The Gilford School Board Continues Its Easter Island Statue Routine - Granite Grok

The Gilford School Board Continues Its Easter Island Statue Routine

Easter Island Moai Stone Statues Unsplash Yoko Correia Nishimiya

Sometimes when you want to be involved in stuff, you get involved in TOO much stuff and one loses track. However, events of the last couple of days have reminded me that I need to catch up on the Gilford School Board activities that really boil down to a simple root cause.

Follow the Law

Gilford’s School Board members think of themselves as above the law instead of being Elected Representatives that are subject to the restrictions on what they can do like any other elected representatives serving elsewhere.

It’s almost like they’ve wrapped themselves in some bubble that allows them to ignore legal realities and, yes, the actual Law. A point I’ve reminded them about repeatedly now for months.

I received the following from the Superintendent back on July 2 (yes, I am that far behind):

From: “Beitler, Kirk” <>
To: “skipdcm” <>
Cc: “Gandini, Gretchen” <>
Sent: 7/2/2021 12:29:28 PM
Subject: RTK

Dear Mr. Murphy:

On June 24, 2021, you sent an e-mail to School Board members on the subject “The use of ‘SHOULD’ in Policy JBAB; mandatory or voluntary with the use of preferred Pronouns and Names?”

On June 25, 2021, you sent another e-mail to School Board members on the subject “Seeking answers as seeking redress from my Elected Representatives.”  I am responding to your e-mails on behalf of the School Board.

Your June 25, 2021 e-mail asks questions.  As you know, the Right-to-Know Law does not require the District to answer questions but to provide pre-existing documents that are not exempt from disclosure.

Your June 24, 2021 e-mail asks questions related to a section of Policy JBAB on the use of pronouns which are beyond the scope of the Right-to-Know Law.  The District is currently reviewing thousands of e-mails in response to your May 27, 2021 request regarding Policy JBAB.  Previously, the District provided you documents in response to your May 11, 2021 Right-to-Know Law request which also asked about the pronoun section of the Policy.  When the District’s review of documents in response to your May 27, 2021 request is completed, you will be provided the non-exempt documents that respond to your request.


Kirk Beitler
Superintendent of School
Gilford School District
2 Belknap Mountain Road
Gilford, NH 03249
(603) 527-9215

“provide innovative education, creating pathways to success for all learners”

Looking at that “tag line,” I don’t see “and not answer direct questions from taxpayers” – why is that I wonder? It seems to be endemic upon such titleholders that it almost immediately becomes infused into their DNA somehow…but I digress.

So, no answers to the substantial questions that I asked about Free Speech, Termination of Parental Rights, or Interfering with the Custody of a Minor Child. But to the last point FIRST – “The District is currently reviewing thousands of e-mails in response to your May 27, 2021 request regarding Policy JBA”.

At the last School Board Meeting, the Chair, Gretchen Gandini, let slip that over 250K emails had been collected – I told her that was utter nonsense that the suggested filter keywords I had supplied were being applied wrong. Turns out I was right and she was wrong as I called the Technology Director (a good lady with really solid skills) to meet. When we did, she gave me this.


GSD Email Log File interim results

Click to enlarge.

The real number, at least at that time, was 3,553 which sounded about right to my “rule of thumb” scaling estimate of how many emails MIGHT be germane to this gender dysphoria issue.

As to the others, well, let’s say that “scathing” begins to cover it:

—— Original Message ——

From: “Skip” <>
To: “Gandini, Gretchen” <>; “” <>; “” <>; “” <>; “” <>

Sent: 7/2/2021 9:28:13 PM

Subject: Re: RTK

From Beilter’s email:

On June 24, 2021, you sent an e-mail to School Board members on the subject “The use of ‘SHOULD’ in Policy JBAB; mandatory or voluntary with the use of preferred Pronouns and Names?”

I will confirm that he called me and during that conversation he said he was speaking for the Gilford School Board in this matter. Once I  stopped his ramblings (which he does poorly) and demanded that he get to the point, he confirmed that the word “SHOULD” is to be taken as mandatory.  Thus, it is clear that the Board believes it can demand (and will) force people to use only Government approved speech in this regard (aka, Government demanded coerced speech).

In other words, this mere subdivision of The State (of NH) has taken on the Power, on its own say so, to deny the American value of Free Speech that is Constitutionally protected. However, it seems that School Boards all over the nation are doing the exact same thing believing that most folks don’t have the financial wherewithal to fight such ideology in court. GOVERNMENT will tell you what you can and what you WILL say under its jurisdiction.

The rest of his email (see below) confirms that as my elected Representatives, you have decided that I (and assuming others as well) have no path by which to seek redress from you. I have had no answers given to me, whether posed as simple questions or in terms of RSA91:A demands, by the Board. Thus, this is a mandatory policy.

I have also asked about the Privacy section in Policy JBAB in which the Board has decided that it can withhold information from Parents of a child that has decided to be transgender at school but hasn’t informed their Parents.  Since I have received no confirmation or denial about the wording of this section of Policy JBAB, either in simple question form or via an RSA91:A demand for authorizing documentation, this is also a mandatory policy set by the Gilford School Board upon its staff members and itself to be used against Parents asking about their children.

So, too, is the mandatory policy to NOT keep written records, by staff, in this regard such that RSA91:A or FERPA demands by Parents are rendered moot. Thus, I can only believe that the Board has made it clear that it can deny Parents, in whole or in part, their Parental Rights in this regard.

This would be RSA 633 and 170 (if I am remembering correctly). Only a judge has the power to Terminate Parental Rights – not a School Board (even if temporarily).

And in doing so, it is Interfering with the Customer of a Child, which a School Board does not have such Power (Governments have Powers, Individuals have Rights).

With respect to the emails, AFTER I talked with <redacted> and her assistant, it’s clear that Superintendent, as I said at the last Board meeting, hasn’t a clue as to what was asked for (or is deliberately overriding what I explained to Brenda). An email log file is not “thousands of emails”. Go ahead, ask your employee Beitler what the difference is between the two.

And in other news, how the Board going to react to the just released SCOTUS decision in the Brandi Levy case? There are several Board Policies that will have to be altered (or deleted). If you are wondering what this is, you can  search for it on where we’ve written about it several times.

Kindest regard,


Co-Founder, co-owner

And there it lay until last night when I remembered that I had questioned the Gilford School Board once again – and still have no answers.

So, I wrote them again – this time, upping the ante. But that will wait for another post.