Every day we are seeing the “woke” left trying to promote their agenda, including sexualization and gender confusion of our adolescent children. One of their tactics is to simply ignore existing policies or laws around transparency as to why they are doing certain things.
A current and very active example of this is promoting drag queen story hours for children at public libraries. For children. Adult, sexualized entertainment for children. Incessant normalization of the LGBTQ+ community, use of alternate “pronouns,” and allowing “furries” in classrooms are a few more examples.
Recently, yet another example happened in Hollis at the Hollis Social Library (HSL). This instance is not a drag queen story hour (yet) but is an instance where the public library violated both its own policies and New Hampshire law. And they blatantly tried to cover it up when they were called out on it.
In August of 2022, the HSL advertised a summer computer coding class open only to girls and non-binary people that was to be run in partnership with the Hollis-Brookline High School (HBHS). Biological boys were not invited to participate in the offering. They didn’t mention the HBHS participation in their advertising of the class and attempted to hide that in a response to a Right To Know (RTK) request that I submitted. They also tried to hide the name of another Hollis resident who had voiced concern over the class. Why you may ask, are they trying to cover it up? Because they know it was wrong and intended to advance the woke left agenda.
Impossible, you may think. This stuff is not happening in our public institutions. But it is. I will describe it in detail below. And for those interested here is a DropBox link containing my RTK request, the HSL’s response, and the un-redacted email from another concerned citizen. You can read it for yourself. All of the quotes provided below can be found in those documents.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1fi0f3885ywrt25/AABs7lkHdZ9j1IwEyi6mEC4Fa?dl=0
Why is this a problem, other than just the immorality of the agenda? Specifically, the HSL’s own policy states that “All programs at the Library are open to the public and normally offered free of charge.“ And NH RSA 354-A:1 states “This chapter shall be known as the “Law Against Discrimination.” It shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state and in fulfillment of the provisions of the constitution of this state concerning civil rights. The general court hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of age, sex, gender identity, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, physical or mental disability, or national origin are a matter of state concern, that such discrimination not only threatens the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state and threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the state and its inhabitants.”
The Kode With Klossy website, which was the curriculum chosen by HSL and HBHS, specifically states on its website: “Camps are available to girls, gender nonconforming & trans students ages 13-18 who feel comfortable learning in a female-identifying environment.” The intent is kind of hard to miss…
https://www.kodewithklossy.com/apply
This situation was brought to the attention of Tanya Griffith, HSL Director, and Amy Kellner, HSL Board of Trustees (BoT) Chair, and a response to why and how this occurred were requested. As expected, I got the run-around.
According to Ms. Griffith, the topic was to have been discussed at the September 2022 BoT meeting, but the email I sent on 30 August 2002 requesting that action “never made it to the BoT inbox,” according to Ms. Kellner. Well, it was delivered to all but two of the BoT members whose email addresses in the group address list supplied to me by Ms. Griffith bounced. All the others showed as delivered, including Ms. Kellner.
After inquiring as to the outcome of the September BoT discussion and being told it was not discussed, Ms. Kellner informed me that the topic was to be taken up in the October 2022 BoT meeting. And it was. There were five concerned citizens, including myself, who testified at that meeting. The BoT chose to discuss the topic in a non-public session. I wonder why that would be needed.
Despite numerous requests to explain, per NH RSA 91-A:3, why the discussion was non-public, no lawful reply was received from Ms. Kellner. Paragraph 91-A:3 II (c) was cited as the reason for a non-public session. It states: “Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting.” That is an admission that one or more people acted inappropriately.
Further, Ms. Kellner repeatedly stated that everything discussed in the non-public session was attorney-client privileged information but failed to comply with RSA 91:A-4 IV (c) which states: “A public body or agency denying, in whole or part, inspection or copying of any record shall provide a written statement of the specific exemption authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.” Merely parroting back the attorney-client privilege exception cited as she repeatedly did satisfies only the first part of that requirement. Also, I struggle to see how the HBHS is a “person” whose reputation could be adversely affected and therefore meet the attorney-client privileged exception. but the identity of the school was redacted from the reply to my RTK request.
A Right to Know (RTK) request under NH RSA 91:A-4 IV (b) was submitted to the HSL seeking clarification on six topics related to the offered class. That request in its entirety is included in the Dropbox link above.
It requires that the response be provided within five business days. The RTK request was delivered by Certified Mail on 21 October 2022 at 9:01 a.m. making a response due by 28 October 2022. Ms. Kellner replied to me after having received it that: “Your Right to Know request requires the Library Director, myself, and the other Trustees to sort through an enormous amount of information. In addition, the information must be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that any names are redacted so as not to violate the requirements of RSA 91-A:3II(c). This process will take time and, therefore, the information, excluding item 6, will be available on November 7, 2022.”
Extending the delivery by five days time requires a written statement of the time reasonably required as a justification for the delay, which Ms. Kellner provided. But it turned out to not be true. The response was delivered on 01 November 2022 at 8:39 a.m. Evidently, the time required to prepare the response was not well thought out.
There are several problems contained in the response provided by the HSL and some clear evidence that HSL staff knew about them and were attempting to hide what had happened. Here are some examples extracted from the RTK response and some detective work that I did.
In one of the email threads included in the RTK response, Ms. Kellner stated that the HSL BoT had just completed a policy review process: “I think this policy review process was an excellent way to establish a good working relationship with (redacted) which will be extremely useful going forward.” My guess is that the redacted item is HBHS, but that is just my guess. If a policy review had just been conducted one would think that they were fluent in their policies. Why were they not complying with their own policy in this instance?
In that same thread, Ms. Kellner states: “One of the complainants (that would be me) requested a response from the Trustees and Tanya will make it clear that the Trustees will provide a written response to their next meeting on 9/12. This is an excellent learning opportunity and an indication that the library will be under increased scrutiny going forward.” That written response never happened because the issue was not discussed at the meeting as promised. And why would the HSL Staff need to “learn” to withstand increased scrutiny? What are they hiding?
In another email thread between Ms. Kellner and Ms. Griffith, it was stated by Ms. Griffith that: “We did have an upset email from a man who claimed he wanted his visiting grandson to join the event and didn’t know what the word non-binary meant. I sent him a response, and then he sent me a reply sharing his thoughts. I am not going to respond at this point because I don’t want to encourage dialog.” And: ”I’m thinking that as he has had his say, he will disappear, but I just want to keep you in the loop.”
Ms. Kellner’s response was: “Ugh – I fear this is only the beginning. (Redacted, but it was me) posted about this on the coffee talk Facebook page. I think you handled it perfectly, and if you cancel the program, I’d personally like it made clear that it was canceled b/c of low enrollment, but it’s your call.”
Maybe enrollment would not have been so low if it was open to all citizens in compliance with HSL policy and NH law. Why did the HSL and the HBHS choose the Kode With Klossy curriculum, which openly states that it is for girls, non-binary and transgender people? Why not use something like this that is open to all individuals?
https://www.kids4coding.com/
It is curious that an email from a redacted individual who was talking excitedly about the class stated: ”…and (I) already know a small group of girls who want to participate.” This person is clearly a student at HBHS. Read the email. But the class was canceled due to low enrollment. Right.
How do I know about the redacted HBHS partnership? Remember the other citizen who sent a complaint email that I mentioned earlier? His name was redacted but I figured out who it is. He is Dave Parry and I use his name and un-redacted email (in the DropBox folder, his email address is redacted by me) with his permission. In his un-redacted email thread, Ms. Griffith states: “We’ve partnered with some Hollis Brookline High School students for this upcoming program.” So much for sweeping it under the rug.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
I have no issue with gender-fluid or transgender people. As an adult do what you want. But leave the kids out of it. This must stop. Let our kids be kids. The woke left is insidious and relentless in pushing the agenda of the LBGTQ+ community through their policies at even the lowest levels of government like the town library. It is even happening in our elementary schools.
Interestingly, Ms. Kellner also sits on the Hollis School board as the Chairman. In her recent campaign page on FaceBook (also in the DropBox link above) she states: “In the coming years, I will continue to support our teachers and administrators as we navigate the global pandemic, negotiate union contracts, and develop policies that support diversity, equity, and inclusion, while being fiscally responsible.” There it is – policies for our kids that support DEI – which includes the normalization of gender fluidity.
Public servants should not be jamming gender confusion and overt sexualization down the throats of our kids or ours. It is rampant, it is wrong, and it is getting worse.
Aaron Penkacik
Hollis, New Hampshire
