Don’t attempt to gaslight me by telling me I’m something when it was you folks that have been doing it for almost 3 years. I’ve had my “Gaslight shot” and I’m immune to it. More on that in a moment. However, to set the stage for that…
So what is this whole series about? One single line in an email from the Chair of the Gilford School Board, upon refusing to fix the holes, omissions, and inconsistencies of the District’s Policy JBAB – Section III Guidance, A. Privacy. and a bit of B. Official Records (below).
Sidenote: I’ve listed them below – see if you can find them by taking a REAL critical “how can this be abused” sense of logic in Comments.
Yes, I had spent a lot of time in analyzing the Privacy part and yes, I wanted the Board to fix them just like they had changed “A transgender student has the right to be called by their preferred pronoun and them…..failure to do so is a violation of this Policy” and then to “Students under this policy should be addressed by their preferred name or pronoun that corresponds to the student’s gender identity that is consistently asserted at school.” However, upon being repeatedly questioned, Superintendent Kirk Beitler revealed that “should” was to be taken in the mandatory sense even as they wanted readers of the Policy to assume it was voluntary. That was finally fixed, with language from their lawyer, with (emphasis mine):
“Should” does not mean “shall”or “must” but is a permissive term. Nothing in this Policy limits the rights of individuals under the federal or state constitutions.
While I was being told that the new language for the Privacy was sufficient, it was clear it was just another rewrite of the Pronouns to give the illusion of goodness while not being goodness. Yet again, I tried to make my case both via email and with a one-on-one with the Chair. After being patient and sending a few emails asking if the Board was going to change it’s mind, I received this (emphasis mine):
——– Original message ——–
From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date: 4/26/23 3:29 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: jonos <jonos@sau73.org>
Subject: Re[3]: Public Comment timeHi Nin,
Just checking back with you on this stuff as it’s starting to get long in the tooth. Any update on the “lying to parents” part of JBAB such that the inconsistencies are gone and it is no longer the policy of the District to hide any transgender transition efforts from parents?
Thanks!
-Skip
—— Original Message ——
From “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 4/27/2023 8:13:45 AM
Subject RE: Re[3]: Public Comment timeGood Morning Skip,
We went over this in several meetings when discussing this policy. The District does not lie to parents.
Nin
I gave her one last chance:
——– Original message ——–
From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date: 4/27/23 8:46 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: jonos <jonos@sau73.org>
Subject: Re[5]: Public Comment timeSo all of the inconsistencies that I pointed out, which leave loopholes to be exploited, will remain as is?
-Skip
—— Original Message ——
From “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 4/27/2023 10:48:05 AM
Subject RE: Re[5]: Public Comment timeAt this time the policy is approved and will remain as is.
Decisions have consequences. Her decision drove mine – and it was just as easy as I thought it would be: simply ask the question again as shown by the previous Parts in this series. I got the answer that I thought I would from his teacher PROVING that the Chair’s statement was false for lying by omission by the teacher is still lying.
So I confronted the Chair with that fact. This time, emphasis is as-is in my email:
——– Original message ——–
From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date: 5/8/23 2:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: jonos <jonos@sau73.org>
Subject: Re[5]: Public Comment timeGood afternoon,
You THINK that the District does not lie to parents (by commission or omission)? Please see the email thread below.
My wife and I had a discussion with Danielle Bolduc this morning and this was part of it.
<snip>
Note that at no time was a direct answer given to a simple, unambiguous question. That’s lying by commission
And by omission as well. A direct decision to not answer my question
And then, as expected, I found out that the email thread was being monitored by “the administration”. You may wish to discuss this with Danielle Bolduc.
Emphasis mine:
We went over this in several meetings when discussing this policy. The District does not lie to parents.
Your words. Mine: loopholes.
Your move.
I have already listed those email threads in the previous Parts that I <snipped> out.
The statement was made – I merely decided to test the validity of the Chair’s statement. Knowing that the statement of”The District does not lie to parents” was made, and that the District, via a staff member, DID lie to a Parent (me), I confronted the Chair that her statement was false. I was right and she was wrong either in her own words or that she believed that the District’s staff had been properly “change order” updated as to the official holding of the Chair. The Chair took umbrage at this (for using her own words and her staff’s actions) against her. She was not happy:
Note the word I emphasized below:
—— Original Message ——
From “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 5/8/2023 3:30:26 PM
Subject RE: Re[5]: Public Comment timeHi Skip,
First and foremost, this is not a “your move my move” conversation. That would make the conversations adversarial or some competition. I certainly do not see the conversation that way.
In regards to the communication, I am not reading it the same way you are. You asked the transgender status of legal son. If a conversation has never been had by your legal son, that is what Mrs. Anderson responded with to you.
Is your expectation that they go and ask your legal son what his status is and start a conversation? I feel that would be stepping over a line and inappropriate.
While I can appreciate your perception of the conversation, quite frankly, I think you are reaching and trying to create a problem with the response you received.
Jeanin
She accused ME of being adversarial when it was the District that first decided they could, and only via their own say-so, cancel everyone’s Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech and give itself the ability to lie to Parents about their child? That in fighting to restore that Freedom of Speech and to force Government to retract its policy enabling it to lie to parents, *I* was the adversarial one as if *I* threw the first punches even as the District who started this fight?
So, is it now necessitate one from being labeled “adversarial” to just just throw up their hands in disbelief and simply bend over to an overreaching Government entity that is running roughshod over you?
Yeah, not so much in my case (emphasis mine now):
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
Date 5/8/2023 6:01:00 PM
Subject Re[7]: Public Comment timeWrong.
I took your words at face value as being correct. Being an engineer (and having spent 40 years fixing problems and mistakes), I tested your words.
They failed the reality test in that the respondent refused to tell me the truth to my simple question that any parent wishing to ask would ask it in that fashion. Therefore, a fix is needed. Thus, it is “your move”, as Chair, to fix that Policy so as to make it clear to your staff what the proper response should be to that question given the rewrite it underwent.
Is your expectation that they go and ask your legal son what his status is and start a conversation?
No.
If they know, that should be the answer (and the converse as well).
I asked a simple question and the answer I received had nothing to do with the question. I didn’t ask “have you had a discussion?”. I asked about “status” which is not “discussion”.
I simply asked a question that parents across the nation have already asked; simple and direct. Didn’t get an answer to it.
-Skip
And now you know the genesis of this series. The Grandson’s teacher did not tell me the truth after given several chances to do so – she deliberately decided to avoid my simple question by answering her own question.
The next GSD meeting is coming up. Unfortunately, the Board has decided to now limit Public Comment sessions speakers to a maximum of three minutes (this just happened at the last meeting).
Due to a suggestion from a fellow SDGA (School District Governance Association – I consider it the conservative replacement for the very liberal NH School Board Association), I will try to have all of this entered into the meeting minutes.
While THIS series may now be over, I’m betting there will be more to come!
III. GUIDANCE
A. Privacy
The Gilford School Board recognizes a student’s right to keep private one’s transgender status or nonbinary presentation at school. The Board also recognizes a transgender and nonbinary student’s right to discuss and express their gender identity openly. Information about a student’s transgender status, legal name or gender assigned at birth listed on a person’s birth certificate also may constitute confidential information. School personnel should not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or nonbinary presentation to others. School personnel shall include parent(s) or legal guardian(s) when implementing a written plan for a student to address their needs as it relates to their transgender or nonbinary status.When contacting the parent or legal guardian of a transgender or nonbinary student, school personnel should use the student’s preferred name and pronoun listed in the student information system. Student’s legal names shall not be changed in the official records unless legally required to do so.
B. Official Records
The District is required to maintain a mandatory permanent pupil record (“official record”) that includes a student’s legal name and legal gender. However, the District is not required to use a student’s legal name and gender on other school records or documents. The District will change a student’s official record to reflect a change in legal name or legal gender upon receipt of documentation that such change has been made pursuant to a court order. In situations where school staff or administrators are required by law to use or to report a transgender student’s legal name or gender, such as for purposes of standardized testing, school staff and administrators shall adopt practices to avoid the inadvertent disclosure of such confidential information.
There’s a reason why I RTK’d (Right To Know) for all database schema(s) for any of their info systems in Part 3.
