Tom:

Thanks for sticking with this issue of compelled speech.

Our guys in Hopkinton just caught the school super, Brian Blake, politicing with the private email list of parents.

I should have all the details tomorrow.

I think you spoke too soon. I got a schoolboard mailer in Epping. It just explained the warrant articles and the date, time and place of voting. It was informative, but did not advocate one way or the other. Is this the kind of mailing you are so against? Why would you not want voters to get information about what they are voting on?

Tabitha:
Just go to the website ( www.eppingnospinzone.com ) and read, where it is explained in detail, what the Federal case is about. I am sure all your questions will be answered quite satisfactorily there.

Tom:

The Strafford School Board, almost the entire Planning Board, and some other tax and spenders held a secret meeting last Friday at Cassidy's Restaurant and came up with pro school flier they ask each person to give to friends. I have the email from among them which was forwarded to me.

So I can use the same opportunity to get my opinion out?????

What was it Thomas Jefferson said about "compelling a man to pay for another man's opinion is abhorhant.."

You speak much too soon. Do you really think if they had decided not to send them out was because of you? I think you're even more conceited than I thought. I think every resident of Epping knows what that Federal case that you just can't let go is about. I'm also sure that we all know how much more money your wasting continuing this lost cause. And even if you win, then what? Are you going to make the taxpayers pay more money to tear it down. I thought the taxpayers association was supposed to save the taxpayers money not spend large quantities more of it.

Tom,
Okay. I read your site, but that still does not answer my question. Did you get a mailer from the school board on Saturday? If so, is it the kind of mailer that you are trying to prevent them from mailing? Yes, or no?

That school mailing was fine. It contained the facts of their position with no advocacy, nor was it muled home by the students. If some group wants to advocate thats ok just as long as they use their own money and not the pubic's money, like the Epping School Board and Town used to do!

Tom:

Did I thank you for filing the case in Federal Court lately - the one that HAD to be filed because the school supers abused their positions and began all over agauin to mule stuff out with kids and use school resources to push propoganda.

Back in 1996 Granite State Taxpayers sent a letter drafted by Attorney Chuck Douglass to every school in the state warning them NOT to engage in Compelled Speech any longer so as no suit would have to be filed or statute drawn to stop it.

But here we are. Thay just could not stop like professionals would.

They will in November when they lose in Federal Court. And NO we won't settle out of court!

Tom,
Okay, so help me to understand. If the school board mailings are now okay with your organization, why continue with the law suit? If you got them to change the way they word their mailings then why go on and waste more money on lawyers?

Punitive damages serve only one purpose. They are intended to punish individuals, organizations, etc. so they they will never do what they did again, because it costs too much. The results of this suit will send a message to all the towns statewide. Don't do this or you'll have to pay damages like Epping did. There's a lesson to be learned here.

Tabitha:

We have numerous suits in NH from previous compelled speech violations, Derry Taxpayers v. Town of Derry, there was one in Hanover several years ago, and the Souhegan case in the 90's where the Testerman's won, but the school superintendents still perist as do some towns.

THEY are the ones that cost taxpayers money with suits. You keep voting in people who cheat - they get sued. That isn't hard to understand.

But we could create some new legislation making it criminal and THAT would maybe end it. California has some cases in which Compelled Speech is a felony.

I like that. We need it here.

Tom,
I can understand why Ed would want you to continue to pursue this law suit, because it doesn't directly have an impact on his tax rate and you have to be the one to put out your neck to prove a point that he would like to see be made. But it does cost you as a tax payer directly, as well as the rest of the residents of Epping. I just think that if the school or town boards have changed their practice then you have already won and continuing just to punish them for past mistakes is pointless. It only costs more money. And by punitive damages, do you mean that if you win you expect the tax payers to pay you some money amount for your trouble? I don't think that you'll be very popular if you cause the tax rate to go higher to pay punitive damages. This may also compromise your position in the community to have any impact on other items that you may want Epping residents to listen to you about. This may or may not be something that is important to you, but it may be something that you might want to consider. And what if you don't win? You seemed to have this same confidence that the NH Supreme Court would decide in your favor and they did not rule in your favor. What will you do if you don't win?

So, you would suggest that if the Town promises to obey the law from this point forward they will. What turnip truck have you fallen off? Trust the Epping Town government... you must be kidding. We trusted them not to violate our constitutional rights as citizens and their attitude was if you don't like it, sue us. Maybe, they can collect damages from the town attorney, whose infinite wisdom and great learned counsel not only lined his own pockets, but got the Town into this mess in the first place. A very common practice in New Hammpshire. You see if town counsel tells the town to comply with the law, he can't line his pockets with town funds! By the way, the Supreme Court had a non finding on the issue. That's the only reason we pursued it in Federal Court! Yes, it's going to be nice when all the other towns in New Hampshire experiencing the same problems can site our case and say "See your Honor, what they are doing is illegal!"

Tom,
But you avoided one question. What will you do "if" they still do not rule in your favor this time? Will you then compensate Epping taxpayers for the money spent on lawyers and the time town employees have been paid to put into this matter? I understand that you feel that you have to prove a point, but what about all the taxpayers who do not want to pay so you can prove your point?

"Prove your point"..... What's wrong with you? Have you read the case? It is very easy to follow... what they did was break the law for personal gain. We want our constitutional rights not to be trampled upon further. The Federal laws on the books presently do not permit or allow in any way the conduct the Epping Town government has choosen to follow. If necessary, the next logical step would be the Supreme Court of the United States and we have an offer to take the case there pro bono.

Tom,
Personal gain? What did they gain personally? If I remember correctly there were some pressing reasons to pass the school addition that year. The State had given Epping its last warning about the need to expand the school facilities before they instituted the consequence of pulling Epping's state accredidation. I may be wrong, but I think that if a school loses that, then parents can request to to tution their chidren to ther districts. This would have been much more costly than the building addition. The loss of accreditdation would have also had a negative impact on home property values. They may have made some mistakes, but I think that this was information that they were obligated to inform voters of, because the negative consequences could have been far worse. And yes, if they have changed their practices and are now following the law, I do think that you are doing this just to "prove a point". Half of the people who were on those boards are no longer even serving. You won already, they changed the way the do things. Maybe some sort of legal agreement to abide by for the future would work, if they were to also agree to it as well. I just think you are wasting our money in your continued pursuit. It is history, move on.

I am not from Epping, and I am sorry to intrude on your conversation. However, I am compelled to respond.

School Boards have a history of abusing the resources that are available to them. They have access to "one on one" contact with parents. This is something we the taxpayer do not have. They have a captive audience if you will, to use a line of communication that is meant to relay information about school events for educational purposes, or if "Johnny" is being a bad boy. They have mailing addresses, email addresses and phone numbers at their disposal. This is a very good tool when it is used for it's intended purpose. HOWEVER, when they use it to promote one sided, self serving, political agendas, it is not only illegal, but HIGHLY unethical as well. I believe that having a law, or a court decision handed down that clearly states this, is the only way to put it to an end once and for all.

I have no way of knowing what Mr. Sutliff's intentions are when it comes to the punitive damages, but with all due respect to Tabitha, school boards and local officials only understand ONE thing, and that is court action and the results of them.

If I were to go out and break the law, I would be forced to pay the price for my actions. Standing in front of the judge and making a promise that I won't do it again, won't cut it at all. The same should hold true for our elected officials. In fact they ARE ALREADY held to a higher standard because of their positions.

I am sorry, but when my rights have been violated by the very people I elect to protect them, "I'm sorry, but I won't do it again" simply doesn't cut it.

Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind and I hope that your issues are cleared up at the end of the court case. I for one, will be watching it very closely.

Don Chase, Pittsfield, NH

Don,
But unfortunately those individuals will not be the only ones to pay for it, all of us not involved will also have to pay for it in our taxes. As I said, most of the people in the suit are no longer even on the boards. The difference in your example is that all the residents pay, not just those named in the suit. I don't personally want to pay to see this law suit continue because I was not involved. If they were continuing to use these things in a way that Mr. Sutliffe still disagreed with, then I would understand. It still feels to me like he needs to prove he is right even if it will cost us more. At least when we spend thirty to forty thousand dollars on something tangible that the town needs like for police or fire we are spending on something that benefits all residents directly. Money spent on lawyers seems like a waste to me.

Don, excellent response! It appears that Tabitha come hell or high water clearly just does not get it! Possibly a learning disability. Further discussion would be pointless.