Keep this in mind as this was definitively told to me: The District does not lie to parents. Yep, I took that person at their word, sorta (backstory later). But that is an official pronouncement. Like “Hunter hasn’t done anything wrong.” –
We all are to believe Government speech on all things.
Cue Ronaldus Magnus: “Trust but verify“. Well, I dunno about the first part, given the last two and half years of fighting the unconstitutional portions of a Gilford School Board Policy but I knew that it was time to move on from fighting on just the language of it. I learned early on that debugging code by “playing computer” can get you just so far – at some point, you have to give your application some input and see what comes out on the other end (IF you are lucky that the major path through your code actually produces something first time). So I decided to do the “verify” bit by putting an input into the GSB Policy and see what would pop out. Like any obscenely over-optimistic programmer, I had thoughts.
So, yep, I went there last week. For anyone that knows me and/or has been reading the ‘Grok on a regular basis, this is not unexpected. Frankly, I have used that question before (see here and here) during a Gilford School Board meeting to the Grandson’s Principal. That gave me the chance to berate and shame said SB over their Policy JBAB (Transgender and Non-Conforming, first issued by The Trevor Project, promulgated by the NH School Board Association, and then shoved onto the school district by woke SBers and Staff) as it forced Staff to lie to parents when asked that question of their child.
Given that the Board has finally fixed their anti-Free Speech problem (Kudoes to them for finally doing so but in which they decided they could grant a new Right to a minor child to force others to use their “preferred pronouns” in violation of our First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech), it was time for me to start concentrating on the other substantial issue – the Board giving itself the Power to force its Staff to lie to Parents concerning the transgender status of their child.
So this time, I decided that I would follow the District’s Policy KEB (“PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT SCHOOL PERSONNEL, EMPLOYEES, STUDENTS
OR ADMINISTRATION”) which mandates how complaints were to be handled. You see, back in 2017, the School Board decided to wall itself off from its voters and townfolks by telling everyone that they had to first talk to their teacher, then to their Principal, then to the Superintendent, and finally to the Board Chair. If you try to directly address your Elected Representatives, they will short-circuit that attempt and shove a complaint downward.
Sidenote: I told the Chair at the time (a Lt Col Green Beret (ret) that was fond of the word “outSTANDING!”) upon KEB’s acceptance: “OUTSTANDING!” – he was far from amused. “WAY TO GO in separating yourselves from your constituents -Aristocracy much?”.
The amusement level continued to spiral downward. They did so even as I pointed out its loophole: it disenfranchised people like me that didn’t have a child in the school system at the time (mine had long graduated) – I had no official place to start to bring problems to the Board. But I digress…
Sidenote: They aren’t the only Board that have this in place as the NHSBA has pushed this out to most Boards in the State (I’d give a link here but the NHSBA server used for policies (outsourced) is down and has been for quite some time; convenient).
So, time to get to the point – I asked the Grandson’s teacher the operative question of the day expecting that I’d receive a specific response. And yes, I have partially redacted names:
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 3:28 PM Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com> wrote:
Mrs. <redacted>
What is the transgender status of my legal son?
-Skip
First response back – did the teacher respond to my question?
—— Original Message ——
From <<redacted>@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 5/2/2023 8:52:50 AM
Subject Re: Concerning <the Grandson>
Skip,
I do not understand your question. Has there been a change in status that you would like to discuss with me or with the administration?
<<redacted>
Well, my programming path turned out to be operational – I got the answer I was expecting by proxy – no mention of an answer to my direct question. I’m sorry but if she’s asking me about a status change that SHE assumes that I already know, why would I be asking for a status from her?
So I told her that:
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:26 AM Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com> wrote:
My question is straight forward and needs only a small qualifier expansion: what is the transgender status of my legal son while in school?
-Skip
I thought that the addition was reasonable – removing my home from the equation. I also thought that the “place modifier” was simple as well. But back to the “Tip toe, through the tulips” dance (and yes, you have to be of a certain age to get that reference). Seriously, who among you DIDN’T understand my question the first time?
And yes, this will come back to the fore later on. In the mean time, one note, two note:
—— Original Message ——
From <<redacted>@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 5/3/2023 8:12:34 AM
Subject Re: Re[2]: Concerning <<redacted>Skip,
Thank you for your inquiry. There has been no discussion on the transgender status of your legal son while in school.
<redacted>
OK, did I ask about any “discussions” at all? Did I ask about any conversations that happened in school? Shades of what I said back during that School Board meeting referenced above: “that’s a dodge”:
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 8:41 AM Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com> wrote:
>> There has been no discussion on the transgender status of your legal son while in school.
That’s a deflective retort. The answer is either he is or he isn’t. Which is it? A plain, truthful answer is all that is needed.
-Skip
And then the teacher went snippy. However, she made it clear that she had chosen her message and she was going to stick to it regardless of the intent of my question. For those of you that have the courage to ask for yourselves AND your child, watch what happened again:
—— Original Message ——
From <redacted>@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 5/3/2023 9:50:34 AM
Subject Re: Re[4]: Concerning <redacted>Skip,
This is my truthful and complete answer. There has been no discussion on the transgender status of your legal son while in school.
If you have any questions or concerns on this matter please address it with the administration.
Thank you, <<redacted>
Note that at no time was a direct answer given to a simple, unambiguous question. That’s known as lying by omission. Contrast that with:
The District does not lie to parents.
Right after that, and I suspected that it would be, I found out that this email thread was being monitored by “the Administration”.
Part two in a day or so.
