At last school board meeting I demanded to see all the legal invoices for 2015. I also asked the board to clarify under what circumstances the superintendent can undertake litigation and agree to legal settlements. So far, I have heard nothing but flies buzzing around a straw hat.
Yet, somehow, Jon Goldman, Sandown’s selectman most vocal in opposing withdrawal from Timberlane managed within 24 hours to get a full listing of all legal fees “attributable” to Donna Green and withdrawal.
This list attributes more than $31,000 in legal fees to “Green” and nearly $10,000 to withdrawal. This tidy listing was posted to Citizens Against Withdrawal and then found its way onto Speakout Sandown.
You can see the listing here: Legal Fees
Here is what I replied on Speakout Sandown under the legal fee posting: Wow! I had no idea I was responsible for the Sandown schools consolidation! Gee, Dr. Metzler is asking a lawyer to monitor my blog? Awesome! Who knew lawyers did online reputation management? I thought you had to hire a private company for that service. And asking a lawyer for every Right to Know request that comes through the door whether it is mine or not? Brilliant! So much easier than just giving out the public information in the first place. This is your tax money at work here, Sandown. Isn’t it nice to know that your superintendent is so conscientious in not only running to a lawyer at every turn but also in keeping track of all the expenses under one person’s name regardless of the factual connection? If I didn’t know better, I’d say this was an attempt to smear me, but I know it is just the good doctor doing his job all the while respecting your money and your vote.
Sandown taxpayers, we cannot leave this district fast enough. Your tax dollars are being wasted, and when not wasted they are being used against you. My opponents would like to trivialize this as a personality conflict. This is an issue of fiscal responsibility, transparency and prudent management that respects the sacrifices you make to pay your taxes in the belief that your money is going to educate children.
To learn more about leaving the Timberlane district: CASE2018.wordpress.com
UPDATE Feb. 5, 2016: Rob Collins said on social media that the RTK billings are for my suit in the Supreme Court right now. I think the fractional RTK billings are for independent RTK requests, but that is my supposition. The rationale, I suppose, would be that I am behind every RTK request. Or maybe they are phone calls about the RTK suit. From the list, one can’t know, though I do know from past examinations of legal invoices that at least some RTK requests are vetted with a lawyer.
timberlaneandsandown 
WOW Metzler spent and average of 1.6 Hours of attorney time on each RTK request for legally public information?
And your critics think this is REASONABLE? This is a LEGITIMATE use of the legal line?
Blaming these expenses on you is tantamount to saying that the public has no right to ask for public info the district does not wish to provide.
BTW, Why the outrageous hurdles to obtaining public info? What is he trying to hide?
No……… subsequent to posting this, Rob Collins said on social media that the RTK billing is for my RTK suit in the court. I think the small bills represent other RTK requests, but the large bills represent their efforts to keep public information in electronic form from me. Thanks for commenting so I can clarify.
All information in electronic form here.
https://public.timberlane.net/sau/budcom/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsau%2fbudcom%2fShared%20Documents%2fTRSD%20Staffing%20Information&FolderCTID=&View=%7bB717C5B4-C893-48EE-A9B9-5BF05FA23BF7%7d
Here is Mr. Collins’ usual intellectual dishonesty on display. I asked for salary budget detail that is supposed to include staff names – as is given to the budget committee in Hampstead. What is posted in this link that Mr. Collins provides has the names removed which among other things makes the document unintelligible and virtually useless. The Chief of the Supreme Court asked if the case was moot because the district claims I had been given what I wanted, and the district’s own lawyer was forced to tell the judge the case wasn’t moot because I was not satisfied with what I had been given; i.e., I had not been given what was requested.
Sorry Rob, but reading your documentation reminds me of listening to the cricket scores when I lived in England. The announcer would recite the days matches, “Luton went 224 for 3 with 6 overs today” Leaves me wondering WHO WON?
Your alleged “ALL INFORMATION” lacks one crucial element, NAMES! But you already know that, this is the root of your dishonest statement.