Last Tuesday was the latest Gilford School Board meeting and I think that “had a bit of steam up” would be technically correct and descriptive. While there are Public Comment sections in the Agenda, I still haven’t received an answer to a rather simple question:
What is the Board’s meaning of the word “should“?
During the meeting, I never received an answer. They just looked at me, blankly. The Gilford School Board is now back to stonewalling – referring to that time as “Public Input” whereby our elected Representatives have decided that they are no longer accountable to the voters that put them into those seats.
Once again, they’ve raised themselves to be “above” their electorate.” We know why they are doing this. It’s about the NHSBA and the “Professional Staff” like Superintendents coopting the Boards.
Grokster Ken Eyring gave up the dodge. He was at the Exeter School Board where the Parents were all over why Critical Race Theory is being taught, why masks are still mandatory even though the State of Emergency is over, and the “Prom Branding.” A quick description from the YouTube video is here:
I attended Exeter High School’s joint board meeting tonight! I start speaking at 2:08:00 but it’s all interesting! Parents rose up against CRT entering their schools, face covering mandates and the prom where their seniors were “branded” for not being jabbed. This is how we get our country back. Keep attending these local meetings and keep standing up. Join me tomorrow night as I attend their board CO-OP meeting specifically about their prom. Hear how that was allowed to happen and how we will never let that happen again.
But Ken had the gumption to let the cat out of the bag about “Public Comment” vs “Public Input. He got to the mic at 1:36
After introducing himself and letting the Exeter Board know that he is a former Chair of the Windham School District, he said this:
When I took over my role as Chairman, my number one priority was public and parent input because its their kids that are being educated <unintelligible>. They don’t belong to you, they belong to the parents. THEY know what is best for their kids, not you.
When I took that position, the Superintendent took me off to the side and he told me:
“Ken, its called Public Input, not Public Discussion. We just have to sit there and listen and then they sit down and we get on with our business.
That Fall, we had a different Superintendent.
And that seems The Plan all over.
Why do School Board members fall for this? Why do they think they’re all that and special to boot? It is deliberately done (I’ll post the email I sent them about this later). However, here’s the email I sent this morning asking (NOT an RSA 91:A demand – yet) – what is their intent for their use of “Should”? They didn’t answer my question last Tuesday – will they answer it now?
—— Original Message ——
From: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To: “Gandini, Gretchen” <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; “AKelly@sau73.org” <AKelly@sau73.org>
Sent: 6/15/2021 10:25:19 AM
Subject: The use of “SHOULD” in Policy JBAB.
It has now been a week since I asked the question about the Board’s definition of “should” in Policy JBAB, III. Guidance, C. Names/Pronouns (https://www.sau73.org/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=24505739, Page 3):
A student under this policy should be addressed by a name or pronoun that corresponds to the student’s gender identity that is consistently asserted at school.
At last Tuesday’s meeting, my question was, is “should” in this policy to be construed to be:
- a voluntary action? To wit: nice if you do so but we as a Governmental Agency, will not compel such speech from anyone?
- a command / compelled action? To wit: if you are on school grounds, you SHALL/WILL bow to such a speech demand?
As my Grandson will officially be in the the Gilford School System AND he has developmental issues, if it is the latter, there may well be “issues” surrounding this imperative.
Unfortunately, this is starting to become a replay of Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” . What does “should” mean? What should “should” mean?
*I* know what “should” mean – if I tell my Grandson, as the adult I am and “in charge”, it’s generally in the form of an Adult command to a Child (generally followed by “NOW!”). It is our duty and responsibility to raise them to be proper Citizens – so it’s a command. Or it is used as in “You really shouldn’t do that” – leaving the Child to figure out if they are going to follow that advice – and the Adult is saying to himself “Will he learn the lesson if he goes and refuses to take that caution?”. But between equal Adults (no, Representatives are not “more equal” than the rest of us), it’s a voluntary request.
But when it is in a Policy that has consequences, it must be defined specifically for that Policy. During the meeting, I asked which definition is in force.
No answer at the meeting. So what will it be? So I sent the email.
Let’s see if I get an answer. And I’ll remember who may well be behind the “no answer”.