Newmarket School Board Continues to Violate Our Laws!

On September 24th, 2020, the Newmarket School Board held a public meeting out of town at Three Chimneys Inn in Durham New Hampshire. Prior to the meeting taking place, I informed Newmarket’s Superintendent of Schools, Susan Givens, that holding the meeting at Three Chimneys Inn would violate Right-to-Know Law by not allowing for public attendance of the meeting. Givens replied to my concern by simply stating Three Chimneys does allow for public attendance of the meeting. Givens, of course, is wrong.

During this current pandemic, many restrictions have been placed upon all of us to ensure our safety. Three Chimneys Inn is no exception. Their policy is no more than 6 people at a table, and tables must be at least six feet apart. NH RSA 91-A (Right to know) requires that all parts of any public meeting must be audible to every member of the public. Three Chimneys restrictions would not allow the public the ability to hear what the school board is discussing, thus violating the law.

The big issue for me, however, is why would the Newmarket School Board need to leave town to conduct a public meeting? The school boards’ regular meeting locations are the town hall conference room and or the basement of the town hall. Both of these locations not only allow the public to attend and where they can hear the conversations, but these locations also provide audiovisual recordings of the meetings. There is of course only one logical reason: the school board wanted to discuss issues without the public being present, and where there are no cameras to record the meeting.

An interesting twist to this out-of-town meeting location (a public restaurant) is the fact that just days earlier, Superintendent Given’s closed the NMJSH for in-school learning because one of the staff tested positive for the COVID Virus! Currently, contact tracing is underway in the district to identify any district employee who may have come in contact with the infected individual. As superintendent of the district, Givens necessarily comes in contact with many employees who may have interacted with the infected person. Given this situation, I don’t believe Givens should have been out and about in a public restaurant...but I digress.

While I am unaware of any law which prevents a public body from holding a public meeting outside of the town they represent or in a public restaurant of their choosing, actions such as these should be frowned upon by all. RSA 91-A provides a private location where public bodies can meet without cameras and the public should the body need to do so, it’s called a nonpublic session.

Jeffrey Thomas Clay, M.Ed.