Posted August 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Girard at Large received information indicating that one of the bidders for the consulting contract to evaluate Mountain View Middle School was interacting with administrators at the school.  Given that they have yet to award the contract, and we contend they are acting outside the legal process to solicit services using tax payer dollars (see earlier Oh My BLOG posts below), we demanded to know whether or not there was any connection.  Below is the email exchange I’ve had with Superintendent Stacy Buckley.  NOTE WELL that she has yet to comply with the request made in our last email.


[mailto: rich@girardatlarge.com]


Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:58 PM

To: Stacy Buckley

Subject: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.


Superintendent Buckley.


It has come to my attention that a SERESC Associate working on the PBIS Committee for MVMS named  Dr. Howard Muscott,  has already met all the administrators at the middle school and worked with them.


If this is true, under RSA 91-A, I am requesting to know with whom he met, when he met with them, and the issues discussed.  Further, if there is any written correspondence between you and this individual or any other party at SERESC relative to the pending contract award for consulting services at MVMS, kindly forward that material.  This includes any email or “snail” mail.


This request is justified and appropriate for several reasons.


1)  Because you provided the names and fees of those consulting companies you contacted to provide services at MVMS to the school board in public, there is no longer a presumption of confidentiality.


2)  As no RFP was authorized, approved or issued, knowing who has been contacted, what has been discussed, what has been submitted, and who has continued to interact with the district is necessary to ensure the process, such as it exists, is accountable to public scrutiny.


3)  Where there is no criterion, public or otherwise, for awarding a consulting contract, any interaction with any potential service provider must be known to ensure there’s no favoritism at work.


If there have been other similar contacts with other potential service providers, that information is also requested.


Thank you,

RH Girard


——– Original Message ——–

Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.

From: “Stacy Buckley”

Date: Wed, August 01, 2012 8:43 am




This was a staff training and does not fall under 91-A.


Stacy Buckley


From: rich@girardatlarge.com [mailto: rich@girardatlarge.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 9:09 AM

To: Stacy Buckley

Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.


Yes, it does, unless the training has to do with the exception highlighted below.  It seems to me that the details about who was trained, what they were trained on, and how the trainers were chosen is absolutely a matter of public record.


91-A:5 Exemptions.

The records of the following bodies are exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

I. Grand and petit juries.

II. Parole and pardon boards.

III. Personal school records of pupils.

IV. Records pertaining to internal personnel practices; confidential, commercial, or financial information; test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examinations; and personnel, medical, welfare, library user, videotape sale or rental, and other files whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy. Without otherwise compromising the confidentiality of the files, nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a body or agency from releasing information relative to health or safety from investigative files on a limited basis to persons whose health or safety may be affected.

V. Teacher certification records, both hard copies and computer files, in the department of education, provided that the department shall make available teacher certification status information.

VI. Records pertaining to matters relating to the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, including training to carry out such functions, developed by local or state safety officials that are directly intended to thwart a deliberate act that is intended to result in widespread or severe damage to property or widespread injury or loss of life.


——– Original Message ——–

Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.

From: “Stacy Buckley” < sbuckley@goffstown.k12.nh.us>

Date: Wed, August 01, 2012 9:24 am

To: < rich@girardatlarge.com>



It was a staff training and does not fall under the definition of a “public body” for which 91-A refers.




——– Original Message ——–

Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.


Date: Wed, August 01, 2012 11:33 am

To: “Stacy Buckley”




Then kindly provide all materials, including agendas and school board minutes, showing where the RFP was requested by the administration, authorized by the board and issued, the RFP, the list of bidders with their proposals that answered the RFP and the amount of money spent on the training.


Certainly, RFPs and payment of public funds are subject to Right to Know, aren’t they?