Op/Ed in Fosters today...Join us on Facebook!
The Oyster River School Board may be within its rights to not release a controversial e-mail chain between former School Board Chair Mark Townsend and attorneys from the district and the New Hampshire School Board Association.
That said, the board should waive attorney-client privilege and release the e-mails in the name of open and transparent governance.
The e-mails had been requested by Foster's Daily Democrat and district residents to shed light on the recent resignation of Townsend and allegations leveled by and against him. These allegations include personal wranglings between Townsend and board member Ann Wright over comments allegedly made about her family.
In addition, Townsend leveled charges of "backroom deals" and a "toxic" board environment when he announced his resignation Monday.
Under the state's Right-to-Know Law, attorney-client communications can be withheld from the public, but don't have to be.
Most often this exclusion is used when boards seek advice concerning personnel problems, labor contracts or land purchases — not nasty internal board matters.
In the case of the Oyster River School Board, the e-mail exchange was brought on by Townsend seeking a legal opinion about "the proper role of the board and individual members with respect to communication with town officials," according to Superintendent Howard Colter.
But while the Right-to-Know Law allows legal correspondence to be withheld, it requires matters concerning board members to be aired in public.
The decision to withhold the e-mails comes down on the wrong side of this fine line.
The public has a right to know what is going on among board members — their elected public officials. In this case, the information is particularly important because of Townsend's allegations the board is essentially dysfunctional. And further, that it is doing business behind closed doors, i.e. backroom deals.
The latter charge, in particular, raises the specter of illegal behavior on the part of board members.
In the long run, refusing to release the e-mails will do more harm than good. It will leave lingering doubt over the veracity of all school board members and their actions.
That serves neither the residents of the Oyster River School District nor its students.
The voice of reason!
ReplyDeleteI am questioning how an e-mail can be considered confidential attorney client privilege if the communication was sent outside board business. If Mark was making personal attacks against board members, how is that considered board business for the town, and, business that is protected by privilege. Wouldn't confidential attorney client privilege relate only to board business? Were the personal remarks discussed and voted on at a board meeting? I am not a lawyer but it seems like they are stretching the law a bit. I really don't care what is in the e-mails but if other people want to know and have the right, so be it!
ReplyDeleteI love how Mark gets off the hook for what he said. Someone should hold him accountable!!! I mean, he disparaged other board members, calls them "toxic", and claims backroom deals. He should be held accountable in court and sued for slander! How can he just walk away from this and not have to answer for it!?!?!
ReplyDeleteWhat a scumbag and a backstabber! This district should get answers from him...I hate how the poor board members left have to deal with his garbage!
Thank you Foster's!!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put any stock into Mark Townsend's allegations of backroom deals. We all saw him lie during his last Board meeting ("I don't recall sending those e-mails") and I'd bet dollars to donuts that he's lying about this, too.
ReplyDeleteDid the Board vote to decide to NOT make the e-mail public? If so, when?
ReplyDeleteI have the same question as Megan does?
ReplyDeleteFrom a legal standpoint, I am wondering if the e-mail from Mark to the board and the attorney could constitute an illegal meeting. Please read the following provision from the NH School Board Association website:
ReplyDelete"The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office offered this statement regarding e-mail
use by a public body and whether or not such communications are considered a
“meeting” under the Right to Know Law:
E-mail use should be carefully limited to avoid an inadvertent meeting, albeit
one where there is a failure to have a physical quorum at a noticed meeting
place. Simultaneous e-mails sent to a quorum of a public body by a member
discussing, proposing action on, or announcing how one will vote on a matter
within the jurisdiction of the body would constitute an improper meeting.
Sequential e-mail communications among members of a public body similarly
should not be used to circumvent the public meeting requirement. For example,
e-mail among a quorum of members of a public body in a manner that does not
constitute contemporaneous discussion or deliberation and does not involve
matters over which the body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory
power does not technically constitute a meeting under the Right-to-Know law.
E-mail discussions of a quorum concerning matters over which the public body
has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power would run counter to its
spirit and purpose.
"Consultation with legal counsel is neither a “meeting” under RSA chapter 91- A, nor does it fall within the “non-public” meeting provisions. If a public body is meeting in public session and wants to consult with legal counsel, it should vote on the record to adjourn the meeting. See Appendix B for a model motion to adjourn for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel. If the public body intends to reconvene the public meeting, it should vote to temporarily adjourn the meeting for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel, giving notice to those present that the meeting will be reconvening. Everyone except the members of the public body should be excluded from the room where consultation occurs during any consultation with legal counsel. Minutes are not required or appropriate for consultation with legal counsel. Consultation with legal counsel should be limited to discussion of legal issues. Deliberation about the matter on which advice is sought may not occur during consultation with legal counsel. The public body must reconvene and, unless
ReplyDeletea statutory exemption allowing deliberation in non-public session exists, conduct deliberation in public session."http://www.nhsba.org/documents/legal/NHAttorneyGeneralRighttoKnowmemo.pdf
Didn't Townsend send the e-mail to the Principals as well? Would that change the legal status of the e-mail; privilege versus meeting status?
ReplyDeleteI guess name calling people like Mark and other board members along with other fair board members is fair game on this blog. Yet, those who hold your positions like Kim and Doug can't be taken to task in any way. It seems clear that everyone posting here is like minded and not open to other positions that are contrary. This is not about transparency;it's about shaming decent people and ramming things down peoples' throats that many of us don't want. Cut the school budget my millions as Mr. Spiedel appears to be calling for and you will see the others come out in droves
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Mark Townsend's screw up has placed Oyster River under a microscope with the media. His loyalty to Colter as well as all the drama in recent months, has, once again, exposed Colter and his inability to lead our school district. I hardly think that people will come out in droves to support him. Mr. Spiedel makes a strong case for decreased spending. I really don't think the teachers like Colter. Many are simply afraid of cut-backs and losing their jobs. In reality, the majority of teachers would be safe and any potential cut backs would be necessary due to decreasing enrollment.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the e-mails, I am interested in what the above blogger said about the Principals receiving a copy of the e-mails and how this might play into attorney client privilege with the school board. The Principals are not on the school board and if they have access to privileged board information, shouldn't the community?
The fact that Mark Townsend included the Principals on his "send list," would indicate that his intent was not to keep the e-mail confidential attorney-client privilege.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above post that if other people other than school board members were sent that email, it should not be considered confidential-attorney-client privilege. Things here are black and white - not a shade of gray.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know who the new board chair/asst. chair are?
ReplyDeleteThe board chair will be elected this Wednesday at the meeting.
ReplyDeleteSo Henry, as asst. chair, doesn't automatically assume the position?
ReplyDeleteI think any board member can be chair. I don't think it automatically goes to Henry.
ReplyDeleteThe above blogger was speaking about the Principals receiving a copy of the e-mail that Townsend sent out to the board. Has anyone confirmed this? If this is true, and the public does have a right to know, it would seem like yet another misrepresentation.
ReplyDeleteWe need the SAU to officially release a list of everyone that received a copy of Townsend's letter.
ReplyDeleteI heard through the grapevine that they got the resignation letter (I think this is common practice). I have not heard they got the attorney e-mail.
ReplyDeleteThrough thehaze and pain of physical exhaustion the solution came to me. Isnt it obvious.
ReplyDeletenifty eroyic stories
prison rape stories
man and female dogs beastiality stories
xnxx stories my 14 inch cock
bdsm sex stories
Through thehaze and pain of physical exhaustion the solution came to me. Isnt it obvious.