Well, now we know exactly what it cost to defend against the FORE/Taylor lawsuit: $58,516.53. That figure has been helpfully provided by David Taylor himself, with a detailed accounting available on his website (http://www.orol.org/rtk/buyout/events/invoices.html).
Taylor notes that "most of these costs could have been saved if the Board was willing to settle. Prior to September, the case was moving to settle, however the Board decided unilaterally to go to court..."
Leaving aside the fact that it is a logical impossibility for the defendant in a lawsuit to "unilaterally" decide to go to court, I'd argue this was money well-spent. The sole intent of the Taylor suit, and of FORE's full-throated support of it, was to derail the Superintendent hiring process. This they failed to do, which is a win for our children, their parents, and indeed everyone except that disaffected minority who believe that they have the right to run the District as they, and they alone, see fit.
Thank goodness our elected officials did decide to go to court, thus denying FORE veto power over decisions rightfully reserved for the people's elected representatives. In the grand scheme of things, $58,516.53 is a small price to pay to ensure that our District remains a democracy, rather than becoming an oligarchy.
--Tom Bebbington
Tom,
ReplyDeleteThe taxpayers are not out 58,516.53. My understanding is that the Board's insurance policy paid for the vast majority of these legal fees. This board has accomplished a lot and they have demonstrated that they have much thicker skin than I possess. The public comments made at the March 7th meeting were a combination SNL skit and remake of a Cheech and Chong movie. Seriously, Maria Barth referenced servicemen and servicewomen who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, while making a campaign speech in the middle of a board meeting? Wasn't it her husband who tried to link saying the Pledge of Allegiance and Nazism last autumn? The next board chair needs to use the gavel to restore some propriety to these meetings which go on way too long. These are meetings held in public. Public comments should be limited to agenda items, in my humble opinion. It's not open mike night at the Improv. Should people making public comments ramble on in an incoherent or intoxicated manner, they should no longer be recognized by the chair and politely asked to sit down. What would be the consequences of people demonstrating this behavior at any other government meeting?
Hi Mike. Chong here. In my public comments I addressed the food service balances, the board's legal issues, and the upcoming election. And I did occasionally try to be funny -- believe me those meetings could use a little humor.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one day you'll be able to enforce your restrictions on public comments: (1) No off-topic remarks. (2) Only Mike Lane can mention servicemen. (3) No speeches from candidates Mike Lane doesn't like.
But until then, we'll all enjoy the right to free speech. And Bob Barth did indeed give us all a fascinating history of the pledge that you would do well to understand. As a distinguished veteran, I would have thought Mr. Barth would be someone you would be inclined to respect.
Maria Barth has an incredible record of success from 11 years as chairman of the Kittery school board and in other government positions. Dr. Ed Charle, a physician like yourself, will bring his world-class listening skills to our board. The incumbents have had their chance and they've made a real mess of things. Vote for the TEAM - Tom, Ed, Al and Maria . Find out more at ORCSDcleanslate.org.
- Dean Rubine, Lee
Hi Chong, Calvin Jarvis here, (former MM1(SS), USN)
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your indelible embracing of our rights as citizens of the U.S., but I would remind you that just as the schools restrict smoking on school property (that's cigarettes & cigars, not to mention whatever else), the boardroom is not the place to be filling time during public comments for campaign speeches and the virulent babble that has been spewed forth during the past year at the podium. Please exercise free speech outside where it belongs, on the street corners. Leave School Board meetings for what they are intended for--relevant district business!
Mr. Jarvis I'm not constitutional lawyer but I believe that candidates and supporters speaking for three minutes at the meeting before the election would likely be protected speech, especially when compared to the four hours two or three times a month the board gets to have the floor.
ReplyDeleteHere are some candidates that might agree with me:
OR School Board Meeting - 2/9/11
http://www.orcsd.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=2572&Itemid=188
Page 5
VI PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Megan Turnbull from Durham is running for an at-large position on the School Board.
Ann Lane from Durham is running for an at-large position on the School Board.
Durham Town Council Meeting - 3/7/11
http://ci.durham.nh.us/GOVERNMENT/council/council_minutes2.html
Page 6
VI. Public Comments (NLT 7:45 PM)
Ann Lane, 43 Stagecoach Road, announce her candidacy for the School Board…
Megan Turnbull, Sandy Brook Drive, announced her candidacy for the School Board…
Jim Kach, of Madbury, announced his candidacy for the School Board…
Lee Selectmen’s Meeting – 2/14/11
http://www.leenh.org/Pages/LeeNH_SelectmenMin/I016BF675.0/SM20110214.pdf
Page 8
3. Ann Lane of Stage Coach Rd, Durham (running for School Board) shares…
4. Megan Turnbull of Sandy Brook Dr, Durham (running for School Board) introduces herself…
5. Jim Cash (running for School Board) introduces himself…
Can we stop the silliness of trying to censor comments at public meetings?
If you really support Henry Brackett and Jim Kach, keep them out of jail by voting for Maria Barth and Ed Charle. More at ORCSDcleanslate.org.
Dean Rubine, Lee
I'm not a lawyer either, and I'm sure I don't have your credentials, so I may be a little slow. The message I take from your comment is, as evidenced over the last year by you and your friends' grandstanding, stonewalling and causing one contrivance after another, no matter how immature and ill-conceived, it's appropriate because this is America and that is protected free speech. Wish you saw it that way about a private twitter account. Sounds like a great way to spend the district's time for our kids educations. I'm sure we'll all learn soon enough, there must be a lawsuit waiting to happen here somewhere.
DeleteHey Dean...one thing you should ask Taylor (if you see him). If he was willing to settle, what were the terms??? Was it a catch 22 that the board was in? Were his terms so outrageous that it set up the board to fail anyway? Who knows...but it's a little piece Taylor conveniently leaves out of his letters and postings.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter now although I feel awful for the future board. All it takes is one person with too much time on his hands to file a case and possibly find members in contempt. I hope he can sleep at night if one of HIS supported candidates makes a mistake down the road. He and FORE says he won. I think he lost but his actions make our entire community losers. Plus...he'll stop caring and move on eventually but his revenge and evil will reign long over this district. Good luck OR. The only ray of hope is this new superintendent. I wish him all the luck. He'll need it.
A handful of my comments, in response to reader comments:
ReplyDelete1) Michael Lane: Thanks for making us aware that the District itself was not in the hook for the fees incurred defending against the suit. I've modified the post accordingly.
2) StopDavidTaylor: My understanding of the terms of Taylor's proposed settlement comes from a Union Leader article that was published (print only) on September 26 of last year. At that time, the Board's lawyer characterized Taylor's demands as "veto power" over the Board's decisions regarding a new Superintendent.
3) Calvin Jarvis & Dean Rubine: Thanks for your contributions to this debate. My understanding of the law regarding is similar to Mr. Rubine's: that the public body cannot make any restriction as to what is said at public comment. However, I share Mr. Jarvis' concern about public comment getting out of hand, especially at the last meeting of the Board (http://www.orcsd.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299&Itemid=213, watch starting at approximately 59:56 for public comments) when David Taylor, John Collins, and other FORE supporters spent a great deal of time gloating over their "victory" and rehashing old disagreements.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about that, but I think we can all agree that we don't want to go back to the bad old days of the Taylor/Portalupi era, when members of the public making even mildly critical comments were routinely silenced by a cry of "point of order" from the Board. (I ought to know; I was one who was often shushed.)
While this Board has, at times, given us things to be critical of, at least they haven't tried to hide from the public. In fact, I'd echo Mr. Rubine's public comment from the 3/7 meeting: in running for reelection, Mr. Kach and Mr. Brackett are embracing their responsibility to be accountable to the voters in the most fundamental of ways. Good for them.
I sincerely hope that whoever wins election to the Board on Tuesday will take seriously the necessity of listening and responding to their constituents. As for me, I stand ready to work with anyone who shows an open mind and a willingness to listen.
--Tom Bebbington
Tom - thanks for the validation and clarification. I think that the previous board (NOT the current one) put us in this spot to make these unpopular decisions. If the High School was commissioned correctly and maintained, then ~250K of a reserved fund would not have to be spent. That accountability rests surely with the board that oversaw the school being built. They chose not to do anything and never question the administration in the years ahead simply under the guide of trust. Well...this is why government has checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteI too hope that the next board is more open and forthright and doesn't ignore the plights of the common folk. They should all listen to council from the administration but not be afraid to ask and demand answers to questions. With Howard Colter, this was never encouraged and actively suppressed. You could see it in the meetings.
StopDavidTaylor: You raise an interesting point. For those of us who have been involved in District affairs for a few years, F.O.R.E.'s claims to be non-partisan advocates for "civility" ring hollow. I'm amazed at the number of letters and comments in support of F.O.R.E. that begin with something like "I've only been observing the Board since the Justin Campbell affair..." Clearly they don't remember what things were like before the current Board took office.
DeleteFor instance, I cannot be the only one that remembers the bidding fiasco of 2008, when the Board was confronted with evidence that District staff were not following procedure regarding procurement, thus wasting tens of thousands of dollars on outmoded networking equipment. Did then-Board, now-FORE members Joann Portalupi and David Taylor rise up in righteous anger and see that things were put to rights? Just the opposite! Instead, they demonized those of us who dared challenge their right to run the District as they saw fit.
When those of us who care about such things attempted to conduct an audit of District spending, but were prevented from doing so by District staff who refused to provide files, in violation (ahem) of the Right-To-Know law, did David Taylor and the rest of the Board order then-Superintendent Colter to comply with the law? Of course not! Instead, they publicly defended the administration, and refused to intervene.
And when the public outcry over their (in)actions became too much to ignore, did the Board at last take to hear their constituents' concerns, and do something? You know the answer by now.... At the October 1, 2008 Board meeting, David Taylor denounced those concerns as "corrosive, have ill fact-checking, make false accusations, are grandstanding, and political in nature" and put forth the idea of eliminating public comment from Board meetings.
On a comment to another post, it was mentioned "You do remember that David Taylor isn't running for anything, right?" I do...but frankly, when I see David Taylor and Joann Portalupi and the rest of F.O.R.E. actively supporting their "T.E.A.M." of candidates, I'm reminded that the past is never truly past. Four years later, we're supposed to believe that these same people have become defenders of openness, transparency, and civility?
People would be wise to judge F.O.R.E. by what it's members do, not what they say. And voters should be wary of candidates for office who have accepted the group’s endorsement, lest we see a return to the past, when the previous Board tried to keep the “public” out of public education.