Where Todd I. Selig Admits to Some Heavy Lifting...But Not All. - Granite Grok

Where Todd I. Selig Admits to Some Heavy Lifting…But Not All.

Book of Bad Habiits-Cheating
Image credit – boysguidebooks.blogspot.com

Several of us writing here at GraniteGrok have taken to task Durham Town Administrator Todd I. Selig for both his position on the issue of raising the gas tax and how he went about showing his support for it.  Literally.  The letter he submitted to various publications around New Hampshire, explaining his support for the tax, included direct quotes from other sources–in some cases lifted in their entirety–without attribution.

In a recent comment to one of those posts Mr. Selig reiterates his position and admits the following.

In addition, I did quote heavily from TRIP in the paragraphs noted, in particular in the second to last paragraph without attribution. I view the TRIP overview of the deficiencies in NH roadways to be factual and accurate and fully consistent with my own understanding of the issue. The words used represent my perspective. I take full responsibility for them. Further, I did subsequently write to TRIP and the organization had no objection to the use of the material as utilized.

Subsequently?

That is the operative word here.  “Further, I did subsequently write to TRIP...”  After you were caught passing off their words as your own.  It does not matter if you find them factual and accurate and fully consistent with any understanding other than that you submitted them for publication as written by you when they were not yours in the first place.  So while you claim to take full responsibility for them are you taking responsibility for agreeing with them or for plagiarism?

The latter is of some import.  As observed by C.dog, in a followup to my observations, the second to last paragraph is not the only one in which Town Administrator Selig’s consistent understanding rests heavily on other sources.  And while fair use can be claimed for bits, and sharing numerical data is generally acceptable regardless of the source in your own context, Selig’s letter taken as a whole suggests a pattern of abuse that should not be easily dismissed.

To that end, here is Selig’s original document, with all the parts lifted word-for-word without attribution (thanks to C.dog for the majority of that good work) hi-lighted in red.

The Importance of HB 617 to New Hampshire

by Todd I. Selig

After lengthy debate on March 6th, the NH House passed HB 617, a bill that increases the road toll, commonly referred to by opponents as the “Gas Tax,” by 4 cents per gallon of gasoline in each of the next three years (fiscal years 2014 – 2016) and then 3 cents in fiscal year 2017, for a total 15-cent increase over the current road toll of 18 cents per gallon.  It is referred to as the 4-4-4-3 plan with Rep. David Campbell of Nashua as the prime sponsor.

This additional revenue would be placed in a separate fund within the constitutionally protected highway fund to be used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of state and municipal roads and bridges – investment that will equate to good jobs across New Hampshire, particularly within the construction, engineering, paving, and aggregate industries.

Projections show the modest change in the road toll would result in increased highway block grant funding for municipalities of $3.6 million in 2014 to over $13 million in 2017 and beyond, for a total increase of $117 million over the next ten years. For communities working diligently to stabilize local tax rates across the granite state, this increase is significant.  To put it into concrete terms, the 4-4-4-3 plan would mean an additional $250,962 for Bath; $2,982,522 for Concord; $949,347 for Durham; $980,731 for Exeter; $573,305 for Henniker; $1,656,408 for Keene; $1,140,890 for Laconia; $6,851,848 for Manchester; $5,364,972 for Nashua; $2,079,901 for Rochester; $2,195,307 for Salem; and $112,771 for Woodstock.  Local taxpayers in every town and city across NH benefit from the 4-4-4-3 plan.

But much needed additional revenue for municipalities targeted to roadway repairs is not all that this bill provides. The increase would also fund an additional $8.5 million per year for municipal bridge and highway aid programs, fully fund the I-93 widening project, fully fund the state’s grossly underfunded ten year transportation plan, and provide resources to address the 1600+ miles of state roads currently rated in “poor” condition.

The road toll is a true user fee that has not been increased in over 20 years.  If the citizens of New Hampshire want decent roads, someone will have to pay for them, and it is only appropriate that the cost be borne by the users.  Those who drive less would pay less; those who drive more would pay more.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted on March 20th to recommend reducing the road toll increases from four cents/four cents/four cents/three cents over the next four years, to simply four/four/four.  This is a mistake.  Full implementation of the 4-4-4-3 plan is reasonable and necessary to meet the state’s transportation needs. Here is why.

At 18 cents per gallon, New Hampshire’s road toll is currently the lowest in New England.   

An important aspect of the road toll is that it does not translate penny for penny at the pump.  Drive into Maine with a higher gas tax than NH and you can find lower gas prices there.  This is because supply and demand is the primary driver of gas prices, not the road toll.  When the average driver drives 12,000 miles per year, getting an average of 22.6 mpg, it will cost an additional $79.65 per year after the 15 cents increase is fully implemented.  This cost is based on the assumption that the 15 cent increase passes through penny for penny at the pump, which is unlikely.   

Even assuming that every penny is passed onto the driver at the pump, the cost of $79.65 is less than what the average NH driver is currently spending on vehicle maintenance and repairs due to poor NH road conditions ($323/year), as reported by TRIP, a national transportation group. And in some areas of the state it is worse.  The average driver in the Southern New Hampshire area, including Manchester and Nashua, loses $503 annually due to driving on deteriorated roads, while rough roads cost the average Dover-Rochester-Portsmouth driver $400 annually.

New Hampshire faces an annual transportation funding shortfall of $74 million, more than one third of the state’s major roads are deteriorated, nearly a third of Granite State bridges are in need of repair or replacement, and the state’s rural traffic fatality rate is disproportionately higher than that of other roads in the state.  Unless NH can increase transportation investment, conditions are projected to worsen significantly in the future.  This serves none of us well and works against the NH advantage.

HB 617, at the 4-4-4-3 level, is a good plan and deserves the support of the NH Legislature.  Opposing it is a hard road to travel for our representatives and senators in Concord.

That’s a lot of red.  And for the record, Selig’s direct sources (as previously noted and linked by C.Dog and Scott Morales) are the New Hampshire Municipal Association  Legilsaive Bulletin #10 and Legislative Bulletin #12Daily Dirt and the TRIP Report.

Roughly 43% of these words are directly attributable to these sources.   And not just the source ideas, the text itself in total–except where Todd adds a word or two so that he might take responsibility for them as his own, as well as the credit, right up until he was called out on it.

This could not have been accidental.  The Durham Town Administrator plucked these paragraphs out of their original context, added a word or two to some of them, then mixed in a few paragraphs of his own.   The fact that it duplicates his own position is hardly the point.  I quote a great many sources but it behooves me to cite them, quote them, credit, and attribute their words to them, whether I agree with them or not.  And what strikes me as even more strange is that while he admits to the specific reference I cite here (see comments below this post)  his other indiscretions (noted by C.dog in his followup post to mine) go unmentioned and un-absolved–except to say…

Because the NH Municipal Association and our community are on the same page relative to this issue of importance to towns and cities, it is quite reasonable that I would rely heavily on their research and explanations provided through the excellent Legislative Bulletins that are sent out each Friday during the legislative process by the organization. I did and kept the organization informed relative to my efforts. 

There is a difference between the spirit of “being on the same page,” relying “heavily on their research,” and using copy and paste – signed, Todd I. Selig.

Now I am certain that Mr. Selig did not rise to his position without having an original thought or without developing the skill of paraphrasing in his own words ideas he holds in concert with others–but he might have, and I cannot continue to wonder if this recent ‘letter’ is but the latest installment of an oeuvre replete with similar textual appropriations without proper credit.  While I have no intention of pursing an investigation to that end I would not object at all to being informed of the details of such an endeavor if undertaken by someone else.

I am also reasonably certain that the only reason Mr. Selig stooped down from his perch to respond to us at all was because the first two hits on a Google search of his name are my post asking if he is a plagiarist and Scott’s–referring to him as an economic ignoramus.  Or maybe this is news to him?  That would be entertaining.  I wonder if he’ll quote us?

 

>