Former Board member and prominent FORE supporter David Taylor has filed suit against the District, claiming that the Board violated New Hampshire's Right-To-Know laws during the search for an interim Superintendent.
Longtime readers of this blog may well find themselves choking on their coffee here.
Longtime readers of this blog may well find themselves choking on their coffee here.
Is this the same David Taylor that, as a Board member, moved to eliminate public participation in meetings, saying it was "corrosive" and “grandstanding” (Insights from School Board Meeting)?
Is this the same David Taylor who consistently voted against proposals that would increase the public's involvement in District affairs, including the Strategic Plan Committee and the Advisory Budget Committee?
For those of you without long memories, see the perspective of a former Board member here: Letter from Kim Clark to Undecided Voters, and information from the Taylor’s last campaign here: Holding David Taylor to His Record.
Guess the shoe feels different when it’s on the other foot!
In any case, Taylor's complaint (Click Here) makes interesting reading. While it would be wise to remember that a court filing is simply a set of accusations, the exhibits seem to show that at least one Board member, Ann Wright, knowingly sought to evade the provisions of RSA 91-A by sending sequential e-mails, first to one half of the Board, then the other (see pages 19-20 of the filing).
This is serious business--far more serious than the accusations leveled against Jim Kach, who, however indefensible his statements on Twitter, at least is not accused of doing anything illegal. Will we see similar outrage from the likes of Ruth Sample and the rest of FORE's members? Will they put up an online petition calling for Wright to resign? Or would that run contrary to the "culture of civility and respect" that they claim to embrace?
I think those of us who know something of the players in this debate for some time already know the answer. For everyone else: don't hold your breath.
In any case, Taylor's complaint (Click Here) makes interesting reading. While it would be wise to remember that a court filing is simply a set of accusations, the exhibits seem to show that at least one Board member, Ann Wright, knowingly sought to evade the provisions of RSA 91-A by sending sequential e-mails, first to one half of the Board, then the other (see pages 19-20 of the filing).
This is serious business--far more serious than the accusations leveled against Jim Kach, who, however indefensible his statements on Twitter, at least is not accused of doing anything illegal. Will we see similar outrage from the likes of Ruth Sample and the rest of FORE's members? Will they put up an online petition calling for Wright to resign? Or would that run contrary to the "culture of civility and respect" that they claim to embrace?
I think those of us who know something of the players in this debate for some time already know the answer. For everyone else: don't hold your breath.
- Tom Bebbington
Before accusing Ann of breaking the law, you might want to read the law you cite and attempt to understand what it says. Specifically, 91-A:2-a,I provides, in part, that "public bodies shall deliberate on matters on which they have supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power." Ann's comments, to which you allude, do not in any way attempt to address substantive matters before the board awaiting decisions and, as such, are not "deliberations" as expressly addressed by the statute. Instead, she was commenting on decisions that had already been made and raising some concerns about the process, in particular, the fact that she was left out of those deliberations. Such post-deliberative communications are not what the act addresses. Rather, the statute is intended to prevent public bodies from deliberating over substantive issues outside of public view. Please take the time to know what you are talking about before maligning others.
ReplyDeleteTom Loureiro
Mr. Loureiro:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment; it made me realize that I had not been entirely clear. You have taken what I wrote earlier as an accusation that Ms. Wright was engaged in what the law refers to as “deliberating outside of a meeting”; that was not my intent.
While such goings-on are specifically prohibited (see R.S.A. Section 91-A:2-a), that is not the only activity that is enjoined by the Right-To-Know law. Also covered by the law are issues relating to the preservation and availability to the public of "governmental records", which the law defines as "any written communication or other information, whether in paper, electronic, or other physical form, received by a quorum or majority of a public body in furtherance of its official function, whether at a meeting or outside a meeting of the body" (Section 91-A:1-a).
Going back to Section 91-A:2-a again, paragraph II reads "Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit and purpose of this chapter as expressed in RSA 91-A:1."
Tying this back to Ms. Wright’s e-mails, it appears that she (mistakenly) believed that by sending her e-mail “in two batches so that I don’t send to a quorum of the board” she would not be creating a “governmental record” that would be subject to disclosure under the Right-To-Know law. In doing so, she was deliberately attempting to circumvent the law; that’s wrong, regardless of the content of the message.
Thanks again for writing; I hope this clarification is helpful.
--Tom Bebbington
Thanks, Tom. Your attempt at clarification is helpful but perhaps not in the way you intend. It does help me understand your thinking but also illustrates your fundamental lack of understanding with respect to the law. You've done what can only be deemed, "cherry picking," taking bits and pieces from different sections, jumbling them together with tidbits of information taken out of any context and conflating them to reach an illogical conclusion. I would note, in all your writing on the subject, that you have not identified any important public business that was conducted out of the public eye or concealed from view. Far more concerning to me is that you now seem to be claiming powers of clairvoyance, telling us, based on a few emails, what Ann "believed" and concluding that she was "deliberately attempting to circumvent the law." Really? Are you certain? Those are rather strong and potentially actionable assertions. I fully support your right to express your opinions and I am sure we both would agree that vigorous public debate of important topics is a good thing. Libelous character assassination, however, does nothing to advance respectful public discourse. I'll refrain from questioning your character and motives, and would ask that you extend the same courtesy to others.
ReplyDeleteTom and Tom -
ReplyDeleteThanks for this dialogue. I think that Right to Know laws are confusing to some and this clarification helps me and hopefully others in the community understand. What I find ironic is that when David Taylor was on the board (with others), there was several instances where the law was broken and the community could have sued for "injunctive relief". However, this did not happen. Why? Well...first, I believe that it would have caused more of a rift than there already was at the time in the community and second, would have prevented the continuation of what the board is really supposed to be doing - furthering the excellent education of our kids.
Now...reading your last comment, you are probably wondering what proof I have of this. First was the right to know requests of the bidding policy from 2008. The contracts we sought to review were never established. (http://oysterrivercommunity.blogspot.com/2008/10/procurement-audit-report.html)
Next, was the fact that Howard Colter's contract was signed by a former board chair without any deliberation by the school board. (http://oysterrivercommunity.blogspot.com/2009/02/school-board-article-in-fosters.html)
There are others as well but these were the two that I remember. Again, grounds for injunctive relief but instead of seeking out and talking one on one to Mr. Brackett and/or the rest of the board, it appears as if David Taylor went to the extreme. It is unfortunate that in the past few months we have been dealing with a focused targeted attack on board members.
An interesting discourse on the finer points of law here. I suggest we focus instead for a moment on the blunt edges. Without assigning merit or lack thereof to Mr. Taylor's complaint, I think it is important to acknowledge some substantively disturbing themes the complaint raises. The most significant, in my opinion, is the dysfunctional lack of transparency in board communication outside of board meetings. I have witnessed this dysfunction firsthand during the meetings, and find the confirmation of its presence outside of meetings, within the board itself both unsurprising and alarming.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know what Ms. Wright believed – I can only reflect on what she wrote. In her 4/30 email (included in Mr. Taylor’s complaint) she wrote that she was sending her concerns in two separate emails to avoid a quorum. Why would that be of concern, if there was not an awareness that communicating as a quorum outside of a publicized meeting was not a best practice? She wrote that the Chair convened a meeting (or unmeeting?) with the attorney that every board member attended but her, because the Chair failed to confirm the meeting with her. Ms. Wright states in that email that the Chair advised her that he “shared her view” at the (non)meeting, and that she felt the Board “voted” as a result of the (non)meeting. My heart breaks for Ms. Wright – her angst is palpable, and she appears to be trying to share her serious concerns about Board communication practice in a way that won’t publicly embarrass the Board – that substance should be more significant than the technical implications.
What the hell were they all doing meeting with an attorney if they weren’t conducting Board business that is supposed to be conducted only at Board meetings (publicized, public or non)? Were the facts under consideration so convoluted that it required nearly full Board attendance to get an accurate account of reality? Is there not a sense among themselves that 1 or 2 or even 3 Board members can accurately represent fact-of-law concerns to the attorney and be responsible for bringing the guidance back to a legal full board meeting to inform discussion? It appears that the Board doesn't trust each other to that extent.
With all due respect to Mr. Loureio, there is no way to know if what was discussed at this (non)meeting was important public business or not because the agenda was not publicized – nor were any subsequent agendas publicized for similar gatherings. If the Board is interested in meeting to discuss unimportant public business, then perhaps they would consider doing it less expensively. I don’t pay my attorney almost $10,000 to do unimportant things. I would expect that the School Board be as fiscally prudent.
There are so many hiccups of best practice that our district is struggling with – so many good intentions that get derailed on the tracks of poor communication. I have no political idealogy to apply here – I only want a functioning School Board that publicly owns their successes and missteps so I can trust them. The attorney bill alone for service around so many (non)meetings, is an indicator that our Board members want to do the right thing….and will seek guidance in that effort. That quest, however, needs to be transparent. That won’t happen if there continues to be an organizational culture that will only acknowledge struggles behind closed doors. Board integrity is dependent on those struggles being public. Until then, the community knows only what they see – and we see a mess of a Board that either doesn’t understand the laws it’s charged with operating under enough to be functional or understands them just fine…and is taking the chance that no one will notice if they’re skirted. Perhaps a first Board goal is a primer on Board purpose and role. Then Board law. Then Board communication and leadership. Then, maybe, we can get to education stuff. Please.
How about a hand for Mr. David Taylor. Way to go, David. Waste even more of the community tax dollars. Now the school board has to pay even more legal fees to handle this ridiculous lawsuit. And now spend even more time away from dealing with important issues. Perhaps someone should be looking into Mr. Taylor's emails and communications during his time on the board? Or perhaps he's just trying to delay that from ever happening? Sounds like a hypocritical ass in my opinion. And I mean that in a sincere way.
ReplyDelete