NEW HAMPSHIRE’S FASTEST GROWING ONLINE NEWSPAPER

After testy exchange, school board chair tells officer to remove public commenter

Comment     Print
Related Articles
Rochester school board chair and Rochester Police Officer Shane Downs (School meeting screenshot)

ROCHESTER - Rochester School Board chair Shane Downs told a Rochester Police Officer to remove a speaker from City Council chambers during Thursday night's public comment session.
The speaker, Tim Wells, did not want to give his street address, but it appeared that Downs had no appetite to reason with the Barrington, man, who has family who are students in the Rochester School system.
The police presence at Rochester school board meetings began recently, according to board member Sandy Keans, who is currently being investigated for alleged ethics violations by Rochester's Ethics Board.
Meanwhile, Jared Fulgoni was hired as interim superintendent while the job status of current Rochester Schools Superintendent Annie Azarloza remains unclear more than a month after the formal investigation into her alleged wrongdoing was completed.
School officials remain tightlipped on her future in Rochester, however, she remains on paid administrative leave.
Azarloza has been on paid leave since February, less than a year after she was hired for $170.000 a year.
A March 29 email obtained by The Rochester Voice sent by Downs to board members stated that "While the investigation into (Azarloza) is complete, the matter has not yet reached a final resolution, and it remains an open personnel matter."
Downs, a Rochester Police patrol officer has recently been criticized after coming under fire for signing a memorandum of understanding between the Rochester Police Department and the school department that lists "best practices" as mutually agreed to by both parties, but gives deference to police in how to handle all "criminal acts" in Rochester schools.
A petition for Downs' removal accuses him of "pushing for criminal charges against special needs children--a step that is not only harsh and unjust but fundamentally misconstrues the role of educational leadership. This also violates Federal laws," the petition states.
The MOU was passed on a voice vote at the school board's March meeting after Downs said it had been sent down by the state and the school board could do nothing to change it. "There's nothing we can do about it," he said prior to getting a unanimous voice vote to approve the MOU.
Part of the MOU states that all school and disciplinary policies "are not intended to nor shall it usurp the mandates and responsibilities of the School Resource Officer, the Rochester Police Department and the Attorney Generals Office."
The MOU was signed in March by Rochester Police Chief Gary Boudreau, Downs, and Rochester Schools Assistant Supt. Allison Bryant, who will soon be leaving to become the assistant superintendent in Exeter.
Many in the Rochester school community see Downs' position as having a clear conflict of interest, but Boudreau told The Rochester Voice earlier this month he doesn't see it that way, because Downs is not a school resource officer.
Meanwhile, a petition to reinstate Azarloza circulating online says that "despite a completed investigation the school board has refused to share the results with the public and they continue delaying her return, withholding transparency, and blocking the leader who was driving real, legal, and student-centered reform."
It concludes "Annie stood up for children's rights. She ensured compliance with state and federal law. She brought compassion, courage, and integrity to a district that desperately needed it. Now, it's time for the community to stand up for her."
The petition now has more than 220 signers.
Downs told The Rochester Voice on Friday that the presence of an officer was justifiable at Thursday's meeting.
"Unfortunately, in the days leading up to the meeting, credible threats were made on social media," he said. "In light of these developments, the decision to hire a police detail was made strictly as a precautionary measure, with the sole aim of ensuring the safety and security of all attendees, Board members, and staff, and to allow the meeting to proceed in an orderly manner."

Downs, who did not elaborate on the nature of the "threats," added that police officers attending school board meetings is to help attendees feel safe and secure.
"Our goal is never to deter community involvement; rather, the presence of law enforcement is to create a secure environment where all voices can be heard without fear of disruption or harm."

Read more from:
Focus
Tags: 
None
Share: 
Comment      Print
Members Opinions:
June 15, 2025 at 8:30am
Free speech also covers your right to not speak.
From Marshall v Amuso US District Court November 17,2021
C. Address Announcement Requirement
The plaintiffs argue that the address announcement provision is facially invalid because of its chilling effect on protected speech. “Being potentially forced to state their home address when speaking out on controversial issues weighs on Plaintiffs' minds, and inhibits their desire to keep speaking out for fear of reprisal by those who do not tolerate their points of view.” Doc. No. 4-2, at 8-9. The District generally does not argue in support of the address announcement requirement, instead asserting that it has not been enforced since the June 2021 meeting.
The right to free speech also encompasses the right to refrain from speaking. Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 2463 (2018). Compelled speech is subject to the same analysis as prohibitions from speaking. Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C, Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796-97 (1988). As discussed above, school board meetings are a limited public forum where restrictions need only be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. However, the District provides no argument in support of forcing speakers to state their home address. While the right to speak at Pennsbury School Board meetings is limited to students, employees, and residents within the District, requiring the speaker to announce their specific home address is an unreasonable restriction. Each speaker's address can be collected when they sign up for their speaking slot, Doc, No. 4-7, at 2. And in meetings besides the June 2021 meeting, speakers have simply provided their township when signing in and speaking. Doc. No. 4-5 ¶ 13; Nov. 8, 2021 H'rng Tr. at 128:5-9. In contrast, the chilling effect of being forced to announce to all present one's actual home address before speaking on a hotly-contested issue is clear.
Therefore, the School Board has not met its burden to demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits with regard to either the Challenged Policy Terms or the address announcement requirement in Policies 903 and 922.
Powered by Bondware
News Publishing Software

The browser you are using is outdated!

You may not be getting all you can out of your browsing experience
and may be open to security risks!

Consider upgrading to the latest version of your browser or choose on below: