Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Levesque: And, I requested at the beginning of the meeting that there be an item added
under section 8 regarding a, a resolution for court order of January 17, 2012.
Brackett: Yes.
Lane: I make a motion to, not to take an appeal for the court's order of January 17, 2012.
Brackett: Second?
Kach: Second.
Brackett: Second by Jim. Any further discussion of this? Yes.
O'Quinn: I, I think it's worthwhile to just spend a few minutes and, and I'd be happy
to do it just talking a little bit about the case. I know that many people have had questions
and you know now we've had a chance to really review what the order said, and, and, and
try to absorb what it, what it actually means. In my view, based on my reading of the order
from the judge as well as discussions with our attorney, the primary finding of this
case focuses on a series on non-meetings that the Board held while negotiating a separation
agreement with the former superintendent. We conducted these meetings under legal guidance
as well as guidance from the New Hampshire School Board Association. I personally believe
that the Board did the best it could with the legal guidance we had at that time. You
know, we had a lawyer with us through this process. We used legal advice. So, clearly
when, in my view, when you're looking at the Right-to-Know law there's some ambiguity here.
If you can, in my view, unknowingly violate the Right-to-Know law with a lawyer present,
that's very confusing as a Board member, and frankly very confusing as an elected official
trying to follow the Right-to-Know laws, and I'm speaking for myself here, and my interpretation
of the case.
Additionally, the case, the judge, the case that the judge references in her findings
is the Ettinger case which focuses on a, a, what I think is a more specific definition
of a non-meeting versus a non-public meeting. And, ultimately when I read this it looks
as though going forward if the Board was in this situation again, it should hold non-public
meetings as opposed to a non-meeting. So, the Ettinger case that the judge references
was ruled on in January 2000, I'm sorry what was
Butts: December
O'Quinn: December 2012, and in that case
Kach: 2011
O'Quinn: Excuse me, 2011?
Kach: December, 2011
O'Quinn: Oh, we haven't... oh right. What year are we in?
Kach: [laughs]
O'Quinn: All right, I'm sorry. Actually the Ettinger case, OK, so December 2011 that's
right, right? It essentially, this case essentially created new case law which interestingly we
found out is retroactive, so even though what the Board did occurred I believe in the spring
and the summer of 2011, the, this new case law that was decided in December goes back,
and, and that's my understanding and you know, hey it's unfortunate that our case was heard
in November, new case law was created in December, and it goes back. So, this was a really unfortunate
situation. And, a lot has been said about it but you know I think it's worth noting
that we had legal guidance, we were going through this very complicated process and
I think the Board learned a lot from this and that is a really specific definition between
a non-meeting and a non-public meeting and I think frankly the lawyers learned a lot
about that as well.
You know I'll go ahead and note there are other findings in this order including an
email that was referenced sent to a quorum of the Board as well as a certain Board member's
delay in providing documents under a Right-to-Know request. And, I think those are pretty straightforward
issues that, oh, there were also some posting issues. I think in regard to emails that were
not sent, the district has taken steps to address this. We all now have our Oyster River
Cooperative School District accounts so that the district can go ahead and get our emails
for requests and I think that's important. Regarding posting I'm hoping the the central
office is looking at you know a, a way to post, you know, clarify, how we post our meetings
and also make sure that there's a back up place, and process, a back up place, a backup
system in place, because if somebody is sick and a meeting isn't posted and you don't know
your meeting is posted and you go to that meeting, you're violating the law. So, so,
clearly it gets kind of complicated and unfortunately the Board does not post it's own meetings.
The Board does not post it's own minutes, and, you know, I, we probably shouldn't. So,
anyway, I, I think there's some things to learn here in terms of a, a newly clarified
non-meeting versus non-public meeting, in terms of our emails, in my view, which should
streamline the process and again in terms of posting, so I think it's worth noting all
of that and taking in the real complexity of this case as it's kind of presented itself,
but, you know, I just want to stress that you know, I'll speak for myself, you know,
we were doing the best that we could under legal guidance, with regards to the majority
of the case. And, I'm not going to go into specific Board member's actions. You know,
people can speak for themselves. But, you know, it was a Board trying to do the best
that it could under a complicated, complex law. And, you know, here we are. And, I think
it's very unfortunate and I feel very badly about that but looking back, I don't know
what could have been different, with regards to the non-meetings and non-public meetings.
So, that's just my view on it and I think people have waited a long time to hear about
that. This case is final and we can talk about it. And, I'm happy to do so.
Brackett: Yes, Jim.
Kach: There was references made to Mr. Brackett and myself about the answers we gave in, in
the candidates' forum. At the time, the case was still live and believe me I didn't know
what I could say and what I couldn't say. I will tell you this, that we're not, I'm
not in disagreement with what the judge found. But, I think, in a larger sense, that it was
never my intent, to defraud the public. It was never my intent to do things behind closed
doors and keep things secret so no one would find out. You have to remember the issue with
a, with Mr. Colter, was a very sensitive negotiation between two lawyers, certain confidentiality
had to be observed. I'm sorry if, if people thought or perceived that we were trying to
do something consciously illegal. It was never the case. I'm not an attorney. We did the
best that we could. And, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that we wound up breaking the law.
O'Quinn: Violating the law.
Kach: Violating the law, forgive me.
Butts: [laughs]
Kach: That's all I can say. I'm sorry about that.
Henry: Krista.
Butts: I just want to say that since the, what do you call them, judgements have come
out. See, that's how legal I am.
Turnbull: Orders.
Butts: That's how much I know about the judicial system. It's horrible. Anyway, since the orders
came out I have contacted the New Hampshire School Board Association as has Lee. Lee has
arranged for the New Hampshire School Board Association to come in and do our Right-to-Know
training for the new Board. And, I have arranged, we have received several advice, suggestions
from the New Hampshire School Board Association along the process, and this was before the
second order came out what to do with our superintendent search, and so on and so forth.
So, the New Hampshire School Board Association has again been helping us out just as they
did last summer. But, this time I'm hoping for a better end result, so.
Brackett: OK. Any discussion? No. Moving on to the next ...
Turnbul: We need to vote on it.
Butts: Motion on the table.
Levesque: Could we get the motion read again please?
Lane: Yes. The motion was to not to take an appeal from the court's order of January 17,
2012.
Brackett: OK. And, who seconded it?
Turnbull: Jim.
Brackett: Jim did, OK. All those in favor of the motion? Unanimous. OK.