Participants
Everyone heard or addressed on the recording. There are no minutes to check spellings against; officials' names follow the project's 2015-2023 roster and the attribution report. Residents are named only where they gave a name at the microphone, and spellings of those names are as transcribed and unverified. No resident's family or health details are reproduced.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Unidentified | School district moderator | Calls the meeting to order (0:00:03); reads the rules of procedure (0:01:38) and the secret-ballot procedure (0:03:05); alternates speakers for and against; refers a procedural question to counsel (0:30:47); conducts the vote (1:00:52). Not named on the recording. |
| Frank Sprague | Chair, Claremont School Board | Introduces the clerk and board (0:01:20); speaks for the article on the proponent's time (0:14:47 to 0:20:30). |
| Jason Benware | School board member; Ward 1 | Reads and moves the article (0:13:39); yields his time to the chair (0:14:33); speaks for it as a resident (0:23:57). |
| Rebecca Zullo | School board vice chair | Seconds the article (0:14:22). |
| Michael Petrin, Heather Whitney, Rob Lovett Jr., Carolyn Towle | School board members | Introduced (0:01:20; transcribed Michael Peter, Heather Whitney Robertson, junior, Carolyn Cole). Not otherwise heard. |
| Mary Woodman | School district clerk | Introduced (0:01:20; transcribed Mary woman). |
| Michael Tempesta | Superintendent, SAU 6 | Presents the programs the fund would pay for (0:04:24 to 0:12:44); answers a resident's questions (0:50:30 to 0:53:33). |
| Matt Upton | District counsel (labeled in the dialogue file; not named on this recording) | Answers why the meeting is not under the SB 2 process (0:32:14 to 0:33:17). |
| Unidentified | Resident, Ward 1 | Speaks against twice (0:21:07, 0:44:41), citing replies from state representatives. |
| Cynthia Howard | Resident, Ward 2 | Speaks against twice (0:26:36, 0:56:42). |
| Unidentified | Resident | Asks whether the article can be amended and why the SB 2 process does not apply (0:30:04, 0:30:28). |
| Unidentified | Resident, Ward 3, former educator | Neutral; asks how the other half reaches taxpayers (0:34:31). |
| Deb (surname not reliably transcribed) | Resident, Ward 1; former school board member | Speaks for (0:36:47). |
| Unidentified | Resident | Speaks against (0:40:01). |
| Ali Filene (as transcribed) | Resident, Ward 2; Maple Avenue School teacher | Speaks for (0:42:09). |
| Unidentified | Resident, Ward 2; special educator | Speaks for (0:45:57). |
| Jeremy Harold (as transcribed) | Resident, Ward 1; parent | Neither for nor against; asks what guarantee taxpayers have (0:46:58). |
| Unidentified | Resident (first name heard as David) | Speaks for (0:54:01). |
| Unidentified | Resident, transcribed Stapleton, Ward 3 | Speaks for (0:58:14). |
| Unidentified voices | Moderator and residents | 106 of 201 rows (52.7%), chiefly the moderator and residents who gave no audible name. |
Order of business (reconstructed)
No warrant or notice survives in the district's shares; the article's text is taken from its reading on the recording. The items below follow the moderator's transitions.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:03 | Call to order; Pledge; introductions | Board and clerk introduced by the chair (0:01:20). |
| 0:01:38 | Rules of procedure | Proponents five minutes, others two; amendments in writing, signed by mover and seconder; secret-ballot procedure explained (0:03:05); purpose of the meeting stated (0:03:46). |
| 0:04:24 | Explanation by the superintendent | The three programs. No action. |
| 0:13:05 | Article 1: special education funding | Read and moved by Benware (0:13:39), seconded by Zullo (0:14:22). Debate (0:14:47 to 0:59:58). Motion to call the question (1:00:33) adopted by voice (1:00:46). Article adopted on a voice vote: “May the ayes have it.” (1:00:52). No amendment was offered. See flags 1, 3 and 4. |
| 1:01:25 | Close | Moderator thanks those attending. |
Discussion timeline
Times are taken from the dialogue transcript (Dialogue/10624 SchoolBoardSpecial112119.mp4.CSV) and link into the recording. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:01:38 | Rules | Moderator: “Proponents of the iPhone will speak first and will be given five minutes to speak. Debate will then be limited to two minutes per person.” [proponents of the article]; “Amendments must be in writing, presented to the moderator and signed by the person making the motion and the person seconding the motion.” (0:01:59). | POSITIVE |
| 0:03:46 | Purpose | “The purpose of this evening's meeting is to explain, discuss, debate, and take action on a special education expendable trust fund.” | |
| 0:07:59 | Superintendent's case | Out-of-district placements cost “between 90,000 and over $100,000 for each placement.” “Three students came back this year.” (0:08:11). Three students with autism are likely to be placed out: “That's a known $270,000.” (0:09:05). The aim is to “create the program so that we can keep Claremont kids in Claremont” (0:09:30). | |
| 0:10:22 | Projected savings | “That would be 540 coming back for an alpha of approximately 280.” [outlay]; with tuition students, “we would have the potential to make over $1 million a year coming in for revenue for an outlet of $280,000.” (0:11:09). The Stevens alternative program was cut, and “as part of the adequacy restoration that this money was intended to be able to put that back.” (0:11:32). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:13:39 | Article read and moved | Benware reads the article: establish a special education expendable trust fund under RSA 198:20-c “to raise an appropriate the sum of $650,000 to be added to the fund”, from the increase in adequacy aid under RSA 198:41, “with no money to be raised from taxation”, naming the board as agents to expend. Seconded by Zullo (0:14:22). | MEDIUM |
| 0:14:47 | Chair's history | On the stabilization grants: “These stabilization grants were recognition by the state that certain towns” could not get by on local taxes and adequacy aid (0:15:32). “So every year the Claremont School Board came to the table knowing the first thing we have to do is cut 250,000 to level fund next year's level.” (0:16:01). “So what we're talking about is about $1.2 million, $1.3 million that we would be getting this year, this year.” and “What we're proposing is, is returning half of that to the taxpayers and half for the programs that we're proposing for you tonight.” (0:17:43). He explains “And aces are adverse childhood experiences.” (0:18:50). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:21:07 | Against: tax relief money | A Ward 1 resident: “oh, they want to take the tax relief money to use for special ed classes who already meet all the mandated requirements”. She reads a reply she says a state representative sent her: “Yes. This is a restoration of the money that Claremont was losing every year because of the stabilization grant reductions.” (0:21:54). “I would hate to see you approve this bond and jeopardize any future tax relief from the state.” (0:22:47). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:23:57 | For: Benware | “The fact is, is this money was a restriction of stabilization aid.” [restoration] (0:24:26); budget-holding cuts included “12 positions were reduced in the schools.” (0:25:32). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:26:36 | Against: Howard | Catastrophic-aid losses from 2016 to this year come to “it is approximately $269,000.”, and with other revenue “it comes to around one four years, 106,000.” (0:27:16). Statewide, “I believe it was like $76 million that was sent across the state of New Hampshire.” (0:27:48). She says of the autism program “a lot of it is medicating the children”. | |
| 0:30:04 | Why not SB 2? | A resident: “Is this amendable or is this as is being presented to us?” and why the SB 2 process is not used, noting that “we just recently, within the last 16 days, had 20% of our city's registered voters come out.” (0:30:54). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:32:14 | Counsel's answer | The statute “specifies the procedure by which the school board can ask for a special district meeting” for increased adequacy funds; “This is the process that the statute requires.” (0:32:43). “It's a single meeting where we discuss, debate and vote on the article.” (0:33:17). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:34:31 | Neutral: how does it come back? | A Ward 3 resident: “Is that in the form of a check?” An unidentified official: “they'll take that $650,000 and they'll apply it like a revenue source, just like the state aid that we normally get.” “So it will reduce the tax rate” (0:35:56). | |
| 0:36:47 | For: former board member | “I was on the school board way, way back when, when the first, suit was brought against the state.” “If they got $1.3 million, they're giving half of it back to the taxpayers, and they're keeping half of it” (0:37:55). “And I think this is a fair compromise.” (0:38:18). | |
| 0:40:01 | Against | “My general observation most funding is that once you leave the hands of the taxpayers, it is gone.” “The purpose of the money is to lower the taxes.” (0:40:29). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:42:09 | For: Maple Avenue teacher | “I'm also a teacher at Maple Avenue School” for 22 years; on the medication claim: “It is untrue that when a child is in a special ed program, or just because they are autistic or have other special needs” the district medicates them (0:43:44); of the board, “but they're not devious.” | |
| 0:44:41 | Against, again | The Ward 1 resident: representatives told her that “if they go and spend it, other than tax reduction, they can kiss it away because we're never going to vote for it again.” She asks that it go on the March ballot instead. | |
| 0:46:02 | For: special educator | “It's a replacement of programs that have been taken away over the years as we've tried to provide tax relief.” | |
| 0:47:58 | A parent's concerns | Harold says “this district is on the the lower end of academics in this state” and asks “What kind of guarantee do we have with this program is actually going to work” (0:48:36); “This could save money. Could could, could.” (0:49:04). | |
| 0:50:30 | Superintendent replies | “we already are spending 293 for these three students” [about $293,000] (0:50:55); “Einstein's definition of insanity” (0:52:03). Asked about metrics (0:52:54): “The board has complete control over this money.” “I work for them.” and “So there's no guarantees in anything in life.” (0:53:33). | POSITIVE |
| 0:56:42 | Against: Howard again | “Approximately 75% of it is made allocated for salaries and benefits.”; “the only way around it is to actually privatize these programs.”; “I think the money should come back to the taxpayers the entire 1.3 million for this biennium.” (0:57:18). | |
| 0:59:58 | For: last speaker | “This was a top five budget that was passed in the state and it's not sustainable.” so the money should be put to use now. | |
| 1:00:33 | Question called; vote | “I want to call. Quick call the question.” Adopted by voice (1:00:46). Moderator: “I'd like to do a voice vote, and if it's questionable, then I'll be doing a speedy vote.” [standing vote]; “May the ayes have it.” (1:00:52). No count; no secret ballot requested. | OBSERVATION |
Items flagged for review
These flags are a reviewer's aid, not findings of violation and not legal advice. Each one names the rule it rests on, as that rule read on November 21, 2019, or is labeled an observation where no verified rule applies.
MEDIUM The meeting's notice was posted a day late and its hearing was not noticed on the website, by district counsel's account
RSA 197:3-a, V requires notice of the meeting, including the warrant, in at least two public places "one of which shall be on the school district's website, if such exists, at least 7 days prior" to the meeting, plus newspaper publication; ¶IV imposes the same website rule on notice of the required hearing (statute text). The night before, counsel told the board the open question was whether the SAU 6 website counted (November 20, 2019 page). At the December 12 curing meeting he stated the defects as no website notice of the hearing and a meeting notice “posted six days ahead of the Special District meeting, not seven” (counsel on the December 12 recording, show 10649; December 12, 2019 page). Nothing on this recording tells the voters in the room about the problem.
MEDIUM, not HIGH: the requirement was missed, but RSA 31:5-b, I treats failures "regarding time or place of notice" as minor procedural irregularities, and the district cured them by a ratification vote on December 12, 21 days after this meeting, as RSA 31:5-b, II allows. That ratification, not this vote alone, is what established the fund.
Sources: RSA 197:3-a, IV and V (2019 codification; source 2013, 197:1, eff. Sept. 7, 2013); RSA 31:5-b, I and II (2019 codification); RSA 40:16 (2019 codification)
MEDIUM No warrant, notice or minutes for this meeting survive in any district share
MAP.md records no Drive material for this meeting. The district clerk "shall keep a true record of all the doings of each meeting" (RSA 197:20, statute text). With no posted warrant or notice, the dates and places of posting that flag 1 turns on cannot be checked independently of counsel's account, and with no minutes the margin of the voice vote and the names of residents who spoke rest on the recording alone.
MEDIUM under the project's severity rule, because the record mitigates the gap: minutes of this meeting were approved at the school board's December 4 meeting (December 4, 2019 page). No public copy survives.
Sources: RSA 197:20 (2016 codification; source note ends 1963, 120:5, unamended since)
OBSERVATION A $650,000 article adopted on a voice vote with no count in the record
After the question was called, the moderator took a voice vote, said a standing vote would follow if the result was questionable, and declared “May the ayes have it.” (1:00:52). No one questioned the result on the recording, no secret ballot was requested although the moderator had explained the procedure for one (0:03:05), and no count exists. A voice vote is a lawful way to decide a question; the observation is only that the record holds no margin. At the December 12 ratification the moderator took a standing vote with counters when the voice vote was questioned (show 10649).
Sources: RSA 197:3-a (2019 codification)
OBSERVATION Speakers disputed what the restored aid was for; the statute restores a grant percentage and the article spends half of it
Opponents called the money tax-relief money that must go back to taxpayers (0:21:07, 0:40:29); supporters called it restored stabilization aid (0:24:26, 0:16:01). The 2019 budget law amended RSA 198:41, IV(d) so that the stabilization-grant percentage, phased down to "88 percent for fiscal year 2019", returned to "100 percent for fiscal year 2020" (statute text; 2019, 346:238, eff. July 1, 2019). That paragraph sets the grant; it does not, in the text read for this page, earmark it for property-tax relief, and the article was brought under RSA 197:3-a, which exists for spending changes in adequacy aid during the year. The legislators' intent the speakers described, in emails read aloud, is their characterization and is not verified here. Half the money went to the trust fund and half was applied to the tax rate, as officials explained (0:35:56).
Sources: RSA 198:41, IV(d) (2019 codification; source note ends 2019, 346:235, eff. July 1, 2020; 346:238, eff. July 1, 2019); RSA 198:20-c (2019 codification; expendable trust funds)
OBSERVATION Counsel told voters the single-session procedure was required; the statute makes it a choice
Asked why the article was not going through the SB 2 process, counsel answered “This is the process that the statute requires.” (0:32:43). RSA 197:3-a, I provides that a district "may elect to hold and conduct the meeting in accordance with the provisions of this section in a single session" (statute text). The single session was the route the board chose, which the statute permits; the answer was right that the meeting was lawful in this form, and imprecise in presenting it as the only form. The resident's underlying point, that most voters had just been to the polls and few would attend a weeknight meeting (0:30:54), is the trade-off that choice carries.
Sources: RSA 197:3-a, I (2019 codification)
POSITIVE A structured, two-sided debate with officials answering skeptics on the record
The moderator announced time limits and amendment rules at the start (0:01:38), alternated speakers for and against throughout, let residents who were neither for nor against speak, allowed opponents a second turn once everyone had spoken, and had the superintendent answer a parent's questions about guarantees and results directly (0:50:30 to 0:53:33). Eleven residents spoke: five for, three against, and three with questions or no position. RSA 197:19 gives the district moderator the powers of a town moderator, and RSA 40:4 lets a moderator "prescribe rules of proceeding" (statute text); announcing them in advance and applying them evenly to both sides goes beyond that bare authority and gave the small turnout a full hearing of the arguments.
Sources: RSA 197:19 (district moderator; source 1979, 321:6); RSA 40:4 (moderator's duties; source note ends 2019, 192:1, eff. July 10, 2019)
Appendix: source files
Official and public sources
Project files
Working files this page was built from. The dialogue file is linked; the others are not published with the page.
Laws and rules cited on this page
- RSA 197:3-a, I, IV and V, 2019 codification (source 2013, 197:1): optional single-session special meeting on changed adequacy aid; hearing and meeting notices, including the website "if such exists", at least 7 days before
- RSA 31:5-b, I and II and RSA 40:16, 2019 codifications: curing minor procedural defects by a later special meeting
- RSA 197:20 (source note ends 1963, 120:5): the clerk keeps a true record of each meeting
- RSA 198:41, IV(d), 2019 codification (2019, 346:238, eff. July 1, 2019): stabilization-grant percentages, 100 percent from fiscal year 2020
- RSA 198:20-c, 2019 codification (source ends 2012, 219:2, 3): expendable trust funds created at an annual or special meeting
- RSA 197:19 (source 1979, 321:6): the district moderator has the powers and duties of a town moderator
- RSA 40:4 (source note ends 2019, 192:1, eff. July 10, 2019): moderator presides and may prescribe rules of proceeding