Rep. to File Complaint Against School Officials

A local state representative will file a formal complaint with the requesting an investigation into whether or not current and former members violated state election laws on Nov. 8.

State Rep. , D-Concord, said he was prompted to file the complaint after it was revealed in a news report that the members spent money on but did not identify who paid for the advertising on the signs, which were left unmanned at polling locations and attached to public property.

The report, published in the on Nov. 11, stated that School Board member spent nearly $300 on the signs. Dunn then reportedly collected money from current School Board President Kass Ardinger, former board members Claudia Damon and Megan De Vorsey, Maureen Redmond-Scura, the former chairwoman of the Legislature’s Charter Study Commission and the chairwoman of the Concord Trust for the Enhancement of Public Education, as well as others.

The signs advocated a Yes vote on and a No vote on . Question 1 proposed returning the Concord School District charter to the residents of Concord, from the Legislature, while Question 2 changed the way school board members were elected.

Watrous said he was filing the complaint because the actions followed a pattern of behavior by school officials to subvert needed reforms and inappropriately influence the will of the people.

“I believe that some laws may have been broken and it seems to fit in with a pattern of questionable activity by the school board to maintain the status quo,” he said. “This is the second time School Board President Kass Ardinger has been involved in what may be illegal activity.”

Watrous said that over a number of years, officials connected to the school district have done whatever they could to prevent or slow down the process of having the charter returned to the people. He said officials had testified and submitted oral and written testimony against bills that would have provided the district the representation that was just approved by the voters, years ago.

“I’ve seen this now over a three year period,” he said.

In the end, the effort by Dunn, Ardinger, and others was unsuccessful, since voters barely approved Question 2 by a 34-vote margin out of more than 3,000 cast.

‘What does it matter now?’

At different polling locations across the city, activists advocating a No vote on Question 2, started appearing at the polls in the late morning, holding the signs.

Ardinger was spotted at the Ward 5 poll before noon, standing with another woman holding one of the signs. Ardinger was also heard openly advocating a No vote to approaching voters, something that is not allowed at city polls, according to City Clerk Janice Bonenfant.

, the assistant Secretary of State, was asked not long after about the signs and he said that whoever printed the signs or any other campaign information was not obligated to file expenses since it was local initiative and not a state election. He also told the Monitor that so long as the activists were holding the signs at the polls, they would not be in violation. If, however, the signs were left lying around, it would be a violation.

Watrous said he and others standing outside the West Street Ward House, the Ward 7 polling location, saw one sign “leaning face out against the entryway of the ward house” while another was “strapped securely to a utility pole” across the street from the ward house. Later in the day, a sign attached to a stick was left leaning against a tree at Ward 5, on city property. Another sign was attached to a wire stand and left leaning against a rock outside the Franklin Street entrance of St. Peter’s Church, the Ward 4 polling location. All four signs would appear to be violating the law.

Ward 5 was the only city ward where more voters voted against Question 2 than voted for it, according to election returns.

Neither Dunn nor Ardinger responded to an emailed request for comment about the upcoming complaint against them on Nov. 11. Neither responded to repeated requests for comment about the signs on Nov. 8, 9, and 10.

On Election Night though, a number of local officials, including Dunn, gathered at to celebrate their victories. Dunn was asked at that time who was involved in the effort and who paid for the signs.

“What does it matter now?” he stated, walking away.

Other questionable activity

Watrous said Ardinger’s connection to the sign violations was particularly disturbing since she was previously cited in an attorney general’s report about illegal activity by a school attorney during the charter study commission process.

On Sept. 23, 2010, the attorney general’s office found that Concord School District attorney John Teague, of Upton & Hatfield, LLP, had violated the state’s lobbying statute in 2009, while other school officials, including Ardinger, worked behind closed doors to rig the public process surrounding the creation of the Legislature’s Charter Study Commission, the precursor to the proposal approved on Nov. 8.

Matthew Mavrogeorge, an attorney with the AG’s civil bureau, stated that Teague violated the law on May 4, 2009, when he – along with Concord School Superintendent Dr. Chris Rath and Ardinger – met with then-state Senate President Sylvia Larsen and state Sen. Betsi DeVries, a Manchester Democrat and then-chairwoman of the Senate Public & Municipal Affairs Committee, to discuss HB319. This bill, which was approved by the House and co-sponsored by Watrous, would have returned the charter to Concord residents.

At this meeting, which was private and held in Larsen’s office, Teague, Rath, and Ardinger discussed “concerns” they had with the bill. Rath requested that Teague attend the meeting; he was paid $270 to prepare for and attend the meeting.

According to Larsen’s statement to the AG’s Office, Teague, Rath, and Ardinger “expressed ideas” about “how to respond to HB 319 and were looking for Senate support for these suggestions.” Larsen told investigators that Teague came up with the idea for a Charter Commission to study the school district charter.

In the AG’s investigation, Teague admitted that he was asked by Larsen and Rath to “come up with a draft of what the Charter Commission might look like.” Teague gave the AG a copy of the draft that he “ultimately created for Senate President Larsen,” according to the AG’s office. The AG determined that Teague’s participation in the meeting constituted lobbying, and since Teague was not registered as a lobbyist at the time, he violated the statute.

The attorney general’s scolding was the first time it was revealed to the public that the meeting had taken place. Most people, including Watrous, other legislators, and citizens, attended future meetings and hearings without any knowledge that the bill had predetermined conclusion.

Elementary school consolidation

The continued actions by school officials to keep reforms and the charter itself out of the hands of the citizens was done, Watrous and others believe, to ensure that nothing would stand in the way of the elementary school consolidation process, which required knocking down historic buildings, raising property taxes, and spending more than $100 million, warehousing the city’s youngest children into four schools instead of eight.

“One of the bills sponsored would have required a citizen vote for school bonding over $5 million,” Watrous said. “It would have included this massive demolition and construction project that they’ve been involved with ever since. In a sense, their strategy has worked, so far, because our neighborhood schools are disappearing – all without a single vote on the issue being cast by the citizens.”

Watrous said he would mail the complaint on Nov. 12 to the Attorney General’s Office, so it would arrive first thing on Nov. 14.

Dunn recently ran unopposed for re-election; Ardinger’s term expires in 2012.