In a letter to the editor in 3/17/09 Concord Monitor, Budget Committee Chair George Lagos went on the attack against fellow Committee Member Cindy Martin. Lagos referenced a Saturday 3/14/09 Concord Monitor article that quoted Budget Committee member Cindy Martin who expressed her concerns of the impact of the cost of teacher’s contract on the taxpayers of Bow.
Cindy made these concerns at the microphone at the school district meeting and at that time she stated that this was her own opinion. The tone of Lagos’ ire at Cindy’s quote was unmistakable in his letter. He was not pleased with her expressing her opinion because it was different from that of the Budget Committee in general. How the editor or reporter presented Cindy’s quote in the paper can’t possibly be the fault of Cindy but Lagos was implying likewise.
Also in his letter Lagos stated that the school district operating budget was reduced and the Budget Committee supported the teachers’ contract. His letter was clearly directed to the poorly informed Concord Monitor readers because informed readers on this website already know that point. BCC website viewers also know that Lagos’ claim that the budget is being reduced can easily be challenged because of the dramatic overestimate of the cost of health insurance of $330,000 that the school board promises to return this year.
Time will tell whether or not Lagos is correct when our Christmastime tax bills come out later this year and we can compare it to our June bill. My educated guess is the June bill will be lower meaning Lagos was wrong.
Come on George, she said it was her opinion when she went to the microphone. Your letter is unbecoming of a Chairman. George if you don’t like what the Monitor wrote, blame them. Independent thought isn’t welcome under your rule. Does the Budget Committee have to be like the school board where there is no independent thought? If that is the case Bow is in very big trouble and we need change as soon as possible.
Anyone who follows Bow school board meeting minutes knows there is no independence in their thought. I hope the budget committee is not going down this path.
yeswecan, saying that simply because there is often consensus in School Board decisions does not mean there is a lack of independent thought. Speaking with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, I was told that the Court in the vast majority of its decisions comes to the same verdict, despite the radically different legal philosophies held by the Justices. It can be said neither that that Justices lack independent thought, nor that the Court itself lacks contention. rather, some legal commentators argue that the Supreme Court is the most contentious it has been in its history; nevertheless, this highly diverse group most often reaches the same conclusion.
The School Board, likely, is no different. The Board is made up of a diverse group of individuals with disparate background. Nevertheless, they often reach the same conclusion. What such an outcome tells me is that, despite their differences, their reasoning all leads them to the same end point. This demonstrates to me not homogeneous thinking, but rather a logical conclusion.
As to Ms. Martin: it is important that public officials not even give the appearance of impropriety when serving in their capacity as a public official. If one decides that they wish, in a public forum of which they are serving as an elected official, to make a comment as a citizen they must make it abundantly clear that they are speaking as a citizen and their views in no way necessarily reflect that of the office to which they belong. Ms. Martin, a self-proclaimed journalist, should know that better than all of us.
Ms. Martin, at the town meeting, quickly stated “speaking personally,” which, being in perfectly good hearing, I could barely decipher given its brevity and the din of the crowd. This is not a clear, definite and explicit disclaimer. What she said falls far below that standard. Moreover, this is not the first time Ms. Martin has spoken both as a citizen and as a member of the Budget Committee. I can, personally, think of two prior instances in which this occurred. A genteelly-stated public reprimand is certainly appropriate when there is a history of impropriety, particularly for one who ascribes themselves to the level of journalistic integrity.
Publius, I think your Supreme Court analogy, is a good one to prove you are wrong and that is good to have public dissent. It is rare that the Supreme Court agrees unanimously contrary to what you say. It is just the opposite with our school board it is rare that they aren’t unanimous in all of their decisions and there is never allowed a dissenting opinion. There is always a dissenting opinion with the Supreme Court. Thanks for proving my point. Great Job.
Also who appointed your the judge of impropriety? If you recall Ms. Martin used the same microphone that the public uses and she did state she was speaking for herself, which you also admitted. As you may have noted there is a hand microphone used by members of the budget committee. Lagos used it. She moved all the way from where the budget committee was sitting to speak for herself. What more does she have to do by your made up rules?
What ever happen to freedom of speech? Times have changed and we are entering very dangerous times in Bow if we allow Lagos to get away with what he did.
Resign now Legos!
yeswecan, several things:
1) A closer reading of my comment would reveal that it is not I who made the comment but Sandra Day O’Conner (Supreme Court appointee by Ronald Reagan; stepped down in 2005 to care for her ailing husband). The Supreme Court adjudicates hundreds of cases each term. The one that make the news are those that are controversial in their subject matter or highly contentious– most often these are one in the same. Nevertheless, from the mouth of a (then) sitting Justice, the court most often unanimous in their decision. For confirmation, see generally http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/.
2) I never declared myself a judge; however, there is precedent. Judges, lawyers, and other public officials are guided by ethical guidelines to avoid “even the appearance of impropriety.” See in the first instance http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.cfm.
I doubt anyone is trying to restrict Ms. Martin’s freedom to speak– this is a fundamental right granted to all citizens. However, being an elected official is not a fundamental right. As has been stated on this site numerous times, elected officials are constrained by certain norms and expectations of behavior. Ms. Martin did not give a clear, definite and explict disclaimer that she was speaking as a citizen and not as a Committee member, and gave the appearance that he personal feelings on SB2 were congruent with those of the Committee she serves on.
3) As to the microphone: this is, frankly, a paper tiger argument. Other members of Budget Committee used the same microphone to give the outcome of particular of unrelated issues.
4) You are concerned about “freedom of speech” for Ms. Martin, yet in the next two lines you criticize someone else for excercising the same right that you purport to value. Could you clarify this double-standard? I, for one, think a single standard will do nicely.
I guess if the school board can get away with using public time/funds to send out emails and phone calls regarding their positions on elections, she is within her right to do this.
I have gone to most town and school meetings for the last 20 years and the Budget Committee members who wish to speak as budget committees members speak from a hand microphone right where the designated area for budget committee members sit, down by the moderator.
Ms. Martin clearly spoke at the microphone that the general population speaks out from and she did say she was speaking for herself. I don’t know how clear that can be.
Now what about Pansy Bloomfield speaking out so often. Does Pansy always speak for the School Board? I don’t think so. She had some issues with Dr. Elgert said about Evergreen. I see a huge double standard here.
I think Lagos attempt to restrict Cindy’s freedom of speech should be reasons for impeachment. If he was of good will he would apologize and step down.
teacher, your comparison is inaccurate. The School Board sent out an informative flyer and and an email was sent out informing those on the list of the upcoming meeting. Both were intended to be information, not to take a position. Moreover, none of them disclosed any personal circumstances that led to feeling on any particular issue. Ms. Martin publicly stated her personal views on SB2, and the personal reasons so surrounding. These two events are not comparable.
taxed2death, you fail to address my question to you, and instead bring up an irrelevant (and likely inaccurate) issue. We are talking here about Ms. Martin’s unbecoming conduct, and Mr. Lagos’ response. Injecting other members of the Bow community is off point.
Moreover, Mr. Lagos is not trying to restrict her speech, but rather have it qualified so that she does not give the appearance of speaking for the Committee when she gives her personal opinion at public meetings. This is far afield from an abridgment of speech.
Moreover, just as a point of clarification: you are assuming taxed2death that there can be no restrictions on free speech. I recommend you read Debs v. United States, Schenck v. United States, and Abrams v. United States to help clarify the legal realities of 1st amendment protections of free speech. Moreover, I would recommend reviewing the Strict Scrutiny doctrine. If you’d like, I’ll happily provide you with some websites that do a very nice job a breaking the concept down into laymen’s terms.
taxed2death, just to prove the point, if you look at the following article it will demonstrate that last year, the most contentious year in the court’s history, 30% of the cases heard by the court were unanimous. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320525,00.html
Taxed2death, I noticed how terse Pansy Bloomfield was with Dr. Elgert. It was almost as if she was scolding him. I also noticed Cindy Martin go always from the first row to speak at the micro phone and say something to that effect that she was not speaking for the budget committee but herself. What the “hay†is wrong with that. Being a woman I take great offense what Lagos is trying to attempt. I am angry.
I find publius comments offendsive as well.
bowsportsfan, I’m sorry you feel offended. Could you please clarify what specifically you are referring to, so that I might clarify myself?
Thanks publius, I will change my statement that unanimous decisions in the court are rare to most Supreme Court Decisions are not unanimous that really doesn’t take away from my point that the most of the school board’s decisions are unanimous. To me that is group think.
Hey publius, If you think group think is a good thing it is alright with me. I think it is a very bad thing. I’ve have personally seen group think cause huge problems.
Looking at the document you nicely put up concerning the Supreme Court, I would be much happier to see some 3-2 decisions on our school board. I hope you can see my point?
Your use of the term “group-think” is also inaccurate. The historical context of the words stems from the George Orwell novel 1984. Inherent to the term is a culture of accepting stated facts as true without applying rigorous analysis and evaluation. The School Board, in hiring the current Superintendent, looked particularly at his use of data-driven assessment tools. This you saw at the town meeting when District Report Card was presented.
Your use of the term implicitly assumes that the School Board fails to take a critical evaluation of what they are told. Using data-driven assessment tools is a direct refutation to that.
Rather, I much better example of group think is present where there is an expectation that one’s controversial comments are entitled to be accepted as fact without the benefit of proof. Finding concrete examples of that shouldn’t require too much navigation using your web browser.
As the the Supreme Court: your argument is with a previously sitting Supreme Court Justice and the current Chief Justice John Roberts. See http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=15620
taxed2death, I do understand where you are coming from. However, I do not see the School Board as a monolith, nor does their unanimity frighten me. These are elected representatives, and, more importantly, real people with only good intentions for the schools. When they attend those meetings, they certainly don’t do it for the money. They do it because they are deeply concerned with making sure we can have best schools for the money we pay. It’s a job I’m glad I don’t have to do.
Prompted by this thread, I went back to read both the article and Mr. Lagos’ letter.
It is interesting that folks choose to side with Ms. Martin by accusing Mr. Lagos of a personal attack. I don’t see it. His note is a simple statement and clarification that Ms. Martin’s opinions should be viewed as her own and not the official position of the Budget Committee – “the views she expressed were her own and not those of the budget committee.” He did not find fault with the remarks themselves. I see nothing here that smacks of a personal attack against Ms. Martin or an attempt to belittle or negate her personal opinion.
Now, as to Ms Martin’s statements themselves contained in the article. Sorry, those remarks were not made at the microphone. It may have been made directly to the reporter after the fact – in which case it would be appropriate for her to note that she was speaking as a private, concerned, Bow citizen, or taken from her memo on this site – in which case she has no control over how the Monitor chose to present it.
Ms. Martin is entitled to her opinion and Mr. Lagos, as Chairman, has a duty to represent the integrity and credibility of the Committee as a whole.
publius, what offends me is your interest in silencing a woman. That comes across loud and clear. Get a US constitution! I don’t care what judges or lawyers are doing. All other elected officials can express their opinion. Why not this woman? We are not in the 18th or 19th century. Maybe that is why you like town meeting so much. It you get your history right, town meetings were only for land owning white males. Women are not allowed to speak or participate.
bowsportsfan, I have never indicated that Ms. Martin, as a citizen, should be censored. I have stated that several times. Rather, as APOVinBOW so eloquently stated, my issue is with her speaking as a member of the Budget Committee. She is entitled to speak for herself; however, I am urging her to exercise more restraint when speaking as an elected official.
It is important to recognize that the distinction I am making is between a citizen acting as a citizen and a citizen acting as an elected official. Gender, property ownership, and historical inequities in no way play into that distinction. Rather, it has to do with the duty of an elected representative to distinguish when they are speaking for themselves and when speaking in their capacity as a representative.
I disagree somewhat with the last sentence from APOVin Bow. I would give the board (any board for that matter) more credibility and integrity if its chairman stated that the vote was NOT unanimous and that it was 3 to 2 or whatever it was. If its decision was unanimous, then so state it. Otherwise please present us with the facts.
retiredvet, I agree wholeheartedly. If a public official has misstated or lied then they absolutely lose all degree of credibility, particularly when they fail to correct their misstatement.
publius & APOVinBOW, Martin did state that it was her opinion. Your claim that she was speaking for the Budget Committee is wrong. Your dismissive attitude is starting to bug me and it is efficting your credibility. It does matter where Martin made her comments from the fact that you dismiss it does not make it right. If she made her statments from where the the budget committee sits and it wasn’t clear what she said because of the “din” of the meeting that would be a different story than I probalby would been on your side.
She didn’t use the budget committee’s mic. like Lagos did. and she did say it was her opinion. Now the Comcord Monitor article was inaccurate and that wasn’t the first time and it wasn’t the last and. Someone or group pushed Lagos to write his letter to the editor and it is ugle politics as usual in Bow. It is time for change.
I’m not sure where this is going. When I vote I try to see both sides of any issue. What troubles me is, for example, a particular committee recommending a warrant article. This is not actually a lie but rather an omission. By stating that a committee recommends implies that it was a unanimous decision when it was not. I have more faith in a group when there is representation from each side and the vote is not unanimous and that any dissenting votes be so noted. Whether I agree or disagree is a moot point but I do have the facts from all members if they are so presented.
There is no doubt in my mind that Lagos’ unfounded public reprimand in his letter is a coordinated effort to punish Cindy Martin for her contributions to this website. It takes a real coward to make up as story to get payback. Lagos really should step down and expose those who he is in cahoots with. It is a real dark day in Bow when this kind of stuff happens.
Retired vet, I agree with you 100%. Sorry for being short I have to go back to work. With the exception of Retired vet doesn’t anyone else have a job?
taxed2death, you have made a fairly heavy accusation that “agos’ unfounded public reprimand in his letter is a coordinated effort to punish Cindy Martin for her contributions to this website.” I am not seeing the connection between the two actions.
Could you please outline the connection between the Mr. Lagos’ statement and the Ms. Martin’s contributions to this website?
Whoops! I meant to include the “L” in “Lagos’s”. “My bad” as the teens would say.
yeswecan:
“Your claim that she was speaking for the Budget Committee is wrong. Your dismissive attitude is starting to bug me” I did not claim nor dismiss anything. You might want to reread my previous post.
retiredvet:
“I would give the board (any board for that matter) more credibility and integrity if its chairman stated that the vote was NOT unanimous and that it was 3 to 2″. Not sure that this is really needed in this case. First, obviously the decision was not unanimous because Mr. Lagos indicated that Ms. Martin, a member of the committee, did not agree with the Committee’s decision.
In any case, it was a plain re-statement of fact. The committee had already made its decision. In fact, the taxpayers had already voted. At the actual meeting Mr. Lagos did announce the committee’s voting numbers (which by the way was 5-2 for article 3 and 4-3 for article 4 as shown in the minutes).
publius, I can’t speak for yeswecan You know that Cindy Martin writes the Martin Memo on this website and her comments are often counter to what the partisan Budget Committee as a group agrees on. Please don’t insult our intelligence by playing dumb. If you refuse to see the connection than that is you prerogative.
Got to go to work bye.
publius, you only see what you want to see. I choose to go through life with my eyes wide open.
Anyone can go to the Martin Memo on this website and see that Cindy’s opinions are independent of the Budget Committees and because of that she is in some people’s sights and that is a real sad event.
Lagos should resign.
taxed2death and bowsportsfan,
You both have made ad hominem attacks, but fail to attack my arguments. I’m not sure if that is a result of my failure to write clearly, or your failure to read closely.
I am suggesting that Ms. Martin has repeatedly failed to explictely state that she is speaking as a citizen and not speaking as a member of the Budget Committee. I have repeatedly outlined my rationale, even providing sources to prove my point. taxed2death, I appreciate the fact that you have at least looked at one of these sources.
It is clear that neither of you agree with my position.
While I’m sorry you disagree with my position, I accept that face; I promise not to resort to attacking you as a result. I wish you could have done the same. I’m sure those who closely read my posts and yours will form an opinion based on my actual arguments rather than the ether yours comes from.
Have a nice weekend all.
Gee publius, if only there were this much outrage on your part when the school acts in appropriately using our kids and public resources for political purposes such as elections and other agendas. Where were you on the many times Bow has violated that law?
Check this extreme case where they blatantly broke all the rules, it’s going on in NH too:
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2001/sept01/referendum.shtml
To clarify your comment teacher, and please correct me if I’m wrong: the “they” you refer to in the provided link is the Mobile County public school system of Mobile, Alabama. The link you provided has nothing to do with the Bow School Board, which you accuse of violating the law. I’m not sure if you’re trying to analogize here. Please clarify, if you could.
You also make an accusation that the law has been violated “many times”. I’d love to address your claim, but I request that you first provide proof. Otherwise, I can only assume your claim to be baseness.
Thank you, in advance, for your assistance in improving the dialogue on this issue.
It is provided as an example of a blatant (what we call here in NH) “compelled speech” law violation. It was meant to educate you on the subject. If you didn’t gather that from reading it, I don’t know what to say except that you can’t be that dumb, so you must be being disingenuous.
As for many violations here in NH, there are groups that follow these things and they have records of many many violations from many schools…. Bow is just one of the recent ones and there were others in this last election cycle both town and national.
PS – Epping’s case went to federal court, in case you don’t think it’s a serious offense.
Here is more info and links to the actual case –
Federal Court Case Update 03/01/09
The ERPG case against the Town of Epping and the Epping School District has now been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit located in Boston Massachusetts. The Appellant’s (ERPG) brief was submitted on February 25, 2009. The Apelles’s (Epping Town and School) brief is to be submitted on March 30, 2009. Presently, it appears that this case may be ready for argument or submission at the coming June, 2009 session.
READ the brief – ERPGI takes civil rights case against the Epping School Board & the Epping Board of Selectmen to Federal Court.
http://www.eppingnospinzone.com/complaint%201.pdf
to APOVinBow: in the handout booklets offered at the school meeting, the actual number of committee votes for and against were not PRINTED. I wasn’t given a copy of the budget committee’s minutes. Warrant articles 4 through 8 were recommended by both budget and school committees. If I missed it, I apologize. And please don’t tell me to go on line somewhere to retrieve information that should have been included in the handouts.
Did anyone else notice that the average teacher benefits were NOT found in the handouts? Only the average salaries were shown. Same goes for the “pies” displayed on the giant screen at the meeting. Deception by design.
bowsportsfan:
“Partisan Budget Committee”??? Which party are they?
taxedtodeath:
“Lagos should resign” Really? You don’t feel this is a bit excessive? There must be more behind you ire than just this single letter to the editor. Care to elucidate?
retiredvet:
“please don’t tell me to go on line somewhere to retrieve information”. I didn’t. I provided it for you as an FYI. By the way, all members of the Budget Committee recommended the warrant article that would make this appropriate in the future. Let’s not get into a heated debate between School Board attorney’s opinions and others. It is my understanding that the board was instructed by council to not include that information in the printed warrants unless approved during town meeting. And again, Mr. Lagos did announce the counts when he addressed the assembly on the 13th.
I am talking about NH’s compelled speech law which I have posted here before and will post again at the end of this comment. And the reason Epping was trying to get THEIR view printed, is that ‘compelled speech’ laws require that for MITIGATION when the school board or town has committed any of these offenses. See? Please don’t tell me I’m wrong, this is my business. That was their request for MITIGATION.
Just look at the posts on this site and you will see what the BSB was accused of doing in that area. They are just one of many complaints from around the state.
As for name calling, I did not call you names, merely observed that you are smart, so I can only guess that you are being disingenuous. I have given you examples of the Bow complaints, a lawsuit by Epping that is currently in federal court, and an article which demonstrates an EXAMPLE of what it means to violate the law….
And as promised, here is the law as it is written for the STATE OF NH:
Once again, RSA 659:44-a reads:
_ No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, “electioneer” means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
RSA 273-A:1, IX and X read as follows:
IX. “Public employee” means any person employed by a public employer
except:
_ (a) Persons elected by popular vote;
_ (b) Persons appointed to office by the chief executive or legislative body of the public employer;
_ (c) Persons whose duties imply a confidential relationship to the public employer; or
_ (d) Persons in a probationary or temporary status, or employed seasonally, irregularly or on call.
For the purposes of this chapter, however, no employee shall be determined to be in a probationary status who shall have been employed for more than 12 months or who has an individual contract with his employer, nor shall any employee be determined to be in a temporary status solely by reason of the source of funding of the position in which he is employed.
_ X. “Public employer” means the state and any political subdivision thereof, the judicial branch of the state, any quasi-public corporation, council, commission, agency or authority, and the state university system.
retiredvet, though I’m sure you won’t like my response, the BCC’s home page has a direct link to the Bow Finance Committee’s website. The website contains the approval minutes from meetings dating back to 2004.
Teacher, as to your last posts: I asked if you were trying to analogize the circumstances in Bow to that of that of Mobile, Alabama. Name calling doesn’t make for a strong argument, except, perhaps, in elementary school.
As to “compelled speech”: the definition of compelled speech, according to the Constitutional Law book sitting in front of me is the “right [of private citizens] to be silent and refrain from speaking.” If you would like the citation, I’d be happy to give it to you so that you could check my definition. The brief you linked to is regarding a challenge on the opposite issues, challenging that the school system in Epsom prohibited a group from publishing their viewpoints in a school newsletter.
More to the point is that you continually fail to give examples of the politicizing you see occurring in Bow. Making analogies using examples from out of town or out of state doesn’t resolve the apparent absent of a specific accusation.
A small digression: I find amusing that in a thread that lambastes personal attacks, that many (perhaps myself?) are so willing to throw ourselves in the muck. Perhaps it is the anonymity afforded that emboldens some. In either case, the irony isn’t lost on me.
Oh by the way, the name ‘compelled speech’ for our law in NH was derived from the quote by one of the founders who said basically that no man should be compelled to pay for the opinions of others…
It has little to do with whatever it was that you looked up.
Teacher, you are confusing several separate issues. What you are accusing the Bow School Board of doing is “electioneering.” You do a nice job of attaching the appropriate RSA, though you do not show how the School Board breached their duty.
Your example from Eppingisn’t accurate. IF the Epping group was suing as in-state citizens on a state law they must sue in state court. However, they are not suing in federal court on the RSA you quoted. Rather, the Epsom case is in federal court because they are suing on U.S. Constitutional grounds, in particular on alleged violations the 1st and 14th amendment. If you were to sue the School Board based on the RSA, you would not be suing on Constitutional grounds, and would not be brought in Federal Court. The two issues are entirely separate claims.
The phrase you used repeatedly is “compelled speech.” I ran a LexisNexis search of all New Hampshire statutes for “compelled speech” and came up with zero results. I similarly ran a LexisNexis search of all New Hampshire court decisions since 1816, which also returned zero results. In short: there are in New Hampshire ZERO laws use the phrase “compelled speech” and NO New Hampshire court case has EVER used the phrase “compelled speech.”
I can only assume that you then mean to be talking about the compelled speech doctrine, which applies to the United States Constitution and of which I spoke of in my preceding post.
This leaves us only with your founder argument. Who was it? What did they say? And when you post it, please provide a link.
Teacher, one last issue: “whatever it was that you looked up” was the definition of “compelled speech” used in Constitutional law. My attempt was to clarify what the term is for better understanding. If you do not agree with my definition, I am more than willing to give you a citation to the book, or e-mail you the applicable section. That invitation extends to anyone else who is interested.
Apparently you are not privy to the jargon that is used in NH. The name for this is called compelled speech laws whether it’s in the law or not — just like RTK or RSA 91-A doesn’t have the word Sunshine in it, but everyone calls it the Sunshine law.
You are picking at hairs in an attempt to derail the argument.
Because the complaint is that the SoS will not prosecute, the Epping people have gone to the Feds. But they started at the state level.
Bottom line: There was a long list of violators this election and Bow was one of them.
Teacher, I’m splitting hairs here not to derail the conversation but because accuracy in the debate is paramount. If you are going to invoke the law, especially, you should be precise in your language. If you’re going to accuse someone of performing an illegal act, I would hope you would make the effort to make sure you were accurate.
I have no worry that I am not accurate. It is my job to be accurate. Just because an act is never prosecuted doesn’t mean it was legal. School officials are violating this law every day when they use our kids for political moles and our money for electioneering — which simply means advocating for a position or candidate that benefits them.
http://www.cnht.org/news/2009/03/21/epping-sues-for-compelled-speech-mitigation/
What Monadnock Regional, Hopkinton, and Bow did this election cycle, and Amherst and Epping and others before that, was illegal.
Also Goffstown!
Here is the story of how the 1st amendment provides that you are not ‘compelled’ to pay for the political speech of government (and of others.)
NH has the state law, and the Feds should uphold the Constitution in this matter.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304979
And you will notice the words ‘compelled speech’ used frequently in these articles as well..so to say it doesn’t exist, well, sorry… but if we didn’t have compelled speech laws, we might as well live in a dictatorship… and that’s not to say a lot of times they get away with it. People are sheep — and if they just expect their kids to bring home political messages, nothing will be done. People have to rise up and take control.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270143http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/advertising/topic.aspx?topic=compelled
Great weekend I hope everyone enjoyed it. I spend next to no time inside Yeah!
Apo. By partison I meant they picked a side from the start. If the school board wanted an increase they voted for an increase if the school board wanted a small cut they voted for a small cut. Just go back to the budget committee minutes and see how each member voted (where it isn’t clear see what they had to say)
Taxed2death,
Don’t you think accusing Lagos of being a coward for “making up stories” is a little ridiculous? After all, you’re making up a story that Lagos wrote the editorial to reprimand Cindy Martin for writing a blog. Do you have any evidence that Lagos even reads this site, or are you just making things up? Do you think it is possible that the letter was written merely to make some clarifications on the article in the Concord Monitor? Everything you are saying is based on pure speculation.
I have been away from the website for a while. I am kind of tired of this article. Can you publish something more on SB2?
i like Bow, What I said is my opinion. I am not Lagos but I don’t trust him and he should resign. I guess I am not allowed to express my opinion in your Bow? You are doing the same thing that you accuse me of doing but in my Bow your opinion is fine except you have very little credibility with me.