The Great Deception


Dedicated to Securing A Truly Perfect Location for Goffstown's Future Kindergarten & Elementary Schools

NHDES Given "Inaccurate Information" By Lockwood
Provides Attorney's Opinion, Makes False Claims on Soil, Slope, Wetlands

GOFFSTOWN, NH - School superintendent Darryll Lockwood has made public claims on numerous occasions stating the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) provided him with a letter stating their belief that the proposed construction of a kindergarten on Map 5, Lot 14 satisfies the current deed restrictions. His statement is correct.

The NHDES letter was in response to a letter they received from Mr. Lockwood requesting written documentation stating the NHDES did not have "issues" with the conveyance of the Glen Lake property to the school district. In that letter, Lockwood provided the NHDES with background information and supporting documentation.

But according to the recent Goffstown Conservation Commission report, Lockwood's letter contained "inaccurate information". Specifically, Lockwood stated "There are good soils, it is fairly level, there will be minimal wetlands disturbance..." The Commission's report states such claims are "inaccurate". In addressing its concerns over the entire process by which the land transfer is being attempted, the Commission stated "Voters did not receive the proper technical information about the site, and instead were given inaccurate information such as 'there are no significant wetlands'."

The NHDES was also provided with a copy of an opinion from the attorney for the school district, William C. Tucker, stating his belief that building a school on the Glen Lake site met restrictions set forth in the deed to that property. Lockwood stated "...the deed indicates specifically that the property may only be used for "public purposes". Attorneys for the district and town have indicated that in their opinion, a kindergarten is a "public purpose". They have both cited case law to support their opinion."

GRA Rebuttal

As noted elsewhere on this web site (Did School District Mislead Their Own Attorney?), attorney Tucker, prior to rendering his opinion, was never provided with crucial, historical background information regarding the true and factual intent of the State of New Hampshire, the Governor & Council and the voters of Goffstown (see NHWRB and 1977 Town Meeting excerpts) when the land was originally purchased. Indeed, he remained unaware of this information until it was provided to him by attorneys for the GRA nearly three months later. Might Mr. Tucker's legal opinion have been different had he had the benefit of this information beforehand? The GRA and its attorneys believe so. What do you think?

The state was further misled by Mr. Lockwood "inaccurate information", to wit:

• Lockwood wrote that "there are good soils".
This statement is false. The Commission reported: "... it consists of shallow soil over ledge where water is moving down slope through the soil."

    • Lockwood wrote ims that "it is fairly level"
        This statement is false. The Commission reported: "There will need to be significant removal of material into a slope north of the building site..."
        Also, the Board of Selectmen had notified Lockwood that the site had "steep slopes" - see letter from BOS to Lockwood, of 30-Sep-04.

• Lockwood's wrote that "there will be minimal wetlands disturbance"
This statement is false. The Commission reported: "More than half of the proposed site...would lie within the wetlands conservation overlay district...passed by the voters of Goffstown, and they were not informed that the proposed school site would be a violation of that setback."

As was the case with school district's own attorney, the state DES was also not provided with crucial, historical background information regarding the true and factual intent of the State of New Hampshire, the Governor & Council and the voters of Goffstown (see NHWRB and 1977 Town Meeting excerpts) when the land was originally purchased. Nor was the DES informed that the legal opinion Mr. Tucker rendered was provided without knowledge of the aforementioned information, too. As such (and as expected), the DES, without benefit of complete documentation and factual restrictions on the property, and without a true understanding of the basis for which Tucker's legal opinion was rendered, stated no objection to the transfer.

The GRA and its attorneys believe that the omission of this vital information, the NHDES might have rendered a very different opinion as to the legality of transferring the Glen Lake property. As such, the GRA and its attorneys believe that such a transfer, without regard to the factual restrictions mentioned above, would be a violation of public trust and easily challenged in a court of law.

Did Mr. Lockwood provide the NHDES with inaccurate information? The GRA believes it was not only inaccurate, but incomplete as well.

What do you think?

Also see:
	Did School District Mislead Their Own Attorney?
	Lockwood Makes False Public Claims - Again
	Conservation Commission Report Cites Deception & Misinformation
	Information Withheld Voters
	Voters Misled by BOS, School District