Instead of simply saying they will give me a public hearing on my complaint, SAU 55 hired a lawyer, instructed him to appear before a hearing officer in Concord, and then write a motion to dismiss.
Here is the motion to dismiss my complaint. It is seven pages long and argues that the issue isn’t ripe, I don’t have standing, and that the Board of Education doesn’t have jurisdiction over the matter.
As you read it, just keep the meter running. That’s the sound of your tax dollars being wasted by a group of individuals who would rather spend your money than confront issues head on.
2017-08-18 SAU Motion to Dismiss (1)
timberlaneandsandown 
Pingback: SAU’s Motion to Dismiss | The New Media Militia
As usual, the district would rather hire an attorney and waste taxpayer monies rather than follow the law, release public info, and act appropriately.
To address their typically frivolous Motion to Dismiss, Section 1: STANDING: This is always the first shot fired across the bow. And frivolous it is. There is existing case law(although I can not remember the case citation of the top of my head) regarding Public Officials whose statutory, or official authority is usurped by others. This usually means a board or committee taking action without a vote, or behind the scenes.
This usurpation of your statutory authority as an elected member of the School Board IS your injury.
As usual, they attempt to shift the frame, while ignoring the issue at hand, and the complaints true subject matter allegations, with the following passage;
“Because she cannot allege any personal injury, Ms. Green broadly alleges that the SAU Board is violating the law. However, as Ms. Green knows from prior litigation, New Hampshire does not recognize taxpayer standing, and “the generalized interest in an efficient and lawful government… [is] not sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements necessary for standing to exist.”
You are not petitioning as a taxpayer, but as an elected official whose authority is being usurped by the Board’s Employee, The Superintendent.
They reinforce this absurdity with the following;
” The SAU Board did not authorize Ms. Green’s Complaint to the
DOE”
It is not necessary for the Board to authorize you to defend your legal rights.
The “RIPENESS” claim is a further insult to any reasonable person’s intelligence. They claim that the issue is not ripe because the SAU has declined to address it., If that were the standard of jurisprudence, Earl diktats would reign supreme, inspection or challenge being legally forestalled indefinitely.
Once again, the taxpayers of TRSD are being fleeced to fund Earl’s ongoing war of aggression with anyone who exhibits the temerity to question his Supreme Authority.
Why is this abhorent behavior tolerated from an employee?