which the tax rate might be impacted by the appropriation of these monies likely to drive anyone from his/her home.

As for the fire protection system “contribution” for the Congregational Church, this represents a clear First Amendment violation of the separation of church and state.  And, if the steeple represents a serious fire hazard (hard is to believe), it would be far more appropriate for the town to donate it to the church (an attempt to accomplish this failed several years ago) or remove it from the building.

However, it is both immoral and obscene that in a free society any individual should be FORCED to contribute even a single cent to any private organization for any reason! 

Each of us should be free to make his/her own decisions as to how their charitable contributions will be directed.  The implied threat is clear . . . either donate through your property tax or the Town hold your property hostage. 

This “gun-to-the-head” approach is repugnant to our American way of life!

The Amherst selectmen should show some moral courage and immediately withdraw the Welfare line items relating to outside services and urge the defeat of Articles #15 and #23. 

The Town Meeting voters, however passionately they support any or all of these causes, should respect the individual rights of their fellow citizens and vote down the requested appropriations.  They should then use their energies as volunteers for these agencies, to assist in the needed fund raising activities for them and to make what ever size donations their own circumstances dictate.  They should not utilize town tax appropriations to effectively steal monies from unwilling donors whose priorities may differ from theirs!