The idiocy – it annoys me. Superintendent Kirk Beitler (who I DIDN’T include when I sent my latest RSA 91:A Right To Know demand to the Gilford School Board – only to my Elected Representatives) was the one that sent the response to it.
“This School Board Policy Codifies Lying to Parents” in its Policy JBAB; where again, it is the case of basic Civics in a Dillon’s Rule State:
Where were you, as a mere subdivision of the State, gain the Power to use Lying to Parents as a legitimate tool in the School System? What is the authorizing Law that does that?
It’s clear that Superintendent Beitler doesn’t have clue one – and he doesn’t want to go find one either (emphasis mine):
From: “Beitler, Kirk” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “skipdcm” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Cc: “Gandini, Gretchen” <email@example.com>
Sent: 5/27/2021 9:24:19 AM
Subject: RTK documents
Dear Mr. Murphy:
On May 19, 2021, the District provided you the documents [You know, the ones he sent to Mr. Shea -Skip] that respond to your May 11, 2021 Right-to-Know Law request. It has no additional documents. The Right-to-Know Law requires the District to provide pre-existing documents that are not exempt from disclosure. It does not require the District to answer your questions about what you contend are a new right to privacy, the power to deceive parents, and to circumvent parental rights and FERPA.
The documents provided to you include the discrimination statutes that were the legal basis for the District adopting Policy JBAB and include documents relating to the two sections of Policy JBAB in your Right-to-Know Law request. The documents also include the sample NHSBA Policy JBAB dated April 2015, which include the two sections in your Right-to-Know Law request as well as numerous revisions to that Policy during the months of discussion at public meetings. The School Board adopted Policy JBAB which is based upon the NHSBA Policy JBAB to fulfill its obligations under the discrimination laws.
Superintendent of School
Gilford School District
2 Belknap Mountain Road
Gilford, NH 03249
So, it’s clear that he blew me off. Well, as this Momma Grizzly Lady said:
I’m retired, I have nothing else better to do.
And I have a Grandson now going into kindergarten. And I legally adopted him so this is getting personal and I’m now fully invested. And while she was all about BLM and CRT, I’m going after your Policies ESPECIALLY when they are unconstitutional (calling for coerced speech) and deliberately allowing my employees (the school Staff) to lie to me and hid things from me.
So, you can figure out what I did – no communications at all? Really? Not even to your legal council? Let’s find out who talked with who about this, shall we? Again, I will talk with my Elected Representatives because I don’t trust Beitler at all. Besides, he is only an employee – this has to do with Policies set by my Elected Representatives and I am seeking redress from them.
From: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To: “Beitler, Kirk” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: “Gandini, Gretchen” <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; “AKelly@sau73.org” <AKelly@sau73.org>
Sent: 5/27/2021 4:21:25 PM
Subject: Re: RTK documents
>> On May 19, 2021, the District provided you the documents that respond to your May 11, 2021 Right-to-Know Law request. It has no additional documents. The Right-to-Know Law requires the District to provide
>> pre-existing documents that are not exempt from disclosure. It does not require the District to answer your questions about what you contend are a new right to privacy, the power to deceive parents, and to circumvent parental rights and FERPA.
No, the District supplied me with nothing – YOU lazily provided me with a 2 page document that was a reply to SOMEONE ELSE – a Mr. Shea. Please explain why you thought that doing so is a fulfillment to my specific questions instead of my targeted ones. Quantity of words is not “responsive”.
>> The documents provided to you include the discrimination statutes that were the legal basis for the District adopting Policy JBAB and include documents relating to the two sections of Policy JBAB in your Right-to-Know Law request.
Really? You think throwing out the same Policy that is under question is a legal defense and a legal foundation? You have GOT to be kidding me. The documents you sent have NO reference to my questions – none of the State Statutes you referenced in your documents you sent to Mr. Shea answer my questions. Did you think that I wouldn’t check your work (especially as it is clear that, in the name of the School Board, you failed to do your own homework).
As I said in my earlier email, is this the quality of workmanship that the Gilford School Board wants to be known for? That it demands more from its students than it does for its effective COO?
>>The documents also include the sample NHSBA Policy JBAB dated April 2015, which include the two sections in your Right-to-Know Law request as well as numerous revisions to that Policy during the months of discussion at public meetings.
>> The School Board adopted Policy JBAB which is based upon the NHSBA Policy JBAB to fulfill its obligations under the discrimination laws.
Ah, so you are blaming the NHSBA for your lack of answers? That they led the District astray? Or are you saying that the Gilford School Board blithely accepts, for any such Policy, whatever comes from that organization simply by dint of the large “dues” it pays every year and assumes that the NHSBA would NEVER do anything illegal? That the Board doesn’t have to do its own due diligence? That puts them at legal risk, right? And are you, Superintendent Beitler, also at risk for your counsel to them? I am no lawyer but how hard is it to read something to see if IT is legal – and not use the word “assume” (for we all know that that means, right?
Seems that’s the message your sending – and proud of it.
I have probably read Policy JBAB more times than you have – and checked its sources. Thus, trying to deflect my questions about lying into being questions about discrimination is, again, oafish and an indication that you, in speaking for the Board, wish HARD to avoid addressing the specific questions in my Right To Know. Which, I dryly note, you didn’t address in your latest email to me. It’s almost seemingly the case that you’re embarrassed that you got caught twice over that the Board decided to act without authorization.
So back to BASIC Civics again (just like Section C): In a Dillon’s Rule State, any subdivision of The State is allowed to only do what the State Legislature has authorized them to do – the Gilford School Board is such a subdivision. By implementing the elements within Policy JBAB that I asked about, the Board publicly announced that it had such Powers (in this case, to lie to Parents either by commission or ommision) given to it by the NH Legislature in the form of State Statute. These, as you say, would be “pre-existing” IF such legislation has been duly passed and signed into law.
Due diligence would have had the Board to reference them to see that they remained within the Law as they debated it AND should have had its legal counsel, as part of that due diligence, check that there are specific RSAs that allow for this behavior.
So with your declaration that you have no such responsive records, you have just said that there is no State Statute that give the Board such Powers. You have have spoken for the Board and have just confirmed that its Policy JBAB was illegally implemented. Again, without authorizing legislation, this Policy is null and void.
So, using Occam’s Razor, only one of these two things can be true:
- There are standing statutes that give the Board the Power to lie to Parents (commission, ommision) but failed to meeting the requirements of RSA 91:A by not including them (they ARE pre-existing documents)
- There are no standing statutes that supply such Powers to allow it to lie to Parents.
So which one is true? Elected members of the Gilford School Board – which of those is true?
You have not responded to my Right To Know. This is number two of this new pattern you have just started.
In conclusion, by trying to “overstuff” your response with answers to questions that I did not ask (but Mr. Shea did), my Right To Know demand has not been answered twice over. So what is your remedy?
Oh, I almost forgot.
Next meeting is next week – it will be “interesting”…