Sent: Friday, October 23, 2026 4:39 PM
To: michael.s.garrity@doj.nh.gov
Cc: Sean.R.Locke@doj.nh.gov; Patricia.L.Benner@doj.nh.gov
Subject: COMPLAINT/FW: Shannan McKenna has posted in your timeline
To the Attorney General’s Election Law Unit:
I am writing to file a complaint and ask the Election Law Unit to review whether the Windham School District’s distribution of a flyer about the school funding tax cap ballot question (HB 1300, RSA 32:5-i) is unlawful electioneering under RSA 659:44-a and RSA 652:16-h, as described in your Office’s October 22, 2026 guidance to school districts.
FACTS
1. On Friday, October 23, 2026, at about 3:05 PM, parents of Windham High School students received the “WHS Weekly Update, 10/23” through the district’s PowerSchool parent communication system (noreply_communications@powerschool.com). The update was posted by Shannan McKenna, [WHS Principal].
2. Under the heading “House Bill 1300 Information,” the update said: “For more information, the School Board has provided this informational flyer,” with a link to a two-page document titled “Understanding House Bill 1300” (file name: 2026_WSD_TAX_CAP_16.pdf). The flyer carries the Windham School District logo on both pages.
3. This went out the day after your Office’s October 22 guidance, which states that school boards may not use “school mail or email lists, such as a school-to-parent email list or direct or text messaging system, including cell phone applications or portals,” public employees, or school equipment to disseminate their position on the ballot question.
4. Earlier, on October 8, 2026, the Windham School Board sent a hearing notice for October 20 through the district’s SchoolMessenger system (donotreply@windhamsd.org), inviting residents to “understand the potential impacts this funding cap could have on the Windham School District.”
WHY I BELIEVE THE FLYER ADVOCATES AGAINST THE MEASURE
The flyer does not use the words “vote no.” However, RSA 652:16-h asks whether a reasonable person would believe the material explicitly advocates for or against a measure. I ask the Unit to read the flyer as a whole:
– The subtitle reads: “Learn more about this House Bill and vote on November 3rd.”
– Page 2, under “Why this Matters,” says in bold that the cap “can force choices that affect staff, class size, sports, and extracurricular programs.”
– Page 2 lists about $4.4 million in FY28 cost increases that “may exceed the tax cap levy,” followed by a five-column chart of “Potential Windham School District Offerings that may be Impacted”: bus service, AP classes, 1-to-1 devices, band, chorus, theatre, field trips, assemblies, co-curriculars, class sizes, and facilities maintenance.
– Page 1 includes a cost-per-pupil chart stating that Windham is “lower than neighboring districts and over $3,000 below the state average,” which suggests to voters that a cap is unnecessary.
– The flyer gives no balancing information. It does not mention the override provision that appears in the ballot question itself (“These limits may be overridden as provided in RSA 32:5-i”). It does not mention the ballot language stating the caps “do not affect classroom instruction.” It says nothing about the reasons the Legislature gave for the measure.
– It lists “Building Projects, Maintenance, and Utilities” ($590,610) among costs that may exceed the cap, even though page 1 acknowledges that bonded capital costs are excluded from both limits.
Taken together, the only conclusion a reasonable parent could draw is that adopting the cap will cost their children programs and services. That is advocacy against the measure, presented as information.
USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
Even if the School Board may take a position on the question, your Office’s guidance makes clear that it may not use publicly funded resources to spread that position. This flyer was:
– produced under the district’s name and logo;
– distributed through PowerSchool, a school-to-parent portal and messaging system; and
– sent by a school administrator, who is a “public employee” under RSA 273-A:1, IX and RSA 659:44-a and is not covered by the exemption for elected or board-appointed officials.
REQUEST
I respectfully ask the Election Law Unit to:
1. Review whether the flyer and its distribution meet the definition of unlawful electioneering under RSA 659:44-a and RSA 652:16-h, as explained in your October 22 guidance;
2. Determine whether the same flyer was distributed through any other district channels (other schools’ PowerSchool updates, SchoolMessenger, the district website, or social media); and
3. If a violation is found, direct the district to stop distributing it and take whatever further action the Unit considers appropriate, consistent with the Office’s August 2026 action involving SAU 39 (Amherst).
Given that the election is November 3, I would appreciate prompt attention.
Attached:
– WHS Weekly Update, 10/23/2026 (PowerSchool email)
– “Understanding House Bill 1300” flyer (2026_WSD_TAX_CAP_16.pdf)
– Windham School Board “Public Hearing Notice for 10/20” (SchoolMessenger email, 10/8/2026)
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to provide any further information.
Respectfully,
Tom Murray, Co-founder
Government Integrity Project
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to say? We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
