The Gilford School Board Isn’t Too Happy with Me - Lots of Fun Last Night! - Granite Grok

The Gilford School Board Isn’t Too Happy with Me – Lots of Fun Last Night!

Gilford School District SAU73

For almost a year I have been trying to get the Gilford School Board to answer my questions – meant to tell the Board that their policies don’t follow the Law.

I really don’t care specifically what the policy is about(well, I actually do care about the actual policies but they aren’t the focus of this post) but rather if the School Board is anchored to the legal realities in which they are conducting business.

It’s clear that they haven’t figured out that if they did, I’d leave them alone.

Unfortunately, Chair Gretchen Gandini is too stiff-necked (a Biblical reference if you don’t recognize it) to either back down, apologize, or change the policy that runs afoul of NH Law and Constitution. So I finally pulled the trigger.

It’s a replay on the old Fram Oil Filter commercial – I’m suing the School Board.  Yep, I’m done with this nonsense.

The Board could have answered my rather simple questions now (pay me now for a new oil filter) or answer them in court (pay me much more for a new engine later – or in this case, at the expense of a court hearing/trial).

There are a few more posts coming out of last night’s festivities but this first one consists of my “prepared” remarks.

Generally, I go ad hoc and improvise. Last night, I thought a bit more care was needed so I prepped the following. Please know that I did go off script a couple of times (ok, more than a few) but you’ll have to wait for the video for that!


Well, here we are again – almost a full year of telling this Board that you have not been Following The Law.

All actions have consequences – and Inactions have consequences indeed.

So, here is my first RTK of the evening – for all GL line items dedicated to Legal costs, I am demanding all documentation concerning the GL line items dedicated to Legal issues.\.

Sidenote: I’ll be posting that Right To Know up later on today.

Certainly, the blame can be laid up you, Gretchen [Gandini, the Board Chair]. While the Board is operationally and legally responsible for the District, most of that burden falls upon the Chair.

And it is clear that, recently, we’ve been watching a replay of Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail – Run away!” (from the killer rabbit scene) seeing the lack of such responsibility for this last month in NOT dealing with the actions (or is that Inaction) of your employee.

james-kirk-beitler-cpd___30165406064 Concord Patch
Gilford School District Superintendent Kirk Beitler (H/T: Concord Polics via Concord Patch)

Sidenote: For context: Superintendent Kirk Beitler was arrested in Concord on domestic violence and simple assault charges on July 7. The Board, because of Gandini’s unwillingness to do anything, refused to act for almost a month until Patch.com recently broke the story and I filled in the Editor/ Author, Tony Shinella, that James K. Beitler was Gilford’s Superintendent of Schools and he expanded the story. THEN, as expected and planned, Social Media took over. But the Board knew about this since July 7th or so and Gandini did NOTHING. She, effectively, ran away from the problem.

While it is clear that he is to be given ALL the Due Process under the Law, that doesn’t obviate the Chair from carrying out her duties to the District and taxpayers. But you did, putting the District at possible legal risk.

So that’s one thing.

Next up – I’m going to give you and your Board members one last chance to answer my questions that I’ve been asking by:

  • Verbally asking such questions
  • Emailing you such questionsIssuing RSA 91:A Right To Know demands

Each time, you have acted, as I said before as if you were kissing cousins to the Easter Island Stone-faced Statues.

One! To remind you:

Policy JBAB – Coerced speech. Given that we are a Dillon’s Rule State, where does the Gilford School Board, a mere subdivision of the State, have the Power to grant a new Right to a minor child to coerce the Speech of others? What is the authorizing RSA that grants you this Power?

Two! Similarly, with Policy JBAB’s Privacy section in which you, Gretchen, have approved of a Policy condition that:

  • Termination the Parental Rights, even if temporarily, in lying by either omission or commission to Parents about the gender identity status of their child as well as making it impossible for those Parents to issue RTK or FERPA demands because no written records are to be allowed (RSA 170:C)
  • Interfering with the Custody of a Child (RSA 633:4) – Parents or legal guardians by acting as if only the School has legal responsibility of a child; FAR beyond the in loco parentis doctrine.

Three! Refusal to allow citizens to seek redress of grievances from their elected Representatives. It’s actually written into your policies and you defended them, fairly weakly by my standards, the last time I appeared before you.

Four! Refusal to follow your own Policies.

Five! You have failed to Follow the Law in implementing ALL of the policies required of you in SB263. You certainly rushed right out an implemented Policy JBAB for Transgender students but even after my hectoring, you have failed to implement a Policy for “Religious” / People of Faith. I even challenged you on this – what if a devout Christian, Jew, or Muslim refused to follow your coerced speech diktat because of the Bible’s speaking that “He made them male and female” and not a Heinz 57 set of gender identity types, how would you rule?

Once again, inaction by the Chair of the School Board in answering a very important question.

And finally, Six! Frankly, I don’t trust you as a Board given that you have refused to Follow the Law, here is yet another Right to Know Demand dealing Critical Race Theory and all of the gazillion euphemisms that the Left is starting to employ as CRT has become toxic. You know, like Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (you know, DIE for short)?

Sidenote: I’ll post this RTK up later on today.

And if you are shaking your head, I’ll just rewrite it to include every possible phrase or word for this issue in which our common language and social norms are being redefined. Don’t Doubt Me!

Also know that I already have a cadre of parents just waiting to have their kids bring home everything, record teachers, and bring home handouts from class. We’re just waiting for school to start.

After a year, on just three of these things, I’ll just play junkyard dog and go chase your other car and bite that bumper as well.

Ms. Onos once told me that she felt threatened when I said I would take the Board to court for all these items. I replied that I felt threatened when my elected representatives failed to Follow The Law.

I waited, then you made a minor change to the coerced speech policy to which I STILL don’t have an answer – does “Should” in JBAB’S Pronoun section mean voluntary or mandatory? Your employee told me in a phone conversation, after minutes of prevarication by him to obfuscate the answer, finally said “mandatory”.

IS THIS STILL THE BOARD’S ANSWER? Mandatory?

NOW, before you say anything,: Monsieur, levey-vous, s’il vous plait!

Sidenote: actually, I didn’t get to say that – my legal counsel arrived a bit late and I couldn’t draw this out any longer. I give him props, however,  for showing at all up as he originally wasn’t due to a family issue.

I’m no longer threatening – it is now a promise that’s about to happen. He won’t say anything now until it is time for you to hear “You’ve been served”. Just know that “Esquire” is part of the name. I will be suing each and every one of you personally if you won’t answer those questions NOW. I’ve been patient but it is no longer time to be nice to you.

Either you will FOLLOW THE LAW in your operational and Policy matters, or you will be forced to do so.

I mentioned SB263 a few minutes ago – it contains the word “Shall” which means, in legislation, it is MANDATORY. You have no choice in the matter. It is an imperative that is to be obeyed. Which, you haven’t.

Now, I can’t compel you to answer ANY of my question here and now. But just like the word Shall, Compel takes on an entirely new usage within a courtroom. You can be compelled to answer a direct question under oath.

First Amendment, Articles #22 and #30, RSAs 633 and 170. You will not be allowed to be silent in that courtroom.

And who knows, it may be me, again, asking the questions if I do this Pro Se with legal backup.

Either way, you’re in the Fram Oil Filter situation – you can pay nothing now or you can pay a lot later on. You can either speak now or be compelled to speak a lot more later.

Inaction will not be allowed.

To be continued…

>