OR School Board does it again
To the editor: On Wednesday, March 21, the Oyster River School Board went into nonpublic session to choose a Treasurer, thereby violating the state's Right-To-Know law, RSA 91-A: 3, II (b), which states: "Filling a vacancy of an elected or appointed public office is an 'appointment' and is not the 'hiring' of a public employee. Interviews and deliberation on filling a vacancy in an elected office therefore must occur in public session."
It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed in our board, especially our newly-elected officials. For a bunch who campaigned on promises of openness and transparency, they appear to have stumbled badly right out of the gate. A return to the status quo is not what I voted for on March 13.
The "FORE four" (now a majority on the board, and holding both chair and vice chair) had an opportunity to show the district that they are committed regaining the public's trust by changing the way they do business. Instead, they frittered away that opportunity by engaging in the same sort of behavior they (rightly) criticized former boards for. The disconnect between their campaign rhetoric and post-election reality is troubling, to say the least.
It's not too late for the board to do the right thing: put this on the agenda for this Wednesday's meeting, and rerun the selection process in public, as the law requires. Anything less would represent a serious breach of the trust voters have placed in them.
Tom Bebbington
Durham
To the editor: On Wednesday, March 21, the Oyster River School Board went into nonpublic session to choose a Treasurer, thereby violating the state's Right-To-Know law, RSA 91-A: 3, II (b), which states: "Filling a vacancy of an elected or appointed public office is an 'appointment' and is not the 'hiring' of a public employee. Interviews and deliberation on filling a vacancy in an elected office therefore must occur in public session."
It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed in our board, especially our newly-elected officials. For a bunch who campaigned on promises of openness and transparency, they appear to have stumbled badly right out of the gate. A return to the status quo is not what I voted for on March 13.
The "FORE four" (now a majority on the board, and holding both chair and vice chair) had an opportunity to show the district that they are committed regaining the public's trust by changing the way they do business. Instead, they frittered away that opportunity by engaging in the same sort of behavior they (rightly) criticized former boards for. The disconnect between their campaign rhetoric and post-election reality is troubling, to say the least.
It's not too late for the board to do the right thing: put this on the agenda for this Wednesday's meeting, and rerun the selection process in public, as the law requires. Anything less would represent a serious breach of the trust voters have placed in them.
Tom Bebbington
Durham
Please note that due to an editing error (mine, not Fosters') is is not clear in the letter above that the language being referenced is the NH State Attorney General's 2009 memo on the Right-To-Know law, and not the text of the statute itself.
ReplyDeleteThe Attorney General's memo can be found at: http://doj.nh.gov/civil/documents/right-to-know.pdf; the language I quoted is on pages 15-16.
I apologize for the error.
--Tom Bebbington