Newmarket's Swanson and Tilton: Off to a Bad Start

On March 23, 2020, Newmarket’s two newest school board members Gary Swanson and Amy Tilton participated in their first school board meeting, via teleconferencing.

This meeting lasted approximately two hours, with the second-hour being held entirely outside of public view in a non-public session under RSA 91-A: 3, II, C (Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting).

Swanson and Tilton’s participation in the non-public session raises serious doubts for me about their integrity and the issues they both ran on: better communication and transparency as well as their willingness to follow the law (RSA 91-A).

While it’s true the law does allow a public body to enter into nonpublic session if discussions are “likely” to harm a person reputation, other than that of a board member, the law did not intend, nor does it allow, all of the conversation to be held in nonpublic.

The law states: “All discussions held and decisions made during the nonpublic sessions shall be confined to the matters set out in the motion (may harm the reputation). All other discussions and decisions which would not likely harm someone’s reputation were required to be conducted in public. This, I do not believe, happened.

Additionally, a public body may not enter nonpublic session under reputation unless they notify the person whose reputation may be harmed and offers that person the opportunity for an open meeting.

So, who’s reputation was likely to have been harmed so as to require the school board to meet in nonpublic session for almost one hour? Chris Mazzone? Susan Givens? Penney Botterman? Perhaps even myself? No. It could not have been me. I did not receive a notice from the board giving me the option of a public meeting (please see above...unless such person requests an open meeting). I seriously doubt, however, that the board notified anyone.

RSA 91-A: 3, II C is perhaps the most abused exemption public bodies use in order to hold secret meetings out of the public eye. And it appears to me that Swanson and Tilton jumped right onto the secrecy train, and in doing so, violated the law, violated their oath and broke their election campaign promises.

A special note to Swanson and Tilton: Read the Right-to-Know Law! You are required by law to report any violations of nonpublic meeting laws. The only part of nonpublic meetings that you cannot reveal are the confidential parts. All nonconfidential communications of nonpublic sessions can be exposed. If the board discussed issues beyond that which would “likely harm someone’s reputation or did not place that person on notice, you must report this! It’s your integrity and promise to the community that are on the line.