Moultonborough Study Committee - Hearing from the School Board
Well, I have certainly said plenty about the meeting conducted when the Moultonborough Study Committee ("the committee to trash the idea of having a budget committee") here, here, here, here, here, and here. Doug has put up actual video of Scott Laliberte's testimony to the MSC that seemingly has a different accounting of the Gilford BudComm than what has actually transpired here and the MSC visit here.
Well, we finally have an accounting from the School Board's view of this in a written Letter to the Editor in the Laconia Daily Sun and a Community Commentary in the Citizen.
Please note - the Sun is not online, so the link is just to their website. The Citizen generally has most Gilford articles on line, but I haven't given a complete URL to the actual article because....well, it isn't online. I'm not sure why, by am kinda surprised as certainly they broke the story. Certainly, the Gilford School Board is trying to give a spin on the story as they are outright attacking the poor reporter who pretty much got it right. Is pressure being applied?
I've posted my accounting. The videotape proves that he does from both Doug's camera and the videotape from the Moultonborough citizen, Hollis Austin. Both have offered complete, unedited copies of the Moultonborough - Gilford vist - you can decide for yourself.
Why do I say that? Well, let's see what the School Board is saying:
While we recognize the challenges of reporting the news in a clear and succinct manner, we also understand how critically important it is to report the fact correctly. The community of readers depends on accurate, factually based information from news reporters. When that does not happen, the credibility of individuals, of groups as well as of the news media itself is compromised.
So, the GSB is starting the process of killing the messenger. Deny his credibility and it makes the news more palatable. Let's see what they do with the facts as this eyewitness judges their claims (and of course, given the intensity of the debate over football and health insurance during last year's budget season, I bet that they would judge me to be in the same catagory as well).
Such is the case with Cutter Mitchell's articles in the July 26 and July 31 Citizen where he more than suggests tha the Gilford School board violated New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law by having a "closed-door meeting."
We wish to set the facts straight and to convey in no uncertain terms that the Gilford School Board has in the past and continues to fully comply with the public's right to know and, furthermore, contests any assertion that it has conducted a "closed-door meeting" meeting contrary to the state's Right-to-Know law.
No, Cutter's report is essentially true. Although the entire GSB signed the letter, only Derek and Sue were involved. AT NO TIME WERE THEY PRESENT IN THE ROOM WHERE WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE BY THE MSC CHAIR, Jerry Hopkins, THAT ANYONE ELSE BUT HE WAS INVITED (but Cutter attended). In fact, backed up by video, it was clear that only he was going to go to that meeting.
That is the essence of a closed door meeting - limited participation. And whether they like it or not, the GSB representatives seemingly have aided and abetted the attempt by MSC Chair Hopkins to skirt same named law.
In fact, this action has been deemed sufficiently severe by the Moultonborough Selectmen to be acting upon the eyewitness accounts AND having viewed the complete video taken by Hollis Austin. The Police Chief has also resigned from the MSC.
So, I ask - nothing wrong happened?
On July 25 the Gilford's School Board did not have a meeting in the context of the Righ-to-Know law, as a quorum of the board is needed to constitute such a meeting.
Only two representatives, Gilford School Board Chair Sue Allen and former Budget Committee representative and chair, Derek Tomlinson, met with the chair of the Moultonborough study committee Jerry Hopkins, regarding their committee's consideration of adopting a municipal budget committee.
And this is true. If a quorum is not there, it is "officially" not a meeting.
The problem is that it WAS an official meeting of the MSC. And their Chair did not have the right to split an official meeting into private meetings on his own say so. There was a quorum of the MSC plus Moultonborough citizens in attendance. And they were informed that their presence was not welcome when Mr. Hopkins went to see Sue and Derek.
Both Sue and Derek supported having a Budget Committee in the town, as they have done in several public forums in the past, and gave details of its structure.
Should I expect them to say otherwise?
While not technically correct, it effectively is true. How? The posting was done the requisite 24 hours before the MSC departed from Moultonborough. The place, however, was just Gilford, and the only mention of time was at the meeting of the MSC previous that they were leaving a parking lot in Moultonborough at 4:40pm. No specific place in Gilford was given, nor any specific time was given for a meeting start time in Gilford.It is unfortunate and misleading that the titles of both Citizen articles have "Gilford" and "closed -- meeting" in them" Furthermore there are inaccuracies about the event along with inferences and accusations about Right-to_Know violations. Specifically, we wish to offer a couple of corrections for the record:
- On July 26 Citizen reporter Cutter Mitchell writes: "The meeting with both boards in Gilford was posted as a public meeting by by the Study Committee in Moultonborough, though no time or place was given on the official meeting posting.
The meeting was not posted in Gilford, either on the town web site nor in Town Hall." The fact is, that this was not a meeting of the Gilford School Board as there was no direct School District business to discuss, no agenda, and no quorum. Therefore no posting by Gilford is required.
- On July 26 and 31 Cutter Mitchell writes: "instead of cancelling the meeting outright, Allen and Tomlinson elected to meet with Moultonborough Study Committee Chairman Hopkins behind closed doors to continue the discussion."
The fact is Sue Allen and Derek Tomlinson arrived at the Gilford Town Hall kitchen as previously agreed, and when finding a full room and what appeared to be a meeting with some members of the Budget Committee, they waited in an open conference room upstairs for any representative of the Moultonborough Study Committee.
When Jerry Hopkins entered, they met with him with the doors open. No other other people chose to attend.
Let me repeat what has already been stated:
- AT NO TIME WERE THEY PRESENT IN THE ROOM WHERE WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE BY THE MSC CHAIR, Jerry Hopkins, THAT ANYONE ELSE BUT HE WAS INVITED (but Cutter attended). In fact, backed up by video, it was clear that only he was going to go to that meeting.
- That is the essence of a closed door meeting - limited participation.
The Letter continues:
The Right-to-Know law is an integral part of the democracy and the Gilford School Board takes it very seriously and complies fully with the law. Furthermore, the School Board believes that accurate information is essential for an informed Gilford citizenry.
Sorry, but this Letter from the GSB has its own flaws - very evident when one reads the results and the meeting minutes from the last Moultonborough Selectmen meeting.
Toward that end, the School Board will soon launch its own website in order to share it public meeting deliberations with a broader segment of the community. The Board's intent is to provide a balanced and accurate picture of the direction in which the School District is heading.
Er, taxpayers have been paying for the School Board / District website for quite some time. All one has to do is go here. They need another one? Why not make better use of the one they already have (and paid for by taxpayers)?
This piece is coauthored by the entire Gilford School Board: Sue Allen, Chairperson; Margo Weeks, Vice-Chairperson; and Paul Blandford, Derek Tomlinson, Kurt Webber.
Oh YEAH, I almost forgot!! While the GSB is trying to discredit Cutter completely (gee, for what end, I suppose?), I did say that the Moultonborough Selectmen were sufficiently concerned (ticked? upset? floored?) about the goings on, they are taking some concrete actions of their own to never allow this to happen again. Now, if nothing happened, as the entire GSB contends, why is the Moultonborough Selectmen doing the following (emphasis is mine - as reported by a Moultonborough citizen - Doug has the actual minutes but I cannot reach him right now to have those sent to me):
- The tape was reviewed by the Board in its entirety just prior to the 7pm meeting.
- There is a meeting next week between Town Counsel and the Budget Committee Chairman on the subject of Right-to Know law.
- Prior to tonight's meeting, a member of the Board (Betsy Patten) spoke to the Budget Committee Chairman (Jerry Hopkins) and asked if she could attend. Rationale: (1) the town is paying for the lawyer so should be someone there from the Board to witness it. (2) the Selectmen should be there to ensure that all are on the same page with respect to RTK. (3) The Selectmen understand and fully support the RTK law and want to be sure that this information is clearly communicated to all committees and study groups in town. Another member of the Board (Ed Charest) offered to tag along too as he's very serious about this issue also. The Board voted unanimously to allow Betsy and Ed to attend.
Not only sounding like a woodshed meeting, but this sounds like the Selectmen believe that the actions of Mr. Hopkins were so severe that they wish to make sure that RTK violations, if they have occured, don't continue to happen.
- Betsy Patten will report back next week.
- During commentary Betsy offered that she would like the Moultonboro folks to have a more stringent policy with regard to RTK postings in that 24 hours as stated in the law is too lenient and doesn't give ample time for citizens. She likes the precedent set now for a couple of Boards of a few days notice.
The tone of tonight's meeting was civil and even friendly at times. A far cry from what we've seen the past several weeks. No yelling and berating the folks talking. No intimidating. Helpful comments. Funny what a few comments in the paper will do!
I kind of attribute this to the video and the reporting. Without the reporting with a clear and unedited video to back it up (the figurative flashlights), corrective action might not have happened.
Look, Doug and I may disagree philosophically with a number of people and group in town in what the role of local government should be; that's fine and a good debate to have. However, one of the things that underlies everything we do is that everything is out in the open - we'll share any video, we'll have anyone on Meet The New Press, and we look forward to audio or video streaming the Budget Committee meetings as possible.
We cannot WAIT for the Gilford Channel to start up so that all governmental proceedings of elected and appointed officials can be seen at any time. Got some extra cash or time? Consider donating it to getting the rest of the equipment for the cameras!
