This article appeared in today's issue of Fosters Daily Democrat, and is posted here with their kind permission:
Oyster River School Board breaks Right to Know, superintendent search still valid
By ANDREA BULFINCH
abulfinch@fosters.com
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
DOVER— While a Superior Court ruling found the Oyster River School Board violated the Right to Know law, it has not invalidated the board's actions taken in the superintendent search process.
According to board attorney Dennis Ducharme, the board may move forward now with the signing of a contract, still in negotiations, between the district and the selected candidate for superintendent, James Morse.
"I think that was the most important piece from my perspective," Ducharme said. The suit, filed by Durham resident and former board member David Taylor, alleges the board violated state Right to Know law as well as the board's own policies relating to meetings held and decisions made during the search process. The court did find that the board violated the law and its own policies and enjoined the board from committing future violations to include voting by secret ballot where prohibited by law and communicating by email so as to circumvent the statute's public meeting requirement, the conduct that resulted in the violations.
The board was also found to have violated the Right to Know law in its process for selecting community members to the screening committee in the superintendent search. It also failed to publish minutes of a public meeting within the time required by law.
Taylor said he considered this a fair decision and hopes the board does not continue the same behavior in the future.
"I hope they start respecting the citizens right to know," he said.
He also said he hopes the board will listen to the superintendent in the future as he claims there have been times the board has ignored instructions.
"Hope the turnover of the board and the turnover of the superintendent will turn over a new leaf in the district," he said.
Should violations be made in the future it is unclear whether the board could be sanctioned as a whole, or if individual members would be sanctioned. Ducharme said it wasn't something he could comment on nor could he speculate what issues might come up in the future as it would depend on what Taylor would decide to do should he feel the board has committed any further violations.
"Every case is different and exactly what perceived wrong he will find down the road or arguments he will make, I can't speculate," he said.
Taylor, who also filed a suit against the board in 2011 alleging improper meetings were held before former superintendent Howard Colter's buyout as well as during the search for an interim superintendent pertaining to making decisions on how to conduct the search, said he will continue to make sure the board changes how they conduct themselves in the future, giving the public the information they have a right to.
Ducharme maintained the board worked very hard during the Colter negotiations to meet the confidentiality needs that were raised by the attorneys of each party and that he feels the same is true of the search process. He also said there aren't many boards that could handle the scrutiny the way Oyster River has.
"I don't think there's a board in the state that could stand up to the scrutiny of Mr. Taylors obsession with checking postings and minutes," he said.
The board had previously shared some concern that if the judge were to invalidate actions taken in the search process, that the delay could result in the loss of Morse. Court documents state the difficulty in restarting the selection process would not be sufficient by itself to save the board from an order invalidating its actions, but it was a factor in the court's analysis.
Board member James Kach, who visited Morse's current school district in Portland, Maine, recently, said he's glad things can progress at this point."I am thrilled that we can move ahead with the hiring of Dr. Morse," he said. He acknowledged that any further violations would result in more than a slap on the wrist by the court, but said the board would be meeting with Ducharme to understand exactly what that would mean. While the suit halted the actual signing of a contract between the board and Morse, he also said that ultimately, Taylor's cases have actually helped in that the board will now be held to a higher standard in its practices than any other board.
"If we made mistakes it was never with the intention of trying to do anything in secret or behind closed doors," he said.
Kach hopes there will be something finalized with Morse by the next board meeting on March 7.
Board member Megan Turnbull said she had no comment on the decision until she was able to gain a better understanding from Ducharme. Interim Superintendent Leon Levesque was unavailable for comment on the decision on Tuesday. Ducharme said the board has every intention of working with this ruling and moving on.
"In terms of going forward, it's the board's intention to comply with the court's order. I'm not naive enough to believe that there's not going to be a time when Mr. Taylor thinks they've done something wrong," Ducharme said.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Court Decision Announced in Taylor v. ORCSD
The Strafford Superior Court decision in the David Taylor case has been announced.
The full document is posted below, but a brief reading reveals that while the Court did find the Board committed some violations of the Right To Know law, it also declined to invalidate the Superintendent search process, thus clearing the way for the District to hire Dr. Morse.
I'll have more commentary after I've had some time to digest (in my case, that means after I get my kids to bed!)
Read more...
Read more...
Union Leader coverage of ORCSD Superintendent Hiring, Lawsuit
The following article appeared on Page A2 of the New Hampshire Sunday News on February 26. It is reproduced here with the kind permission of the Union Leader's Publisher, Joe McQuaid.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Throwing Out the Baby With the Bathwater
Durham resident Luci Gardner has asked that we post the following, which has also been submitted to Fosters:
Durham has a proverbial ‘baby being thrown out with the bathwater’ problem as plaintiff David Taylor seeks to invalidate the entire eleven member superintendent screening committee even though his complaint is against only two of the eleven, the community representative members selected by the School Board.
Although the other nine screening committee members, representing teachers, administrators, parents and students, were selected by some process not laid out by the Board and not complained of by Taylor, he still insists the entire committee and their candidate choices should be invalidated and the screening process started anew.
Further, although Taylor agrees the screening committee did a “good job” and that he would “have no problem if Dr. Morse was ultimately the superintendent”, he demands total invalidation, attempting to prove his point that “good results should not come from a bad process”.
But, demanding that the votes of the nine screening committee members who recommended Dr. Morse to the Board and were not even selected by the School Board simply to attempt to prove his point is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Durham has a proverbial ‘baby being thrown out with the bathwater’ problem as plaintiff David Taylor seeks to invalidate the entire eleven member superintendent screening committee even though his complaint is against only two of the eleven, the community representative members selected by the School Board.
Although the other nine screening committee members, representing teachers, administrators, parents and students, were selected by some process not laid out by the Board and not complained of by Taylor, he still insists the entire committee and their candidate choices should be invalidated and the screening process started anew.
Further, although Taylor agrees the screening committee did a “good job” and that he would “have no problem if Dr. Morse was ultimately the superintendent”, he demands total invalidation, attempting to prove his point that “good results should not come from a bad process”.
But, demanding that the votes of the nine screening committee members who recommended Dr. Morse to the Board and were not even selected by the School Board simply to attempt to prove his point is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
School Board Candidate Forum Tonight
A reminder that tonight is the School Board Candidate Forum for the upcoming School Board election.
Questions for the candidates may be submitted to Wendy DiFruscio at the SAU office: wdifruscio@orcsd.org
Please send in your questions as soon as possible.
Questions for the candidates may be submitted to Wendy DiFruscio at the SAU office: wdifruscio@orcsd.org
Please send in your questions as soon as possible.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
ORCSD Candidates Night--Tuesday, February 21
From Durham's "Friday Updates":
On Tuesday evening, February 21, 2012 (snow date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012), beginning at 7:00 PM in the OR High School Auditorium, a School District Candidates' Night will be held sponsored by Moharimet PTO.
This is an opportunity for residents to meet, listen to, and ask questions of participating district moderator and school board candidates.
For more information contact the SAU Office at 868-5100 x 20 or email wdifruscio@orcsd.org.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
DPL On The Move Launches Youth Video Contest
Students to Highlight What Libraries Mean to Our Community
Durham, N.H. (February 16, 2012) - Durham Public Library on the Move (DPLOTM) announces its Oyster River Youth Video Contest: “What My Library Means to Me.” The contest is open to all Oyster River Middle School and High School students and Durham, Madbury and Lee residents age 10 - 18.
“A thriving library is the heart and soul of its community,” said Durham resident Renee Capicchioni Vannata. "The library can be different things to different people and this video contest is a great way to explore what libraries mean to the community as seen through the eyes of our youth. I can't wait to see the films the students create!”
The goal of the DPLOTM Video Contest is to create a collection of inspiring videos showcasing what the library means to our community and to make these videos available to the public through http://www.facebook.com/DPLOnTheMove as a means to further the educate our community about the importance of our public library.
The “What My Library Means to Me” Student Video Challenge asks high school and middle students to produce 30-second to 3-minute videos illustrating their answer to the contest's theme. A panel of librarians and professional filmmakers will judge the entries, and the top five contestants in the middle school and high school age groups will each win a prize. Prizes will also be awarded for the Most Inspiring, Most Creative, and Judges' Choice. Winning videos will be featured on DPLOTM's Facebook page and YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/DPLonTheMove).
Video submissions are due by midnight, February 28, 2012, and the winner will be announced by March 7th. To learn more or submit an entry, visithttp://www.facebook.com/DPLOnTheMove.
Sponsors include: Artemis Creations (http://www.artemis-creations.com/), Big Bean Cafe (http://www.thebigbeancafe.com/), Crackskull's Coffee and Books (http://www.crackskulls.com/), Indoor Ascent (http://www.indoorascent.com/), Moe's Italian Sandwiches (http://www.moesitaliansandwiches.com/), Panzanella's Italian Pizzeria and Restaurant, Raider Laser (http://www.raiderlaser.com/), Rocky's Famous Burgers (http://www.rockysfamousburgers.com/), Silver Moon Creperie (http://www.silvermooncreperie.com/), and The Last Environment (http://www.thelastenvironment.com/).
About Durham Public Library on the Move: The new Durham Public Library is an investment in the quality of life in our town, and a gift to future generations. After more than a decade in what was intended to be a “temporary” storefront location at the Mill Plaza, the Durham Public Library (http://www.durhampubliclibrary.org/) is about to make the long-awaited move to a facility that more appropriately reflects our citizens’ values and needs. The new library project, including improvements to the existing house on the site and construction of an attached two-story addition, will create a total of 10,500 square feet of space, with off-street parking for up to 50 vehicles.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Can We Be Good Neighbors?
Former School Board Member Kim Clark asked that we post the following:
Three years ago I resigned from the Oyster River School Board. The reasons for my resignation at the time were stated in a public letter posted in Foster’s Daily Democrat. If anyone would like a copy of this letter (posted here), let me know and I would be happy to send it along. The reasons for my resignation three years ago were clear, never disputed, and I returned to private life.
David Taylor has forced me to once again engage in a public forum for the first time in years, because once again he has chosen to make false accusations against my character and motives for my resignation. This is something I was forced to put up with quite a bit during my time on the Board, and I can simply no longer allow him to continue unchallenged.
A few days ago it was brought to my attention that Taylor has posted a clip of a video on YouTube of a Board meeting that occurred in 2009. I do not have any issue with the video, but have a big problem with the title he has attached to it. Under the video he presents a title which falsely links what later turned out to be an illegitimate accusation by a Board member, to my resignation a couple of weeks later. The title given to this YouTube video link is deliberately misleading and false. Further at Taylor's new website, one he has set up to explain his lawsuits against the School Board, he cites a violation of right to know law in 2009 as proof that violations had occurred even then.
So first of all, it is pretty obvious that Right To Know violations have occurred on occasion in public bodies ever since the law was written, including many instances when David was a part of the Board. (Blog Author Addition: See specifically 11/4/2009). It is a matter of public record that accusations of violations during his tenure did occur. (Blog Author Addition: See Citizens Procurement Audit). These violations don’t happen because someone is trying to pull a fast one, they happen because well-meaning public servants are trying to accomplish something for the benefit of their communities. These public servants depend on the professionals around them to guide them, and help assure that the law is not broken. Ironically, in the case of the incident covered in this video, this was not one of the instances where RTK was violated, and there is an actual legal opinion stating that from an attorney.
So then you must then ask yourself, why is David bringing this up now? Why did he choose not make his accusations three years ago and challenge my motives for resigning then? Why now, three years later, would he link this false accusation to my resignation?
The reasons are simple. Taylor is counting on the general public to have a short memory and to believe the quick headline rather than the rest of the story. The facts would get in the way of his headline, and not allow him to create the negative image he is so desperate to create. I have been advised that I could sue for defamation of character, but have decided he simply isn’t worth it. We teach our children that a bully is someone that continues to spread false rumors and blatant lies, and count on the fact that most will not seek out the true story so that they can establish dominance over any threat or rival. It is critical that we all stand up against a bully. As I said in my resignation letter three years ago, it is only the headline that most pay attention to and not the correction that appears on page ten five days later. Bullies have the ability to link two unrelated incidents together, and make them appear to be connected. Bullies have an uncanny ability to spread half-truths, omit factual information, and convince people that it is the other person at fault.
I have taught my children to stand up against bullies with simple truth, dignity and respect. A lawsuit which would take time from my family and possibly do more harm to an already fractured community is not something I want to do, but let me be clear, I did not resign due to an accusation of a Right to Know violation.
• My resignation had to do with a fractured Board, a superintendent who was impossible to work with, and a budget process that I simply could not support.
• Were comments made at this and other Board meetings indicating there was a perceived violation of right to know? Yes.
• Did the state of NH School Board Association attorney later prove those accusations false? Yes.
• Are Board members allowed to talk to each other out side of meetings, as long as there is not a quorum or sequential communication? YES.
• Did I resign because of an accusation of a right to know violation? NO.
The clip on YouTube that Taylor shows is out of context. If you were to listen to the full conversation, it would show that no Board member was named. To this day I still don’t know which Board member was being falsely accused. In addition I have a letter dated December 4th, 2009 from the state of NH School Board attorney. It is a legal opinion intended to calm the waters between Board members and clarifies there was no RTK violation. It was a time when members were consumed in hurling accusations at each other, and it was impeding the Boards ability to get the work of the district done. I have a copy if anyone would like to see it.
The citizens of our community have been at battle over our schools and how they should be run for years. We all want excellence in our schools, but what this means is different to many of us, and it is this difference of opinion that creates discord. Lawsuits are easy, what is hard is getting to the heart of what is really going on and building consensus so that we can create a culture in which our schools can keep up with a changing world and create the opportunity for our children to flourish after their Oyster River careers are over.
Our community has allowed too many false accusations and the resulting hysteria to shape our beliefs. We must work harder to find and consider all of the facts so we can all move forward and realize the excellence in our schools that we all seem to say we want, but are having such a hard time achieving together.
Whatever happened to picking up the phone and calling a neighbor when you wanted to know what is going on? Why are we hiding behind our keyboards and allowing this discord? What are we teaching our children?
I have asked Taylor to take down the video. He has refused. You must ask yourself why? What is there to gain by pitting one neighbor against another? What the heck is the agenda? I do not want to become a public figure again, however when a bully rears their head it is important to stand up against them and let them know you will not put up with their attack.
Please, neighbor-to-neighbor, friend-to-friend, come to the source and make sure you know all the facts before forming an opinion. Do not listen, read, or view second hand information, let us live the way we teach our children to live. I have taught my daughters to walk away or change the subject when gossip begins, wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if we all did the same?
Three years ago I resigned from the Oyster River School Board. The reasons for my resignation at the time were stated in a public letter posted in Foster’s Daily Democrat. If anyone would like a copy of this letter (posted here), let me know and I would be happy to send it along. The reasons for my resignation three years ago were clear, never disputed, and I returned to private life.
David Taylor has forced me to once again engage in a public forum for the first time in years, because once again he has chosen to make false accusations against my character and motives for my resignation. This is something I was forced to put up with quite a bit during my time on the Board, and I can simply no longer allow him to continue unchallenged.
A few days ago it was brought to my attention that Taylor has posted a clip of a video on YouTube of a Board meeting that occurred in 2009. I do not have any issue with the video, but have a big problem with the title he has attached to it. Under the video he presents a title which falsely links what later turned out to be an illegitimate accusation by a Board member, to my resignation a couple of weeks later. The title given to this YouTube video link is deliberately misleading and false. Further at Taylor's new website, one he has set up to explain his lawsuits against the School Board, he cites a violation of right to know law in 2009 as proof that violations had occurred even then.
So first of all, it is pretty obvious that Right To Know violations have occurred on occasion in public bodies ever since the law was written, including many instances when David was a part of the Board. (Blog Author Addition: See specifically 11/4/2009). It is a matter of public record that accusations of violations during his tenure did occur. (Blog Author Addition: See Citizens Procurement Audit). These violations don’t happen because someone is trying to pull a fast one, they happen because well-meaning public servants are trying to accomplish something for the benefit of their communities. These public servants depend on the professionals around them to guide them, and help assure that the law is not broken. Ironically, in the case of the incident covered in this video, this was not one of the instances where RTK was violated, and there is an actual legal opinion stating that from an attorney.
So then you must then ask yourself, why is David bringing this up now? Why did he choose not make his accusations three years ago and challenge my motives for resigning then? Why now, three years later, would he link this false accusation to my resignation?
The reasons are simple. Taylor is counting on the general public to have a short memory and to believe the quick headline rather than the rest of the story. The facts would get in the way of his headline, and not allow him to create the negative image he is so desperate to create. I have been advised that I could sue for defamation of character, but have decided he simply isn’t worth it. We teach our children that a bully is someone that continues to spread false rumors and blatant lies, and count on the fact that most will not seek out the true story so that they can establish dominance over any threat or rival. It is critical that we all stand up against a bully. As I said in my resignation letter three years ago, it is only the headline that most pay attention to and not the correction that appears on page ten five days later. Bullies have the ability to link two unrelated incidents together, and make them appear to be connected. Bullies have an uncanny ability to spread half-truths, omit factual information, and convince people that it is the other person at fault.
I have taught my children to stand up against bullies with simple truth, dignity and respect. A lawsuit which would take time from my family and possibly do more harm to an already fractured community is not something I want to do, but let me be clear, I did not resign due to an accusation of a Right to Know violation.
• My resignation had to do with a fractured Board, a superintendent who was impossible to work with, and a budget process that I simply could not support.
• Were comments made at this and other Board meetings indicating there was a perceived violation of right to know? Yes.
• Did the state of NH School Board Association attorney later prove those accusations false? Yes.
• Are Board members allowed to talk to each other out side of meetings, as long as there is not a quorum or sequential communication? YES.
• Did I resign because of an accusation of a right to know violation? NO.
The clip on YouTube that Taylor shows is out of context. If you were to listen to the full conversation, it would show that no Board member was named. To this day I still don’t know which Board member was being falsely accused. In addition I have a letter dated December 4th, 2009 from the state of NH School Board attorney. It is a legal opinion intended to calm the waters between Board members and clarifies there was no RTK violation. It was a time when members were consumed in hurling accusations at each other, and it was impeding the Boards ability to get the work of the district done. I have a copy if anyone would like to see it.
The citizens of our community have been at battle over our schools and how they should be run for years. We all want excellence in our schools, but what this means is different to many of us, and it is this difference of opinion that creates discord. Lawsuits are easy, what is hard is getting to the heart of what is really going on and building consensus so that we can create a culture in which our schools can keep up with a changing world and create the opportunity for our children to flourish after their Oyster River careers are over.
Our community has allowed too many false accusations and the resulting hysteria to shape our beliefs. We must work harder to find and consider all of the facts so we can all move forward and realize the excellence in our schools that we all seem to say we want, but are having such a hard time achieving together.
Whatever happened to picking up the phone and calling a neighbor when you wanted to know what is going on? Why are we hiding behind our keyboards and allowing this discord? What are we teaching our children?
I have asked Taylor to take down the video. He has refused. You must ask yourself why? What is there to gain by pitting one neighbor against another? What the heck is the agenda? I do not want to become a public figure again, however when a bully rears their head it is important to stand up against them and let them know you will not put up with their attack.
Please, neighbor-to-neighbor, friend-to-friend, come to the source and make sure you know all the facts before forming an opinion. Do not listen, read, or view second hand information, let us live the way we teach our children to live. I have taught my daughters to walk away or change the subject when gossip begins, wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if we all did the same?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
ORMS Drama Presents Unwrapped by Charlie Lovett
ORMS Drama Presents Unwrapped by Charlie Lovett,
When: Thursday & Friday, February 16 &17, 2012
Where: ORHS Auditorium.
What: A send-up of 1930s Hollywood populated with zany characters as they try to unravel the mystery of a string of murders on the set.
Adults $5, Children $3, Family(4 or more) $12, Children under 5 years of age FREE.
All proceeds benefit ORMS Drama.
Monday, February 13, 2012
"Actions Speak Louder Than Words"
I spent some time thinking this weekend about how there seem to be a number of connections between FORE and the David Taylor lawsuit, even though FORE would say that, officially, there is no connection. I finally came to the conclusion that their contention cannot be accepted at face value. For the reasons why, read on…
My thinking was prompted by the posting on the FORE blog, on Saturday, February 11, of Kenny Rotner’s letter to Fosters in support of the Taylor lawsuit. I noticed that comments for that particular entry had been turned off. An emailed inquiry to the administrator of the FORE blog brought the following response (posted here in its entirety):
This is a remarkable statement, to say the least. First, the assertion that “FORE as a group has not, and will not, take a position on the Taylor vs. ORCSD lawsuit” would appear to be false on its face. FORE has posted a statement by one of its members in support of the suit on its official, public-facing communications outlet, and has taken steps to prevent anyone from debating that statement, pro or con. That sure looks like taking a position to me!
Secondly, it is notable that the reply from the administrator is unsigned. In the past, emails to the administrator of the FORE website have been signed “David K. Taylor”. We have no proof that Taylor actually wrote the email above, of course, but one can see why, if he were the author, he wouldn’t want to sign his name!
Furthermore, Rotner’s assertion that “Mr. Taylor filed his lawsuit, totally on his own and not as a member of FORE. He did not get FORE's sanction to do this…“ also rings false. A reading of the filings in the first case reveals that FORE members JoAnn Portalupi, Jennifer Rief, Kay Morgan and Stephanie Adams all provided documents to Taylor. FORE members John Collins, Jennifer Rief and Stephanie Adams have all attended one or more court hearings, presumably to show support for Taylor. That doesn’t look like “totally on his own” to me!
Therefore, I think that FORE is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I think that the organization as a whole is behind this suit, and that the diversity of opinion they claim exists within their ranks, doesn’t.
But I could be wrong. So, I have a proposal: FORE says that it “is made up of individuals in the community who often have various ideas on specific issues at hand.” I say: prove it.
Here’s my offer: if FORE will post on its blog, within the next 48 hours, a piece in opposition to the lawsuit written by a bona fide FORE member, I will post on this blog an apology in which I will say uncharacteristically nice things about them (it may take me awhile, but I’ll come up with something, I promise).
Come on, FORE, go ahead…you all don’t like me much anyway, so here’s your chance to make me eat my words.
If, on the other hand, you are unable or unwilling to do so—well, I think that will tell everyone a lot, too.
--Tom Bebbington
My thinking was prompted by the posting on the FORE blog, on Saturday, February 11, of Kenny Rotner’s letter to Fosters in support of the Taylor lawsuit. I noticed that comments for that particular entry had been turned off. An emailed inquiry to the administrator of the FORE blog brought the following response (posted here in its entirety):
Thanks for writing to FORE with your concern. We at FORE have decided that it is best to avoid a protracted debate on the lawsuit on our website and have thus decided to disable the comment feature for issues regarding the lawsuit. FORE as a group has not, and will not, take a position on the Taylor vs. ORCSD lawsuit. FORE is made up of individuals in the community who often have various ideas on specific issues at hand. We are, however, bound together by our mission statement posted on the site.
FORE administrator
This is a remarkable statement, to say the least. First, the assertion that “FORE as a group has not, and will not, take a position on the Taylor vs. ORCSD lawsuit” would appear to be false on its face. FORE has posted a statement by one of its members in support of the suit on its official, public-facing communications outlet, and has taken steps to prevent anyone from debating that statement, pro or con. That sure looks like taking a position to me!
Secondly, it is notable that the reply from the administrator is unsigned. In the past, emails to the administrator of the FORE website have been signed “David K. Taylor”. We have no proof that Taylor actually wrote the email above, of course, but one can see why, if he were the author, he wouldn’t want to sign his name!
Furthermore, Rotner’s assertion that “Mr. Taylor filed his lawsuit, totally on his own and not as a member of FORE. He did not get FORE's sanction to do this…“ also rings false. A reading of the filings in the first case reveals that FORE members JoAnn Portalupi, Jennifer Rief, Kay Morgan and Stephanie Adams all provided documents to Taylor. FORE members John Collins, Jennifer Rief and Stephanie Adams have all attended one or more court hearings, presumably to show support for Taylor. That doesn’t look like “totally on his own” to me!
Therefore, I think that FORE is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I think that the organization as a whole is behind this suit, and that the diversity of opinion they claim exists within their ranks, doesn’t.
But I could be wrong. So, I have a proposal: FORE says that it “is made up of individuals in the community who often have various ideas on specific issues at hand.” I say: prove it.
Here’s my offer: if FORE will post on its blog, within the next 48 hours, a piece in opposition to the lawsuit written by a bona fide FORE member, I will post on this blog an apology in which I will say uncharacteristically nice things about them (it may take me awhile, but I’ll come up with something, I promise).
Come on, FORE, go ahead…you all don’t like me much anyway, so here’s your chance to make me eat my words.
If, on the other hand, you are unable or unwilling to do so—well, I think that will tell everyone a lot, too.
--Tom Bebbington
---------------------------
Links to Case Materials
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Open Letter to School Board
The following was published as a "Community Commentary" in Fosters on February 13th:
Dear Oyster River School Board:
I am writing this open letter to you for two reasons. The first purpose is to indicate my strong support for your nomination of Dr. James Morse as the incoming superintendent of schools at Oyster River. The second purpose is to distance myself from the lawsuits that are presently obstructing his hire, since by making claims on behalf of ‘the community,’ Mr. David Taylor has implicated me in them.
First, I was pleased to hear your announcement at the deliberative session that you have elected to hire Dr. Morse. As I said in my email dated 1/25, I attended all three public candidate forums and thought Dr. Morse stood head and shoulders above the other two candidates. As I described, I did not anticipate my own reaction and was prepared to write a very different email, urging you to fail the search. I was most swayed because I believe Dr. Morse could forge a common vision at a time when the district needs it most. I applaud your choice.
My enthusiasm was tempered, however, by your subsequent announcement that his contract was being held up by Mr. Taylor’s lawsuit. I have read Mr. Taylor’s charges against you, and I object both to the severity he ascribes to whatever irregularities he perceived in the search process, and to the notion that he represents ‘the community’ in his complaints. I am a member of the community who strongly supports excellent and equitable public schools and he does not represent me. As far as the process goes, I applied to be on the screening committee, was not chosen, but still attended the forums and provided feedback (to which three of you responded), and I felt satisfied that my participation was welcome and valued. It is not universally true that 'the community' feels excluded.
Moreover, the ultimate fear Mr. Taylor indicates in his filing to block an expedited decision – that you were conspiring all along to hire someone who would erode the district’s philosophy – was not borne out. You elected to hire a highly qualified individual who seems to have won wide approval among diverse stakeholders in the district. This is what I would hope from any board and I think it is an extremely positive step forward. I know a forum provides a limited view of a candidate, but none of Dr. Morse’s comments suggested conflict with the basic philosophy of the district. In fact, I thought he shared some compelling ideas that could help articulate the philosophy in innovative new ways.
I think there is a larger issue at stake too – a successful lawsuit risks poisoning the well to the point where any subsequent search could also be seen as illegitimate, contaminated by the forced failure of the original search for seemingly partisan reasons. I am coming to believe that what will ultimately be most destructive to Oyster River’s quality and reputation is the continued escalation of a battle between warring factions. If this continues, Mr. Taylor and FORE will, ironically, have contributed to its deterioration. But there are also reasons to be hopeful; at the 2011 deliberative session, Mr. Taylor won approval for the district to hire a consultant “to investigate the culture of distrust and disrespect in our district leadership and community at large and to report specific recommendations to improve that culture.” Here is an excellent opportunity to address this issue. Board members, you have done your part by electing to hire a top candidate for superintendent. I hope Mr. Taylor does his part by allowing you to do so.
--
With Regards
Jayson Seaman
Durham, NH
I am writing this open letter to you for two reasons. The first purpose is to indicate my strong support for your nomination of Dr. James Morse as the incoming superintendent of schools at Oyster River. The second purpose is to distance myself from the lawsuits that are presently obstructing his hire, since by making claims on behalf of ‘the community,’ Mr. David Taylor has implicated me in them.
First, I was pleased to hear your announcement at the deliberative session that you have elected to hire Dr. Morse. As I said in my email dated 1/25, I attended all three public candidate forums and thought Dr. Morse stood head and shoulders above the other two candidates. As I described, I did not anticipate my own reaction and was prepared to write a very different email, urging you to fail the search. I was most swayed because I believe Dr. Morse could forge a common vision at a time when the district needs it most. I applaud your choice.
My enthusiasm was tempered, however, by your subsequent announcement that his contract was being held up by Mr. Taylor’s lawsuit. I have read Mr. Taylor’s charges against you, and I object both to the severity he ascribes to whatever irregularities he perceived in the search process, and to the notion that he represents ‘the community’ in his complaints. I am a member of the community who strongly supports excellent and equitable public schools and he does not represent me. As far as the process goes, I applied to be on the screening committee, was not chosen, but still attended the forums and provided feedback (to which three of you responded), and I felt satisfied that my participation was welcome and valued. It is not universally true that 'the community' feels excluded.
Moreover, the ultimate fear Mr. Taylor indicates in his filing to block an expedited decision – that you were conspiring all along to hire someone who would erode the district’s philosophy – was not borne out. You elected to hire a highly qualified individual who seems to have won wide approval among diverse stakeholders in the district. This is what I would hope from any board and I think it is an extremely positive step forward. I know a forum provides a limited view of a candidate, but none of Dr. Morse’s comments suggested conflict with the basic philosophy of the district. In fact, I thought he shared some compelling ideas that could help articulate the philosophy in innovative new ways.
I think there is a larger issue at stake too – a successful lawsuit risks poisoning the well to the point where any subsequent search could also be seen as illegitimate, contaminated by the forced failure of the original search for seemingly partisan reasons. I am coming to believe that what will ultimately be most destructive to Oyster River’s quality and reputation is the continued escalation of a battle between warring factions. If this continues, Mr. Taylor and FORE will, ironically, have contributed to its deterioration. But there are also reasons to be hopeful; at the 2011 deliberative session, Mr. Taylor won approval for the district to hire a consultant “to investigate the culture of distrust and disrespect in our district leadership and community at large and to report specific recommendations to improve that culture.” Here is an excellent opportunity to address this issue. Board members, you have done your part by electing to hire a top candidate for superintendent. I hope Mr. Taylor does his part by allowing you to do so.
--
With Regards
Jayson Seaman
Durham, NH
---------------------------
Links to Case Materials
Friday, February 10, 2012
With "Friends" like these, who needs enemies?
The following is a letter to the editor of Fosters, which was published on February 13:
Common sense dictates that Kenny Rotner, in his letter of February 10, has it exactly backwards: it is David Taylor, and his supporters in FORE (the “Friends of Oyster River Education”) who have pushed our District to the brink of disaster.
Common sense dictates that Kenny Rotner, in his letter of February 10, has it exactly backwards: it is David Taylor, and his supporters in FORE (the “Friends of Oyster River Education”) who have pushed our District to the brink of disaster.
Let’s start with FORE, a group that Taylor and others organized in the wake of his resounding defeat in last year’s School Board elections. Of the 27 people who signed the letter announcing the formation of the group (on FORE’s website, forenh.org) seven are former School Board members or their spouses. All of those former members were either defeated in recent elections, or chose not to run again. More to the point, almost all of the signatories either no longer have children attending school in the District, or never did. They have no skin in this game.
"Friends” would not seek to deny our children the educational resources they need, whether it be funding or a visionary leader like Dr. Morse, yet Taylor’s second lawsuit has as its sole objective the halting of the Superintendent hiring process. So let’s call FORE what it is: a group of ousted elected officials and fellow-travelers who, having been rejected by the voters, now seek to impose their “vision” on the District through the courts.
Taylor may have the “right” to file suit in order to settle old scores with his political enemies, but he and his and his FORE supporters have crossed a line that should never be crossed: they are holding our children hostage because they don’t agree with the decisions our duly-elected officials have made. They need to stop and consider that what’s only “collateral damage” to them will be devastating to my children’s future.
Sincerely,
Tom Bebbington
Durham
---------------------------
Links to Case Materials
Final Decision in David Taylor's First Case Against the School Board
David Taylor's Objection to the Motion to Expedite regarding the Superintendent search
District's Response to Taylor's Objection to Expedite Defending the Superintendent Search Process and Timeline
Sincerely,
Tom Bebbington
Durham
---------------------------
Links to Case Materials
Final Decision in David Taylor's First Case Against the School Board
David Taylor's Objection to the Motion to Expedite regarding the Superintendent search
District's Response to Taylor's Objection to Expedite Defending the Superintendent Search Process and Timeline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)