This letter was sent today to Jorge Mesa-Tejada, allowing him access to the Hampstead School District buildings to discharge his civic responsibilities on specific dates. This was not solicited by Mr. Mesa-Tejada.
No Trespass Order Mesa-Tejada 01 20 16
Notice that the letter says the middle school principal was compelled to issue a prior letter to Mr. Mesa-Tejada. It doesn’t say who compelled the principal to do so.
The incident referred to was one in which Mesa-Tejada told a teacher to close an open door in the middle of winter. The teacher felt he was spoken to rudely and complained to the principal. Without contacting Mesa-Tejada, the principal wrote a letter asking Mesa-Tejada to be more respectful in the future. Upon receiving this letter, Mesa-Tejada spoke to the principal and put the interaction in context. It was a normal human interaction, that was blown out of proportion but which fed into the superintendent’s agenda to discredit a long-standing critic.
It is interesting to note that Hampstead’s policy included with the letter says the following:
Additionally, the District reserves the right to issue “no trespass” letters to any person whose conduct violates this policy, acceptable standards of conduct, or creates a disruption to the school district’s educational purpose.
Superintendent Metzler may have the authority to issue no trespass orders, but this particular policy doesn’t grant him that. “The District” authority is the school board by majority vote, not the superintendent.
timberlaneandsandown 
The Presidential Primacy is the 9th. Why was access granted on the 2nd but not the 9th? I am confused.
2/2 is Hampstead’s Deliberative Session….
Metzler is out of control and needs to be stopped.
Whoops! From the I better cover my tracks department:
“This letter serves as my expressed written permission for you to enter onto Hampstead Middle School property on February 2, 2016 and March 8, 2016 for the sole purpose of exercising your right to vote and participate in the annual town election process”
Messler’s little letter falls right into the hands of an eager attorney. Anyone interested in this one? In writing, he substantially acknowledges that he acted to violate Mr. Tejada’s civil rights and now attempts to close the barn door. Sorry. Horse already left.
Messler alleges a “right” to issue a “no trespass order”, but fails to cite the law. Self-written policy is not authority.
As to the policy itself, which of the “standards of acceptable behaviour” did Mr. Tejada violate? One of these, “Injure, threaten, harass, or intimidate a staff member, a School Board member, sports official or coach, or any other person”, contains broad and subjective language. “Any other person”? That’s everybody. Subjective claims like Messler’s are specious unless borne out in a formal complaint.
Finally, Messler claims in his public letter that Mr. Tejada issued comments about “shooting students”, and leaves this totally unsubstantiated. If Mr. Tejada issued a threat, he’d be locked up. Hasn’t happened.
Doesn’t Mr. Tejada have grounds for filing a lawsuit to claim a violation of civil rights, and defamation?
Mr. Mesa-Tejada’s civil rights haven’t been violated as schools aren’t considered a public forum I learned from my malicious no trespass. I also know that it is very difficult to defame in the legally actionable sense a public person. So to your question, I would say, “NO.”
Someone from Danville was also banned from the SAU. Anyone know who that was?
No, the school board was not told who or why just that a no trespass order was issued. I considered us lucky to get that much. I’m surprised there wasn’t a press release because that’s how the board usually finds out about things. If anyone knows, I would appreciate learning about the cause.