For those who may have been watching tonight’s school board meeting on LiveStream or TV, here is what I was attempting to read when Mr. Bealo instructed the microphone and TV cameras to be shut off and an immediate recess called. In case you are curious, not one fellow board member in attendance was in the least concerned about this. While the cameras were off, Dr. Metzler said he would see me in court if I mentioned his wife one more time so I did not read this in its entirety.
Dear Mr. Bealo and Superintendent Metzler:
This is a formal Right to Know request under RSA 91-A for the following information:
1) All records of invoices and payments concerning Achieve3000;
2) All communications from August 2015 to the present, and all accompanying documentation, between any member of the administration, faculty, or staff of TRSD and/or SAU#55 concerning Achieve3000;
3) All TRSD. Hampstead School District and SAU#55 records of invoices and payments made for services rendered, or any other consideration, for Mrs. Beth Metzler from August 2015 to the present along with all accompanying documentation. This is to include payments to third parties who have Mrs. Metzler under contract or employment and is not limited to SERESC or Achieve3000;
4) All records of contracts and supporting documentation between Achieve 3000 and TRSD and/or SAU#55 relating to the purchase of and training for Achieve 3000;
5) All records of any disclosure provided to the TRSD board concerning Mrs. Metzler’s employment with Achieve 3000; and
6) All records of any disclosure provided to the Curriculum and Assessment Committee concerning Mrs. Metzler’s employment with Achieve 3000.
Thank you. I will be inspecting these at your office and expect them to be made available to me within 5 business days from Oct. 17. You are welcome to call me if any part of my request is onerous and you think there could be an more convenient way for you to address my request.
Donna Green
timberlaneandsandown 
Earl, sorry buddy, but you made your wife a consultant to the district, This means monies paid to her are public information. YOU introduced and advocated for a program created by the company your wife works for, that makes all of this info requested public.
You do not get to piss and moan about info on your wifes role in this being made public, YOU put her in this lime light.
And the poignant irony here is that if you simply produced this info when requested, without the usual stonewall, NONE OF THIS would have been necessary. Just follow the law, why is that so difficult for you?
Today is the deadline for reply. I wanted my board members and the public to know about the issue. A simple answer to me: “My wife is not profiting from this purchase and here’s the proof,” would be sufficient but unfortunately the Right to Know law does not require a public body to answer a question – just to provide documents. As a result, I had to ask for documents – many documents.