In the wake of David Scannell’s admission that he violated a student’s privacy (and probably several laws), we should consider how we arrived at this act of lawlessness.
It began when someone leaked an email Mr. Girard’s sent to a voter/constituent. From all the statements and reporting I can find, Rich Girard only sent the email to the voter who is also a student. But somehow this same email found its way to a cabal of Manchester Democrats who saw it as an opportunity to use this student and the email for own political gain.
Who Leaked it and Why?
How did the email get from the student to members of the school board to the press and then the public?
Carol Robidoux, a reporter for Manchester InkLink says she received the email exchange from the student’s mother. How did the teacher (a bitter critic of Mr. Girard) who spoke in public session get the email? How did multiple Democrat members of the Board of School Committee or the Democrat mayor get the email?
Why does it matter? Girard isn’t the first or only person on the board to send an email to a student. An email, let’s remind everyone, in response to a public political exercise by an 18-year old voter about an issue with which Mr. Girard is familiar.
Are 18-Year Olds Adults, or Not?
Part of my ongoing problem with this farce is that the subject of the controversy is an adult. The fact that they are still in High School is irrelevant. Ask a Democrat if you don’t believe me. A Party obsessed with expanding adulthood for voting purposes to 17-year-olds. A Political Party that objects to parental rights and parental notifications as a burden to “students” in all grade levels.
This adult ‘student’ chose to enter the political arena with incomplete facts. Mr. Girard, through a legitimate use of the district email system, set about providing additional details that refuted her claims.
Mr. Girard sent her that message as a committee chair explaining where he thought she erred. Rich provided specific details and attachments refuting her assumptions. Public documents. He respected her privacy by sending the message to the adult voter and her alone.
- The student’s public expression is protected first amendment speech.
- The email Mr. Girard sent to the student was (at the time) a permissible use of the SAU37 email system.
- The content of the email was specific to the nature of the Students public opinion piece.
- The student is 18-years old, an adult, a constituent, and a voter.
- Mr. Girard’s public expression (Blog and TV) of the response to the leaked email are protected first amendment speech.
No one has any legal ground to silence Mr. Girard’s public expressions over the political hit waged against him based on the email he sent to an 18-year old constituent.
Who Decided to Turn the Email into a Political Weapon?
How did the email get from Rachel Phelan’s inbox to the cabal of Democrats who turned it into a political hit? Why was the email a potential violation of privacy when it was a personal communication between a city official and a voter but not when it was shared widely to facilitate a public smear campaign?
And why is Rachel Phelan an adult when she supports the Democrat position on Teachers contracts but a child when it suits the needs of the Left’s smear machine?
From Debate to Scandal
Who saw the original email as an opportunity? Was it Rachel? Her Mother? Carol Robidoux? David Scannell?
Manchester Democrats are not big fans of Rich Girard. They’d love to get him off the board altogether. It is in their collective interest to remove him as a player in Manchester politics. They are afraid of him. So, how far of a stretch is it to suggest that they got their hands on this email. Shared it amongst themselves. And proceeded to use it to try and dirty him up?
No stretch at all. That’s exactly what they did. It was facilitated, perhaps orchestrated is a better word, by Manchester Democrats with a frenzied desire to smear Rich Girard. An obsession that drove Democrat Board of School Committee member David Scannell to leak a privileged legal document. The first real action, the only act in fact, that violated anyone’s privacy and likely broke the law.
It all started with the email. Someone in the Manchester political machine shared it. Gave it to a teacher they knew would bring it up in public session. All to start a political hit that resulted in a party to the smear breaking the law.
The scandal isn’t a committee member communicating with an adult voter over contract negotiations. It’s the cabal of Democrats who in an organized fashion used that student to try and destroy a fellow board member. And they are still using her.
