Parents show support for Levesque at school board meeting

LACONIA — Many eyes and voices were present at Tuesday night's school board meeting. Almost every seat was filled, and around 140 people viewed the meeting online. Most attendees were there to show support for David Levesque, principal of Pleasant Street Elementary School. Levesque's employment contract was not renewed, much to the chagrin of parents who showed up looking for answers and to advocate for the twenty-year veteran educator. Levesque, however, was not present.

“Nobody's saying why he is not getting renewed,” said Elizabeth Gleason, a parent who attended the meeting in support of Levesque. “We look at a man that has put everything into this school to make it better for us, and just to let him go, that doesn't make sense.”

There were so many attendees that school board chair Aaron Hayward moved public comment from item eight to item four on the agenda. The motion was approved and multiple parents, in turn, praised Levesque and criticized the board for what they called a lack of transparency regarding the manner.

“To be clear, we cannot comment on any personnel matters because that is confidential. We are duty bound to do so. Breaching that in any way, shape or form is a breach of oath of office for us. Not to mention opens up the district for liability,” Hayward explained after a few citizens spoke publicly in defense of Levesque and demanded answers.

“For starters, if the taxpayers do not want to be stuck with a bill where the district is sued for breach of confidentiality for their staff and if the staff want to feel protected in this district, we need to maintain confidentiality about the work we do when we're in nonpublic discussing personnel matters.”

Levesque himself has also remained silent on his impending exit, following in step with confidentiality rules.

“I personally spoke to David,” Gleason recalled. “He cannot talk about it, he said to me. From what I've seen, I don't think he wants to leave Pleasant Street School.”

Gleason acknowledged the legal issues of the board sharing specifics regarding a personnel matter, but feels that parents have been kept in the dark.

“Why is it a personnel issue? This affects 300 kids and their parents and their teachers. It feels like everything is a personnel issue so it doesn't have to be public,” Gleason said after the meeting. “If he (Levesque) did something wrong, someone has to have answers to something. There should be answers. Even tell us 'something did happen, but we're working on the process.' You can be forward without giving away personal information.”

While the school board has no legal obligation to comment on personnel matters, documents regarding Levesque's non-renewal may be accessed via New Hampshire's Right to Know Law, according to ACLU-NH senior staff attorney Henry Klementowicz.

“If there is a government record that would explain why they decided not to rehire him, that document would be public record,” Klementowicz explained. However, there is an exemption for personnel whose disclosures would result in an invasion of privacy.

“If someone were to send a request for all records relating to the decision not to hire him, the school board would make that decision first and they'd have to respond and produce the documents or not, and then the requester could file a lawsuit in superior court.”

When looking at these requests, courts must weigh the balance between the public's interest, and the subject's right to privacy.

The topic of transparency also became heated among the board members themselves. Board member Dawn Johnson lashed out directly at Hayward and superintendent Steve Tucker.

“Last meeting, we had a paper that went around with all the renewal contracts, minus two, we all approved. Past practice, we have also gotten a list of administrators that we would approve or not approve for renewals. We have not seen that list, and yet we've had issues where things have been sent out and it has not come to the board for approval. I find it very disheartening and very underhanded,” Johnson said before reiterating her dismay at this apparent change of practice. “I am done with this. I have to answer to these people! You sit behind your mask, you sit and close your door! I'm done!”

“We are required by the LEA contract to a particular process,” Hayward explained. “The administrative contracts are not on the same requirement and processing timeline.”

Hayward turned to Tucker for some further explanation.

“The LEA has contracts issued at a certain timeline which we worked hard to get the contract passed by the city council on the eleventh (of April), and the non union employees have a different timeline,” Tucker added.

Johnson pressed Tucker further, “Which timeline is that? Because we have always done them at the same time.”

Tucker responded that they were looking at contracts being issued on May 15.

“So you have taken it upon yourself to issue these renewals or non renewals to administration without board oversight or approval,” Johnson said. “I find that horrifying and a dereliction in your duties as superintendent to advise the board as to what is happening in the district as our job is entailed to do.”

“I followed all the timelines required by law,” Tucker responded.

Johnson ended her pursuit with “I am done listening to your lies.”

The next school board meeting will take place on May 3.