Here is our original post……
We think this is the state statute that might have been violated at last nights BOE Meeting
AUGUST 9, 2013 BY REGIONONEREPORTER 
0 COMMENTS { EDIT }
…key words are influence, bribery, and willfully…
Sec. 9-364a. (Formerly Sec. 9-344). Acts prohibited in elections, primaries, referenda, caucuses and conventions. Penalties.
Any person who influences or attempts to influence by force or threat the vote, or by force, threat, bribery or corrupt means, the speech, of any person in a primary, caucus, referendum convention or election; or wilfully and fraudulently suppresses or destroys any vote or ballot properly given or cast or, in counting such votes or ballots, wilfully miscounts or misrepresents the number thereof; and any presiding or other officer of a primary, caucus or convention who wilfully announces the result of a ballot or vote of such primary, caucus or convention, untruly and wrongfully, shall be guilty of a class C felony.
This is the letter I received today from The State Elections Commission (please click on it to enlarge)….
Although I believe Ms. Chamberlain should have thought more carefully about her statement, I don’t believe in this. Let me add to this that I am not a supporter of Ms Chamberlain and I have voted NO each time on the budget. We, the taxpayers, will now be forced to pay more legal bills to defend this action because she works for the Region. I, myself, and hopefully many others, would rather focus on the education of the children in Region One and wish Ms. Chamberlain no ill-will. I don’t agree with the attacks……it sounds more and more like Mr. Maurer. Each side is getting more and more out of control, attacking each other, filing complaint after complaint, and after spending 57 years in this community, this is not how this community behaves. Sit down like adults and discuss the issues – set a good example for the children we are trying to educate.
We are a nation and a state of laws, state statutes are designed to protect. This investigation right now does not mean anyone is guilty or innocent. All it means is that the state election commission will clarify, and set the bar, so from this point on, everyone will know EXACTLY what can be said or not said to pass a school budget by an administration official. I find it rather ironic you find fault with this letter, but we have never had a post from you on the actions that led up to the suit against the superintendent. The Board of education, the administration all know what they could do and say when talking about the budget to the general public in either a statement or a handout, read the statute and it is very apparent that this is very close to the line of an “inducement”, or “bribe” to get yes votes. A simple statement like one that was made last year simply stating that the superintendent would cut off the last year of her contract would have sufficed. A simple statement, not an inducement to vote. When this is over (I belevie this is the first such challenge on this statute for a referendum) the line of what you can say and what you can not say will be clear.
I think that pointing out factual information is teaching and setting the very best examples for our students. I understand that doing so can sometimes get messy, but the alternative, in my opinion, is a far worse example to set. Pointing out the facts may be uncomfortable, but it certainly doesn’t constitute an attack, nor an “event” that is out of control. What it does point out is that there are standards to which we are all held and not meeting those standards or evading them results in consequences – one of the most important lessons our kids should learn.