The issue:
After unflattering reporting on Granite Grok the Nashua school district’s IT system has blocked access to the site. The district was sent a Chapter 91-A, access to public records and meetings request for information about the action taken. The superintendent, Dr. Jahmal Mosley, responded with a flippant thumbing of the nose. The reason, implied rather than stated, is that the district is too busy to respond to the request.
The response:
The important parts of his letter are the non-denial denial. I will quote from the letter, “I do not know where you, or members of your organization received your information regarding a false claim that the Nashua Public Schools recently implemented a policy that banned students and staff from accessing the blogger website, Granite Grok.com…” “…Thus, there is no documentation of an initiative or a policy banning a GraniteGrok blogger website.”
The reception:
He is not denying that Grok has been blocked.
What he said was:
- The superintendent wants to know where Grok got its information about the action taken.
- He asserts that because Grok has not proved the blockage relates to policy change it must be false. The intention, implied and unstated, is inaction until production of proof of relevant policy action.
- The district appears to acknowledge the action taken in its silence on the point. It clearly does not deny action was taken.
- The superintendent said the district has not implemented a recent policy.
- He clearly leaves much unsaid. There may have been action taken. It may be based on something in previously existing policy. It may have another origin.
- The articulation of process for policy implementation provided is non-germane.
- He says he did not personally give an order to block Grok… at the same time he does not deny it was done. This seems to imply knowledge of the action and implicit approval. One might expect such a dodge from a teenager but not the school district superintendent.
- He offers no information as to what has transpired, who was involved, when it happened.
- He does not intend to act, investigate or meaningfully communicate.
- 91-A does not care about the district’s priorities. The district’s 91-A obligation remains, regardless of the busyness of the end year schedule, which one would hope had been planned for.
Conclusion:
The superintendent’s letter is non-responsive to the 91-A request. The request asked for specific communications from specific sources about blockage of Grok on the district’s system. Grok assumes the blockage is the result of administration of district policy. It was clear about the issue.