by Tom Sutliffe
Dear Ms. Munsey:
We were a little confused and rather concerned with your untimely response to our letters of February 8th, 12th & 26th, 2007, with full knowledge that time was of the essence. The 2006 School Annual Report, as you know by statute, is required to be in the voter’s hand 7 days prior to the election which is March 13th. A letter from you was received March 3rd, 2007 wherein you stated, [our concern] “is a matter for the Epping School Board” and “I will let you know their decision as soon as I know”.
We wrote to you because we are very concerned with what your understanding is regarding our request for “having our viewpoint included, only if the school board has planned to open a forum by presenting selectively biased information concerning the school warrant articles.” We believe that you are the appropriate public official to voice our concerns to regarding District and School Board advocacy issues as specifically instructed on the Epping School District Home page.
“Please feel free to contact me at email@example.com or 603-679-8003. I request that all concerns be brought to the attention of the teacher, school principal, superintendent, and school board in that order per school district policy.”
It is our belief that as Superintendent, your advice and direction to the Epping School Board would have been instrumental in supplementing the School Board’s expanded understanding of the school ballot and warrant article statements contained within the 2006 School Annual Report relative to the constitutional constraints incumbent to their right to inform. We will no longer tolerate their crossing the line of State and Federal Constitutions prohibitions utilizing public monies and resources for purposes of advocacy. There are constitutional constraints that apply to the District and School Board’s right to fairly inform, when using taxpayers’ monies and resources, which you are charged with overseeing. We are mindful that the Epping School District is well acquainted with these issues, having already expended in access of $30,000 of the taxpayers monies for legal counsel on this continuing saga (Federal Case #06-CV-00474-SM) thus, you must be adequately informed that absent any specific statutory authorization to advocate, you have none.
We presume, at this late date, since the District has chosen not to respond in a timely manner to our citizen’s group concerns and most probably the Report been completed, that it has also chosen not to illegally engage in a one sided advocacy forum in the people’s 2006 Annual Town Report.