To the editor:

I would not have described the last SAU 9 meeting as “ugly” as depicted by The Sun, perhaps “passionate” would be better terminology. Instead of the F-Bomb headline, perhaps The Sun’s headline should have been, “SAU 9 attempts to back-door Draconian censorship proposal.” The board attempted to limit free speech with their proposal drafted by the New Hampshire School Board Association, a parent-hating organization.

While I may not have personally used these colorful adjectives, I can understand why a few chose to, it is simple, the parents are more than frustrated with certain members of the board including Joe Lentini, Nancy Kelemen, Darlene Ference, and Emily Calderwood. This cabal attempted to ram through their last-minute censorship proposal that became public knowledge shortly before the meeting.

The board was going to vote on the censorship proposal without first reading it. After some verbal persuasion, Kelemen read the entire text, struggling and incorrectly pronouncing numerous words in the draconian proposal with would have limited criticism of board members. One must question whether Kelemen understood the censorship proposal before she read it aloud because from the public’s perspective it did not appear that she could comprehend the terminology in the proposal she voted for.

During public comments, I stated to board members that voted for censorship that they needed an American civics lesson and read a quote from a landmark case, New York Times v. Sullivan. Sometimes democracy is not so pretty and those in elected positions are going to take some serious heat. Certain SAU 9 board members deserve the heat for trying to back-door their censorship proposal through, the timing was suspicious and the motive was highly questionable.

While certain board members may want to operate without transparency and not be called out in meetings, this is not the way our system of government works. A big thank you goes out to Randy Davison, Scott Grant, Andrew Light, Tim Sorgi and Monique Hebert for voting down this proposal. At least they understand that quashing free speech is not an American principle.

Kevin Clifford


Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.