SAU 6 Board, May 16, 2019

OBSERVATION Six weeks before year end the acting superintendent could not say where the Claremont and Unity budgets stood, as the SAU's two senior finance staff were leaving

The acting superintendent told the board that the SAU's own year-to-date document was “the cleanest of the three entities” (0:29:19), while for Claremont and Unity “there's there's still some major question marks as to where we stand today in relationship to the end of the year” (0:29:42). In the same report: the business administrator post had no applicants (0:25:22); the assistant director of business and finance was leaving about June 11 (0:09:27); the acting superintendent herself was leaving; bank authorizations had to be transferred (0:30:13); and “My name is on a lot of things right now”, with the departing assistant director as her backup (0:31:07). No rule is cited because no figure was presented; the point for review is the state of the districts' books at fiscal year end. Nineteen days later the SAU 6 board received its FY2018 audit, which the acting superintendent described as an adverse opinion with significant deficiencies and material weaknesses (Dialogue/10407 SAU6060419.mp4.CSV). The district's FY2019 year-end statements and audit are the documents that would settle what these “question marks” were.

Sources: Dialogue/10375 SAU6051619.mp4.CSV (rows 214 to 220); Dialogue/10407 SAU6060419.mp4.CSV

OBSERVATION A motion appears to have carried and was then withdrawn by its mover, leaving its status unclear

The motion to have Erickson and Zullo “conduct an exit interview” was seconded and put to a vote, and Aye. is heard (0:12:46 to 0:12:59); the chair's call for opposition is transcribed as Pose. (0:13:01). Debate then reopened, the mover offered a substitute for an informal conversation (0:13:31) that was never seconded or voted, and later said “So I'm revoking it.” (0:18:25). No vote to reconsider or rescind is heard. No statute governs this, and the SAU board's rules of procedure are not in the record; the point for review is that a passed motion is not normally undone by its mover alone, so the minutes, if they exist, would have to say whether the board directed the interview or not. The underlying concern, raised by three members, was that the SAU had no policy and no recent practice of exit interviews (0:08:16, 0:08:36, 0:09:28).

Sources: Dialogue/10375 SAU6051619.mp4.CSV (rows 94 to 131)

OBSERVATION The SAU board approved a draft data governance plan that the statute required each school board to approve, and its security gaps were described on air

RSA 189:66, V, as amended by 2018, 252 and in force on this date, required: “Each local education agency shall develop a data and privacy governance plan” to be “presented to the school board for review and approval by June 30, 2019”, and updated annually. The SAU 6 board approved “the data governance plan draft as presented.” (0:40:45). Whether the Claremont and Unity school boards also reviewed and approved a plan by June 30, as the statute's wording points to, is not in this record. The plan's required contents are an inventory and review of software, access and privacy policies, a breach response plan, and service-provider standards; staff training is not among them, so the director's statement that training was not legally required (0:35:32) is consistent with the text.

The director was candid that the plan describes requirements rather than protections in place, and in doing so described on the televised record specific weaknesses: unlocked server racks in classrooms (0:33:41), no backup generators (0:34:04), no cybersecurity expert (0:37:59), and a student information system “hosted locally and open to the internet.” (0:38:24). Those statements are a reason to ask what was done afterward, and whether describing them in public was weighed against the risk.

Sources: RSA 189:66, V (2019 codification; source note ends 2018, 252:1, 2, eff. Aug. 11, 2018)