Participants
Everyone the recording shows taking part. Names follow the project's dialogue file, which identifies many floor speakers only by ward because their names are inaudible; spellings are as heard and unverified. School officials are listed first, then floor speakers in speaking order.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Unidentified | School district moderator | Presided; not named on the recording. Read the rules of procedure, recognized speakers alternately against and in favor, referred a procedural question to counsel, and ran the votes on calling the question and on the article. |
| Frank Sprague | School board chair | Introduced the clerk and the board, and spoke first for the article after Benware deferred his time, giving the history of the Claremont school funding suits and of the stabilization grant cuts. |
| Jason Benware | School board member; voter, Ward 1 | Read the article as its mover, then spoke in favor from the floor: "last year, 12 positions were reduced in the schools." Rendered Jason Benwell and Ben where. |
| Rebecca Zullo | School board vice chair | Seconded the article (the moderator's Mrs. Lula). |
| Michael Petrin, Heather Whitney, Rob Lovett Jr., Carolyn Towle | School board members | Introduced by the chair at 0:01:20 (transcribed Michael Peter, Heather Whitney Robertson, junior, Carolyn Cole); a board member called on as Told, taken by the attribution report as Carolyn Towle, led the pledge. No other words are attributed to them. |
| Mary Woodman | School district clerk | Introduced by the chair (Mary woman). |
| Michael Tempesta | Superintendent, SAU 6 | Explained the proposed autism program, another PRIDE classroom and an alternative program at Stevens High School; answered a floor question on results: "So there's no guarantees in anything in life. But but I'm very confident about this program". |
| Matt Upton | District attorney, Drummond Woodsum (uncertain) | Answered why this meeting is a single session outside the SB 2 process. The moderator refers the question to "the city attorney" and does not name him; the dialogue file names Upton by inference from the December 12 meeting and marks it uncertain. |
| Unidentified | Voter, Ward 1 | Spoke against twice (0:21:07, 0:44:41), relaying legislators' warnings that spending the money on anything but tax relief would endanger future aid; urged putting the programs in the March budget instead. Name not audible. |
| Cynthia Howard | Voter, Ward 2 | Spoke against twice (0:26:36, 0:56:42): losses in special education aid were small; the programs "are only going to add more staff"; she favored returning "the entire 1.3 million for this biennium" to taxpayers. |
| Unidentified | Voter (ward not audible) | Asked at 0:30:04 whether the article could be amended and why the meeting was not run under the SB 2 process, noting the recent city election turnout. |
| Unidentified | Voter, Ward 3, former educator | Undecided; asked at 0:34:39 whether the half "coming back to the taxpayers" would be a check. |
| Deb | Voter, Ward 1, former school board member | Spoke in favor at 0:36:47 as a board member from the time of the first school funding suit: "I think this is a fair compromise." Surname not verified (transcribed Deb Metal). |
| Unidentified | Voter (ward not audible) | Spoke against at 0:40:01: "The purpose of the money is to lower the taxes." |
| Ali Filene | Voter, Ward 2; Maple Avenue School teacher of 22 years | Spoke in favor at 0:42:09; name as heard, spelling unverified. |
| Unidentified | Voter, Ward 2, special educator | Spoke in favor at 0:45:57 in three points, calling the programs replacements for ones cut to hold down taxes. |
| Jeremy Harold | Voter, Ward 1, parent | Neither for nor against at 0:47:19; asked what guarantee taxpayers had that the program would work, given low proficiency among students without special needs. Name as heard, spelling unverified. |
| Unidentified | Voter (name heard as David) | Spoke in favor at 0:54:01; his wife teaches first grade. |
| Unidentified | Voter, Ward 3 (name heard as Stapleton) | Spoke in favor at 0:58:14: the extra state money "is not sustainable", so use it now to "stop the loss". |
Order of business (reconstructed)
No warrant or notice for this meeting is posted in any district share. The single article is known from the superintendent's reading on November 6 and the mover's reading here; the order of business is reconstructed from the moderator's transitions. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:03 | Call to order and pledge | By the moderator; a board member leads the pledge. |
| 0:01:09 | Introduction of board and officers | By the school board chair. |
| 0:01:38 | Rules of procedure | Proponents first with five minutes; "Debate will then be limited to two minutes per person." Amendments in writing, signed by mover and seconder; a second turn only after everyone has spoken. Counters introduced; secret-ballot procedure explained. |
| 0:03:46 | Explanation by the superintendent | Presentation of the three proposed programs. |
| 0:13:05 | Article 1: Special education funding | As read by the mover: a vote "to establish a special education expendable trust fund pursuant to RSA 198 that, according to Nash, C" [RSA 198:20-c] "for the purposes of funding special education costs and to raise an appropriate the sum of $650,000", from "increases in the district's adequate education grant are, say, 198 colon 41" [RSA 198:41], "with no money to be raised from taxation", naming the school board as agents to expend. Moved by Benware, seconded by Zullo. Debate followed. |
| 1:00:33 | Motion to call the question | Approved by voice vote. |
| 1:00:52 | Vote on Article 1 | Voice vote: "May the ayes have it." The moderator had said a doubtful voice vote would go to a standing count; none was needed. |
| 1:01:25 | Close | The moderator thanks the voters. |
Discussion timeline
Chronological, from the dialogue CSV. Times are the start of the cited exchange, taken from the CSV's own second count. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell for the full entry.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:01:38 | Rules of procedure | "Speakers must be recognized by the moderator. All speakers will approach the podium." Speakers alternate against and for; two-minute limit enforced by timer. | POSITIVE |
| 0:07:59 | Superintendent: why the programs | Out-of-district placements run "between 90,000 and over $100,000 for each placement". Three students on the autism spectrum likely to be placed out "to the tune of $90,000 plus for each placement. That's a known $270,000." "That would be 540 coming back for an alpha of approximately 280." Tuition students could bring "the potential to make over $1 million a year coming in for revenue for an outlet of $280,000." | OBSERVATION |
| 0:13:39 | Article read and seconded | Benware read the article; Zullo seconded; Benware deferred his proponent's time to the chair. | |
| 0:14:47 | Chair: the funding history | The Claremont school funding suits; stabilization grants cut about 4% a year, "about a quarter of $1 million" each year for Claremont; the 2018 election, a veto, and then "about $1.2 million, $1.3 million that we would be getting this year". "What we're proposing is, is returning half of that to the taxpayers and half for the programs". Adverse childhood experiences (aces) explained. | |
| 0:21:07 | Against: keep it for tax relief | A Ward 1 voter read a legislator's reply that the grant "restores all the lost money to reduce the tax burden", and warned: "I would hate to see you approve this bond and jeopardize any future tax relief from the state." Suggested a warrant article in March instead. | |
| 0:23:57 | For: Benware from the floor | "The fact is, is this money was a restriction of stabilization aid." Had budgets kept staff and programs, "The tax rate would have gone up immeasurably over that time." "last year, 12 positions were reduced in the schools." | |
| 0:26:36 | Against: Cynthia Howard | "The most that we lost was for catastrophic aid", about $269,000 over four years, or "around one four years, 106,000" net of other revenue. She said "a lot of it is medicating the children" in the autism program. | |
| 0:30:04 | Why not SB 2? | A voter asked whether the article is amendable and why this meeting differs from "going along with the Senate Bill two process". Counsel (identification uncertain): "RNC 197 I think it's three A" [RSA 197:3-a] "specifies the procedure by which the school board can ask for a special district meeting"; "this particular purpose of this meeting is governed by a different statute." | POSITIVE |
| 0:34:39 | Is the refund a check? | A Ward 3 voter asked if the returned half would come "in the form of a check". An unidentified official: "There's $650,000 that's coming back to the taxpayers", applied "like a revenue source" when the tax rate is set, so "it will reduce the tax rate". | |
| 0:36:47 | For: a former board member | Deb (Ward 1): "If they got $1.3 million, they're giving half of it back to the taxpayers, and they're keeping half" for a program that "looks like it's going to, in the long run, save us money." "I think this is a fair compromise." | |
| 0:40:01 | Against: lower taxes | "The purpose of the money is to lower the taxes." Spending per student "is far in excess of what it is in the other parts of the state". | |
| 0:42:09 | For: a Maple Avenue teacher | Ali Filene described rising needs among entering students and answered the medication claim: "it is untrue that we automatically medicate them." | |
| 0:44:41 | Against again; for again | The Ward 1 voter: "I just think it's foolish for a couple of months of waiting to put it in, that we should jeopardize getting relief in the future." A Ward 2 special educator: "it's a replacement of programs that have been taken away over the years". | |
| 0:47:19 | What guarantee? | Jeremy Harold: "what kind of guarantee do we have with this program is actually going to work". The superintendent at 0:50:34: the district already spends "293 for these three students"; "The board has complete control over this money."; "So there's no guarantees in anything in life." | OBSERVATION |
| 0:54:01 | For: two more speakers | A voter whose wife teaches first grade supported it; Cynthia Howard spoke again against ("salaries and benefits" are about 75% of the budget); a Ward 3 voter: "This was a top five budget that was passed in the state and it's not sustainable." | |
| 1:00:33 | Question called; vote | Motion to call the question carried by voice. Article 1 carried by voice vote: "May the ayes have it." | |
Items flagged for review
Flags are a reviewer's aid generated by comparing the meeting against the law in force on November 21, 2019, and each flag cites the text as it then read. They are not findings of violation, and nothing here is legal advice. Where no verified rule applies, the flag says so and is recorded as an observation. Ordered by severity.
MEDIUM By the district counsel's own later statement, the notice of this meeting was posted on the SAU 6 website six days ahead, not the seven the statute requires
RSA 197:3-a, V, as it read in 2019, required the governing body to post a notice of the meeting, including the warrant, in 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 notice. Nothing on this recording addresses posting. On November 20, the evening before, counsel told the board there was "a strong argument" that no website posting was required because the SAU 6 site is not a Claremont School District website. On December 4 the chair read counsel's statement that "the notice of the Special District meeting was posted on the Saw website only six days prior to the meeting, rather than the seven days required by the statute", and that the Department of Revenue Administration had recommended a second meeting under RSA 40:16 "to cure any procedural defect defects".
Why MEDIUM: the shortfall is one day on one of several posting places, the legal requirement is disputed by the district's own counsel, and the district pursued the statutory cure (a second special meeting on December 12, 2019, 21 days after this vote, as RSA 31:5-b, II(b) requires). Whether the physical postings and newspaper notice were timely is not in any available record.
Sources: RSA 197:3-a, V (2019 codification; source 2013, 197:1): meeting notice with warrant, one posting on the district website "if such exists" at least 7 days before; RSA 40:16 (2019 codification); RSA 31:5-b, II (2019 codification).
OBSERVATION The voters decided on oral financial projections that are not in any posted document and that differ from the figures given the board the night before
The case for the article rested on savings and tuition revenue stated orally: here, three likely placements at "a known $270,000", "540 coming back for an alpha of approximately 280", and "the potential to make over $1 million a year coming in for revenue for an outlet of $280,000" (0:09:05 to 0:11:09); to the board on November 20, tuition of 65,000 for up to eight students in a PRIDE room and "six other tuitions at $90,000" in the autism program, with the programs costed "for about 175,000". The slides and the video shown are not in any public share this project could reach. The superintendent was candid that "there's no guarantees in anything in life", and the board chair and a member said the returned half would lower the tax rate. No statute requires a written fiscal note for a special-meeting article, so this is recorded as an observation for readers weighing later results against these projections.
Sources: the recording only; no rule applies.
OBSERVATION No warrant, notice or minutes for this meeting are posted online
MAP.md records that neither district Drive share holds anything before July 2022 (checked 9/26/26). That is a limit of what the district posts online, not evidence that records were never made: the school board approved minutes of this meeting on December 4, 2019. The limb of the project's missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation. The absence matters more than usual here because the adequacy of the notice was later questioned (flag 1) and cannot be checked against the posted document.
Sources: Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 116.
POSITIVE The meeting ran on announced rules, heard both sides in turn, and gave voters an accurate answer on why it was not an SB 2 vote
The moderator read the rules before debate (0:01:38): proponents first, two-minute turns on a timer, written amendments, a second turn only after everyone had spoken. Speakers against and in favor were recognized alternately, and one speaker who ran over was allowed to hear counsel's answer before time was called. When a voter asked why this was a single session rather than the SB 2 process, counsel's answer matched the statute: RSA 197:3-a, I lets an official-ballot district hold this meeting "in a single session for deliberating and voting, and without regard to the provisions of RSA 40:13". The voters acted only on the warranted article, as RSA 197:3-a, VII requires ("or act on any other business at the meeting" is barred). The article's use of a trust fund created at a special meeting is authorized by RSA 198:20-c, I.
Sources: RSA 197:3-a, I and VII (2019 codification): single session without regard to RSA 40:13; no other business; RSA 198:20-c, I (2019 codification; source ends 2012, 219:2, 3): district "may at any annual or special meeting" create expendable trust funds.
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.
Dialogue/10624 SchoolBoardSpecial112119.mp4.CSV (201 attributed rows; the basis of this page)Input/Videos/10624 SchoolBoardSpecial112119.mp4Input/Transcripts/10624 SchoolBoardSpecial112119.mp4.jsonScripts/attribution_reports_2015_2023/10624 SchoolBoardSpecial112119.mp4.mdInput/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md, section 116
Laws and rules cited on this page