Boards handling of superintendent issue doesn't pass smell test

To the editor,

Gilford just had a recent “Special District Meeting”, as required by the law. Or did it? That’s what the paper said so it must true right? Wrong! The School Board had their attorney (the one we pay) deny the people a district meeting because the language for the petition was not “clear”. What we are getting from this school board is a group of cowards, hiding behind an attorney. I wish Chairman Webber could bring just an ounce of the integrity he earned during his distinguished military career to the School Board he now chairs.

By denying the people the district meeting they legally petitioned for, we had to listen to a number of issues completely unrelated to the implementation of the “District Plan”. Implementing the “District Plan” was the only purpose for a Special District Meeting. Such a meeting might help residents get the answers to the three prime issues that the people need resolved.

1. Why hasn’t the School Board implemented the “District Plan” that was approved by the State Department of Education (letter read by Karen Thurston)? The District Plan was ratified by the voters in 1998. Chairman Webber looked on as the district’s attorney explained that the board is sovereign and can do what it wishes. Board member Blandford attempted to say they are following the plan but they are choosing to use a “superintendent” as the District Plan’s “school administrator”. Blandford would be on the best path to integrity with one huge exception. They aren’t following ANY other part of the plan. In fact, they are clearly expanding the administrative unit way beyond the plans outline.

2. Why did the School Board hire the new superintendent just days before the vote? We have the School Board on video, clearly stating they would NOT hire the new superintendent any time before April. I’m not sure which was more painful, listening to board member Sue Allan’s weak explanation of why they had to hire the superintendent before the vote or watching her trying to look believable as she was stating it. Either way, only she and those naïve enough, believed it.

Unfortunately, whether or not these two issues are “legal” is only going to be decided in a court room; however, the School Board’s handling of these issues clearly doesn’t pass the smell test. Perhaps the board has the legal discretion to mislead and ignore the voters as they see fit so why not move passed the legal question and explain to the voters why we need to pay a $120,000 a year for a person to do the job that is currently being 90-percent done by several other $100, 000 (plus) a year administrators. Did I mention the additional $22,000 benefit package that each of these people receive in addition to their lofty salaries?

The third issue is probably the most disturbing. This would be the continued false statements that the School Board continues to make regarding the legality of Gilford NOT requiring a superintendent. They have stated in public meetings, in committee meetings and in various presentations that not having a superintendent would be a “violation of state law”. When a resident asked the district’s attorney if not having a superintendent was illegal, the attorney answered with the typical spin we now get from the School Board and in true lawyer fashion, he NEVER answered the question! This is a critical point because they have pitted members of the community against the Budget Committee and pitted some residents in the community against many of our educators and administrators. This is not healthy for the community, especially when their statements are false.

Resident advocate for anything school related, Mr. Cracraft, made a statement that there were a lot of people practicing law on this issue without a license. He’s absolutely correct! That would include the School Board and the administration. They have been citing alleged law in several public meetings; a law that doesn’t exist. At NO time did the district's attorney address this issue. He spent an enormous amount of time stating case law that the School Board has the right to run the district but he dodged the question when asked about the legal requirement for a superintendent. On that issue he led us to believe that the law allows them to be sovereign enough to ignore the Department of Education’s letter of approval which “ordered” the board to run the District without a superintendent but yet they somehow must obey a letter from the Department of Education “recommending” a superintendent. A letter, requested by Superintendent DeMinico, to have Judy Fulton of the Department of Education cite a portion of RSA-194 which Ms. Fulton told me personally did NOT apply to our district. That part is conveniently left out so that the letter can be used as a ruse to hopefully make this whole issue go away. Sadly, the superintendent knows full well the letter does NOT apply to our school District. Additionally, the most foolish thing about this letter is that the cited law is based on the student population. This is particularly ridiculous because the school’s population has significantly LESS students than it did when the state ordered the operation of replacing the “superintendent” with a “school administrator” 13 years ago. According to Mr. Cracraft, there really isn’t any need to pay any attention to these facts because we should just blindly listen to the attorney’s “opinion”. This is just another glowing example of academia’s dumbing down of education.

It would be nice if the education community of Gilford would simply stop sticking up for all the smoke and mirror spin their leadership is advocating. Hiding behind attorneys and sticking to the same old failed policies of the past just continues to expose the fact that our school system is nothing but a jobs program for the spoiled adults. Unfortunately, the children are simply tools they are using for the advancement of their salaries and careers. They should be looking at new ways to be more efficient. Ironically, the day of the School Board meeting, I attended a meeting at Chairman Webber’s often mentioned West Point U.S. Military Academy. The topic of the meeting was how the Academy is going to accomplish “more with less”. This is a concept that every school must embrace in order to change the dysfunctional model used today. Our local educators continue to spread fear that “doing more with less” is an effort to cut education. The fact is, they like the complacent way things are with little to no accountability as they advance their personal income, education and job security. They continue to use the same old effective excuses of social issues with students and the typical “blame the parent” game. If anyone cares to look at the new budget you will see the only increases for “the children” are for psychiatric counseling. The rest of the increases are big salaries and premium benefits for all! Pay no attention to the fact that Gilford is now a “school in need of improvement.” Our educators insist we must turn our focus on the whole child. To them, that’s everything but core curriculum with measurable results.

It’s clear that the Gilford School Board has gone out of its way to protect their massively over bloated SAU. At this point they should just change to a 100-percent sports curriculum and reduce the entire staff to coaches and psychiatrist. At least the children can have fun and feel good about themselves while Gilford continues to support the most expensively administrated babysitters. We can also sleep really good knowing they quickly moved up the purchase of the EZ turn mower and tractor with money they promised to return to the taxpayers. This should significantly improve education!

It’s really too bad when the best argument that our enlightened community of educators can come with is; “If you don’t like it, take us to court”.

Terry Stewart

Gilford