Claremont School Board, April 6, 2022

OBSERVATION The ARP ESSER (ESSER III) allocation was filed with the state a month before the board discussed it; the board took no vote, and the written transition plan members asked for is not in the record

The superintendent presented “the actual submission to the state that we did last month” (0:12:23): after-school and enrichment $320,000, CTE visioning $100,000, curriculum adoptions about $300,000, “1.4 million in that hiring, retention of professional staff” and teacher performance bonuses of $100,000 (0:14:40, 0:15:08, 0:16:16). He reported 196 survey responses (0:12:48) and that “20% minimally of the Esser money has to be used to address specific learning losses” (0:13:27), and said the full document “is posted online right now for the public to review” (1:20:33). Those statements track the federal requirements: consultation and public input, a plan posted on the district website, and the statutory 20 percent learning-loss reservation.

The open question is board oversight. The item was listed for discussion; no motion was made on it. Heather Whitney asked for “I want it in writing, I want to plan” (1:39:47); Whitney Skillen asked “Do we have a risk log. Do we have a transition plan. Do we have a sustainability strategy?” (1:49:51); Steven Horsky asked for a return-on-investment model (1:58:28). The superintendent answered “We can add that to this” (1:50:22). No federal rule located requires a school board vote on an ARP ESSER plan, so this is an observation. The documents that would settle what the board was given are the filed ARP ESSER plan and any written sustainability plan presented at a later meeting.

Sources: 86 FR 21195 (Apr. 22, 2021), ARP ESSER interim final requirements (LEA plan, meaningful consultation, public input, plan posted on the LEA website; ARP Act section 2001(e)(1) 20 percent learning-loss reservation)

OBSERVATION A federal fiscal monitoring final report on the district was e-mailed to members on the day of the meeting and is not in the public record located

Under other business the vice chair asked that the next agenda include “the federal fiscal monitoring final report of the Claremont School District that was emailed to members today”, with “set aside as substantial amount of time for that” (2:22:50). The minutes record the request. No copy of the report, or of the corrective action it may have required, is in any packet or minutes this project holds for spring 2022, and the district’s Drive shares do not reach back before July 2022. No rule is cited because the report’s contents are unknown; the document that would settle its findings is the report itself, which the district can produce on request under RSA 91-A.

Sources: CSB Board Public Hearing & Regular minutes 4.6.22.pdf (district minutes)

OBSERVATION A $1,600 in-kind gift to the tech center was described as already accepted before it came to the board

After the $8,000 vote the superintendent presented a recognition of “about $1,600 worth of materials” for the plumbing and HVAC program (2:15:19) and said “It's already been donated and accepted” (2:16:09); the chair noted the difference from the cash gift was the dollar amount (2:16:15), and the superintendent agreed: “the public hearings for over the 5000” (2:16:19). The donor’s name is garbled in the transcript; the minutes spell it Steven Fiskio.

RSA 198:20-b, III(b) requires that unanticipated funds under $5,000 be noticed in the agenda and minutes and accepted in public session of a regular board meeting. The statute speaks of money; whether a gift of materials falls under it is not settled by the text, so no violation is asserted. The point is narrower: on this record the acceptance happened before the board saw the item, and no board vote was taken on it.

Sources: RSA 198:20-b, I and III (2022 codification; source note ends 2005, 188:1: unanticipated money; prior public hearing at $5,000 or more; under $5,000, notice in agenda and minutes and acceptance in public session)

OBSERVATION The only located copy of the minutes was filed 106 days after the meeting, and its masthead lists the board as it stood before the March election

The minutes (CSB Board Public Hearing & Regular minutes 4.6.22.pdf) sit in the packet folder for July 20, 2022, with a Drive creation date of July 21, 2022, 106 days after the meeting. That date shows when this copy reached the public share, not when the minutes were written, and the share holds nothing older than the July 2022 folders, so RSA 91-A:2, II’s five-business-day rule cannot be tested from here.

The text has three defects a reader should know about. The masthead lists the members as chair Frank Sprague, vice chair Heather Whitney, Rob Lovett Jr. and Nicholas Stone among them, which was the board before this meeting; the roll-call line in the body lists the seven members actually seated (Horsky, Lambert, Miles, Petrin, Sprague, Skillen, Whitney). The closing sentence of other business is cut off mid-word, ending at to the boa. And the minutes record Steven Horsky seconding both officer nominations, while the dialogue file gives the only audible second for the chair nomination (“As board chair. I'll second.”, 0:03:21) to the superintendent’s voice cluster; the superintendent is not a member and cannot second, so the minutes’ attribution is the more plausible one. On the positive side, the minutes name a mover and seconder for every motion, which RSA 91-A:2, II has required since January 1, 2019.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I and II (2022 codification; source note ends 2018, 244:1: meeting defined as the convening of a quorum; notice; minutes with mover and seconder, open to inspection within 5 business days)