I wrote about the Gilford School Board’s brazen decision to limit the First Amendment Right of Gilford parents to question their elected officials on the School Board (here) by codifying that parents had no right to seek redress of grievances of the Board if their first step, meeting with the school’s Principal, failed. I also told them, face to face, that they were holding themselves unaccountable by NOT answering questions posed to them during public input – they would only sit there, stonefaced.
I thought it was an isolated event with one school board, but then I saw this on the Cornish School Board (reformatted, emphasis mine):
Cornish — Despite opposition from several Cornish residents, the School Board on Monday passed a resolution revising the board’s policy on public participation, removing language from the old policy that encouraged public input at board meetings. More than 30 people attended the meeting, and according to Glenn Thornton, vice chairman of the board, the portion of the meeting devoted to the public participation policy went well. “The chair provided everyone an opportunity to voice their thoughts and opinions freely, and it was very cordial,” Thornton said.
Well, of course it went well – all they had to do is sit there and do nothing. After all, their business is over and no interaction is unneeded. Er, there’s someone that disagrees with this?
Joanne Littlefield, a Cornish resident, objected to the idea that public discussion be restricted to a period at the end of School Board meetings. “If these meetings do not permit anyone to participate until some future time at the end of the discussion, what benefit does the public participation have after the discussion has already occurred?” Littlefield said Tuesday. “For all practical purposes, this is a device that quells any wisdom from the public from entering into the discussion.”
And that is the point, Joanne – your School Board has just told you that you are irrelevant and perhaps, just bothersome. Think of how entrenched it must feel that it decided to silence their opposition:
Heated debate over the board’s policy on public participation was sparked during a May 28 board meeting, when Cornish residents called for a board member’s resignation and were barred from speaking. Thornton said that the policy update had nothing to do with the incident in May. The School Board has been considering revisions to the public participation policy since the spring, including in the agendas at their April 28 and May 19 meetings.
“For the past few years, board meetings have been difficult,” Middleton McGoodwin, superintendent of SAU 6, said. “There have been residents who disagree with the things being said and have become quite difficult. It’s their right to disagree, but it’s the manner in which they do it which is inappropriate. The board has wanted to revisit the policy so that citizens are involved, but it’s not an open mic.”
So things became hard for elected officials – people didn’t like what they were doing and were letting them know? Heavens – bring out the gags! Heck, you can’t get any more American than that – remember, this country was BORN out of a loud (and violent) disagreement with those in charge. It is in the American Spirit and Soul to disagree – and if elected officials can’t stand that heat, the wrong thing is to shut up their voters. Instead, they should bow out (gracefully, falling on your sword, or hauled out; makes no difference to me) and let others step up for you have proven yourself to be unfit.
The original board policy was adopted in 2004. Thornton said that the new policy, which was created using language from the New Hampshire School Board Association, does not significantly change the old policy. “It’s still the heart and soul of the old policy,” Thornton said. “It’s just a matter of updating to current standards.”
But the new policy removes a line from the old policy that encourages town residents to attend school board meetings so that “the Board may have an opportunity to hear the wishes and ideas of the public.” It also adds a guideline that bans “obscene, libelous, defamatory or violent statements” and allows the board chair to silence those who engage in such speech.
Well, well, well – the New Hampshire School Board Association has decided to rewrite the First Amendment – that it has the ability that it can deny speech simply because it finds it “disagreeable”. Hey, boys and girls – that’s EXACTLY why the First Amendment exists in the first place? So, what kind of example are you setting for your students when you do EXACTLY the opposite of our foundational document teaches us – or have you decided to not teach that as well?
Is this starting to become a habit? Or is this an outgrowth of a NH School Boards Association stealth policy?? After all, there is a lot in their website that we, the taxpayers that pay the dues sent to this group (that often uses those tax monies to lobby AGAINST our interests), aren’t allowed to see. A most Progressive notion – elected officials who are unaccountable to the voters.
Sidenote: Unbelievable – I googled the NHSBA to get the URL and this is what I found:
“NHSBA applauds National School Boards Association’s initiative to restore the role of local school boards and community governance“
Observation: Really? If locally elected School Boards refuse to have interactions with parents and voters at their meetings, is there really a difference with that than if a District is being run by bureaucrats out of DC?
