Newport
Bert Spaulding Sr., acting as his own attorney, questioned Gallagher for about 90 minutes about his requests in January for “cost items” associated with a proposed one-year teachers’ contract, which was included in the budget approved by voters in March.
There was considerable back and forth as Spaulding asked Gallagher about his requests and Gallagher explained what was provided and when.
Spaulding contends did not received a thorough breakdown of teachers’ contract cost items.
The arguments were similar to those Spaulding made in an unsuccessful bid to postpone the March 14 vote.
In his five count complaint filed in May, Spaulding said his request for cost items in the contract was not answered in timely manner.
On Feb. 13, 35 days after his request and six days after the school’s deliberative session when the public can amend the budget, he received a partial accounting, but he claims $100,000 was not explained, as required by law.
To further bolster his argument, Spaulding referred to a document in court he recently received from the school district, showing a corrected accounting of the contract of $153,314, about $70,000 less than the amount contained in the budget presented voters.
“Now I know $70,000 in the (budget) article was not supported,” Spaulding told Judge Brian Tucker.
He claimed that had that information been widely known before the vote, it could have “changed the entire outcome.”
Tucker, however, said Friday’s testimony would be limited to the alleged Right-to-Know violations under RSA 91:A and Spaulding would have to file an additional complaint on the money issue.
Three days before Friday’s hearing, the school district responded to Spaulding’s complaint, denying it had violated the Right-to-Know law.
The district said it received Spaulding’s request “for all employees, including insurance information” for the contract on Jan. 11. However, negotiations reopened and the contract was not ratified until Jan. 26
“In addition, the individualized and detailed information that petitioner requested did not exist as a single document, and while the District was not required to compile a document in response to Petitioner’s request it did such,” the response filed in court states.
“Petitioner asserted that he received a ‘one page document which, in clear and concise terms does explain cost items.’ ” the district states. “Thus there is no basis for his current assertion that the District has failed to respond to his request for documentation of the cost items.”
The district argued that the Right-to-Know law allows the court to invalidate action of a public body or public agency taken at a meeting but the operating budget article was approved by the district’s legislative body, not the governing body. “The March 14 annual meeting is not the subject of 91-A Petition and the annual meeting was lawful.”
Spaulding has to file a response by June 26. The court hearing is scheduled to resume on June 29.
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
