Public hearing and regular meeting. Two weeks after tabling a reserve-fund plan for its Senate Bill 420 money, the board heard a rewritten one-article warrant: $482,094.01 added to the operating budget "for the purposes of improving student achievement", which the administration said would buy K–5 literacy and grade 6–8 math materials and training this year instead of next. A motion to table again, until the business administrator and counsel could answer, failed; the board then sent the article to a November 3 special district meeting, with Heather Whitney and Steven Horsky voting no. Nobody at the table could say for certain what a no vote at that meeting would do with the money. Built from the recording, the posted agenda, notice and warrant, and the minutes. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.
Body
Claremont School Board (SAU 6), public hearing followed by regular meeting
Date
Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Start time
6:30 p.m. per the notice, agenda and minutes (hearing 6:35, board meeting 7:00, adjournment scheduled 8:15). Called to order at 0:00:18; hearing opened at 0:05:37 and closed at 0:13:43; the warrant vote came at 1:35:43; adjournment at 2:11:26, a little over two hours eleven minutes after the call to order. No nonpublic session. Recording runs 2:11:55.
Location
Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center, Claremont (notice, agenda and minutes)
CSB Hearing & Meeting Minutes 10.19.22, by Chelsea Weatherford, filed in the packet folder of the November 17, 2022 meeting (Drive created time November 15, 2022). They name movers, seconders and the members voting no on each split vote.
Board composition
All seven members present per the minutes: Michael Petrin (chair), Heather Whitney (vice chair), Bonnie Miles, Whitney Skillen, Joshua Lambert, Steven Horsky, Frank Sprague. Business administrator Richard Seaman was absent, which was the stated reason for the tabling motion.
Participants
Everyone in the record. Names follow the dialogue file; where it says Unidentified, so does this table. Spellings from the district's documents are noted where they differ.
Name
Role
Participation
Michael Petrin
Chair
Presided; forgot the roll and went back to it. Defended a general warrant: "Warren articles are in often very vague and not very specific", and "I'm just a little confused at the pushback." Told the board that a no vote at the special meeting would return the money "to reduce the taxes by less than a dollar" (1:28:35). Voted for the warrant per the minutes' tally.
Heather Whitney
Vice Chair
Moved to take the warrant first and to table the October 5 minutes ("I personally didn't get enough time to review it"). Asked whether the money was one-time, its deadline, the ESSER balance, and how the programs would have been paid for without it. Wanted "guardrails" in the wording and counsel's answer "on a piece of paper". Voted no on the warrant.
Steven Horsky
Board member
"at this point, I'm a no on the warrant article." Moved to table until Richard Seaman could attend; "every time you leave it too wide open, it's a blank check." Asked for a line-by-line ESSER report by email. Voted no on the warrant.
Joshua Lambert
Board member
Moved the agenda and the warrant ("I'll make a motion to accept the warrant as written"). "All I'm hearing is we don't trust the admin to do their job. And honestly, that doesn't look good for us." Asked for a plan for the Maple Avenue playground.
Whitney Skillen
Board member
Satisfied that "improving student achievement" and "pursuant to Senate Bill 420" bound the money; asked the administration for regular updates on the accountability report, which it agreed to give. Seconded the warrant motion. Raised a reported backlog in hiring substitutes.
Frank Sprague
Board member
Asked why unspent Title money could not have paid for this; seconded the tabling motion "for the sake of discussion". On the October 5 plan: "a group of citizens came forward and questioned that. And it turns out that for the most part, they were right." Called the new plan "hastily put together". Asked for dropout-cause data.
Bonnie Miles
Board member
"This is a gift, and I think we should let them have it." Asked that "with no money to be raised from taxation" be printed bolder, and whether counsel would attend on November 3. Capital improvement report: Bluff roof, old windows, a trip hazard at Maple Avenue, a damaged playground structure (about $8,000). Moved adjournment. Identified partly by elimination.
Michael Tempesta
Superintendent, SAU 6
Read the warrant; explained the amounts; reported on the restructuring and scheduling committees. At 1:20:33: "I really resent some of the things that have been said tonight. They're unfair, they're unfounded, and they're not true." Called SB 420 "a political bill" and "ill conceived". On a no vote: "That's my understanding with council. And it is vague."
Michael Koski
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum
Presented the spending plan (green items funded by the grant, yellow already paid for): purchase of the winning K–5 ELA pilot and grade 6–8 math materials, tiered intervention materials, a middle-school assessment system, training. "if we had this money we can implement these programs faster. Otherwise it's allocated for next year." Rendered Mr. Kosky, Mr. Caskey, Mr. Husky.
Stephanie Hurst
Literacy specialist (Title grants)
Self-introduced as Stephanie Harris; the minutes spell Hurst. Explained that expiring Title funds "expired on September 30th" and that "we can't buy curriculum for tier one with title grants".
Heather Pelkey
Math specialist
Explained why only one math pilot (Illustrative Math, grades 6–8) is running. Self-introduced as Heather Pelkey, mass specialist; the minutes confirm the spelling.
Unidentified
Student representative
School-by-school report (book fairs, Unity Day, Stevens food drive). The chair's introduction is garbled (Sandra featuring); the agenda and minutes name the student representative as Hannah Petrin.
Arlene Hawkins
Hearing and discussion, Ward 3
Asked that her comments be "included in full as part of the official minutes"; asked why the warrant was "rather rather generic" and proposed naming subjects, grades and "measurable objectives and data as outlined in the Senate bill for 20". Later commended the board and urged time for teachers to analyze data.
Candace Crawford
Hearing and discussion, Ward 2
Asked why the warrant said $482,094.01 when the state listed $489,872, and whether the board had adopted the article. Later: "I don't see where it says. If you don't, it goes back to the taxpayers. I think that's where you need legal counsel."
Unidentified
Attendee at the restructuring committee meeting
At 0:25:31: "I spoke with a couple of the mayor and a couple of them said, they really want us to go slow." The dialogue file suggests Bonnie Miles, unconfirmed.
Richard Seaman
Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations
Absent. Referred to throughout as the person who could answer the money questions.
Agenda
From the posted AGENDA CSB 10.19.22, with dispositions from the recording and the minutes. Quoted agenda and minutes wording is marked as such. The agenda was amended to take action item 2 (the warrant) before item 1.
Minutes: "Motion made by Joshua Lambert to approve 10.19.22 meeting agenda; seconded by Steven Horsky; Heather Whitney motions to move action item number two to item number one; seconded by Whitney Skillen; all in favor via voice vote."
Agenda: "PUBLIC HEARING (New Hampshire Senate Bill 420 (Additional Funds) Special Town Meeting (RSA 197:3) Warrant Posting". Warrant read at 0:06:09; Hawkins and Crawford spoke; closed at 0:13:43.
V.2 (taken first). Approval of Warrant Posting for Special Town Meeting 11/3/22
Horsky moved to table until Seaman attended, Sprague seconded (0:52:41); defeated at 1:33:24. Minutes: "All in favor via voice vote with Frank Sprague, Joshua Lambert, Whitney Skillen, Bonnie Miles opposing. Motion was rejected." Lambert moved to accept the warrant and send it to the November 3 special district meeting, Skillen seconded; carried at 1:36:04. Minutes: "All in favor via voice vote with Heather Whitney and Steven Horsky voting no."
Capital improvement (Miles); budget, policy and curriculum nothing new; restructuring, schedule and visioning brief; ad hoc parliamentary procedure committee (Whitney).
Minutes: "Bonnie Miles makes a motion to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Frank Sprague; all in favor via voice vote."
Discussion timeline
Chronological, from the dialogue CSV. Times are the start of the cited exchange, from the CSV's own second count. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell for the full entry.
Whitney: move the warrant to the first slot, "I think that's going to be a lot of time." On the minutes: "There was a lot in here. And I personally didn't get enough time to review it to make sure that we were completely accurate."
Tempesta: "raise an appropriate an additional $482,094.01 to be added to the current fiscal years operating budget for the purposes of improving student achievement." "This is the draft warrant that we're discussing tonight."
"why is the warrant worded differently from the first warrant?" "this warrant seems rather rather generic". Name the subjects and grades, "with specificity on improvement strategies and tools, measurable objectives and data as outlined in the Senate bill for 20."
The DOE's online list "lists Claremont at 489,872". "has the school board adopted this word article?" Petrin: "this is a draft of the warrant article." Tempesta at 0:11:31: the difference in calculated aid "adds up to about $52,000"; the district used "the worksheet that the state gave us".
About 25 survey respondents; the most contentious question "if it's really worth doing. And do we want to force it for next year?" Staff turnover "over 20% staff turnover". A proposal to the board targeted for November 16.
Koski: "the things that are in yellow are things that are already happening, that are already paid for. And the things in green are things that we would like to address with the the grant money." Purchases for "L, A and K to five and then math 6 to 8". "The 2324 is incorrect. This would be for this year those purchases."
Tempesta: "It is it's one time money." Spent by end of fiscal year; "you don't have to have your report submitted to them until January 9th after the budgets are set". ESSER: "Roughly, one $1.5 million that we have, everything is allocated, but we haven't." Sprague: "So some of it could be allocated to curriculum." "Some of it could be allocated to curriculum."
Sprague: "we sent back a lot of grant money or some grant money". Hurst: "for all of the ones that expired, they expired on September 30th." "some of those activities didn't get to take place because of Covid. And so we had extra money we didn't have anything to do with". At 0:53:06: "we can't buy curriculum for tier one with title grants."
Horsky and Whitney: why not ESSER, and not yet approved
Horsky: "why wouldn't we allocate the money where we were saving on staff to help implement these faster?" and "It's disingenuous. So at this point, I'm a no on the warrant article." Whitney: if the board "does not approve the curriculum that's put before us, then we've wasted a lot of of dollars".
"I would like to make a motion to table this discussion until Richardson [Richard's on]." Sprague: "I'll second I'll second it for the sake of discussion."
Lambert: "Two weeks ago, it was a problem because we wanted to put them in our general funds this week. It's a problem because we don't know exactly what we're going to purchase". Skillen: the board will approve curriculum "Before it's purchased", and "I feel satisfied with the way the article".
Whitney: "then the money disappears. And I think that's something that the public is seeing". Sprague: "it turns out that for the most part, they were right." "I'm feeling that I'm looking at something that was hastily put together".
Crawford: the article "seemed very, fudged". Hawkins: "curriculum is not something you purchase"; Koski: "You're right. We are not purchasing curriculum." Hawkins urges paid time for teachers to analyze results; Koski: "paying teachers extra for the time outside of school because we can't find subs".
"if you put very specific guidelines and restrictions on award article, you're not able to you're not going to be able to use the money if maybe the books cost less". Whitney: "some, some guardrails". Skillen proposes accountability updates at future meetings; Koski and Tempesta: "Absolutely."
Lambert: "All I'm hearing is we don't trust the admin to do their job." Horsky: "every time you leave it too wide open, it's a blank check." Petrin cites the board's line-transfer policies.
"I really resent some of the things that have been said tonight. They're unfair, they're unfounded, and they're not true." "this is a political bill." "It was ill conceived that way." On the earlier draft: "it could have gone to a other trust".
"This is a gift, and I think we should let them have it. Like, let's not blow it." Asks for "with no money to be raised from taxation" to be "a little bolder or larger". Whitney: voters are choosing between spending it and a lower tax rate.
Petrin: "they're voting to not accept this money. So the money doesn't even come in. Is that correct?" Skillen: "I thought it was if the if they voted down, it just goes to the tax rate." Petrin at 1:28:35: the money "goes back to reduce the taxes by less than a dollar." Crawford: "I think you need legal counsel". Lambert: "if we do not accept a warrant or bring a warrant to the public, we don't get anything". Tempesta: "That's my understanding with council. And it is vague."
Horsky restates: there is "another legal question to 100% verify, if the no warrant, no money, or if we do a warrant and it gets voted down if there's a tax decrease." Tabling defeated. Lambert: "I'll make a motion to accept the warrant as written." Whitney: "can we get something hard and fast from Matt Upton on a piece of paper". Koski: "our best estimate. It would take all the money." Carried with two members voting no.
Miles walked buildings with Mr. Steven Holt (minutes: Steven Holt). Bluff roof leaks, "about a hundred thousand or more"; old windows; Maple Avenue entrance lip; playground "metal splinters", "about $8,000". Lambert: the playground is "just outright dangerous".
Whitney: agenda descriptors, norms for public questions, an annual calendar and "self populating agenda" (fiscal management plan in July). "there's actually a policy that if $5,000 are is moved from one eye line to another, that the board needs to be notified." On new-member onboarding: "there was a policy that existed ... And so we're not doing that either."
Sprague: "What I'm really interested in is, not necessarily the number of kids that are dropping out, but why they're dropping out." Tempesta: state-reported dropout data exist; "It's the why that you're right."
Substitutes and fingerprinting; playground; ESSER detail
Skillen relays reports of a backlog; Tempesta: fingerprint results "can take three, three weeks to four weeks". Lambert: "I really want to see a plan for the Maple Avenue playground." Horsky: "Update SR [ESSER] line by line to the penny". Whitney: counsel's answer "in writing".
Items flagged for review
Flags are a reviewer's aid generated by comparing the meeting against the state and federal law in force on October 19, 2022. RSA 198:40-f and RSA 91-A:2 have both been amended since; their 2022 texts are cited. They are not findings of violation, and nothing here is legal advice. Each flag cites the rule it rests on; where no verified rule applies, the flag says so and is recorded as an observation. 6 flags follow, ordered by severity.
OBSERVATION The board sent the article to the voters without a settled answer on what a no vote would do
For twenty minutes before the vote (1:25:07 to 1:32:09), members, the chair and the superintendent gave three different accounts: that a defeated article means the money "doesn't even come in" (Petrin, first), that it "just goes to the tax rate" (Skillen), and that "if we do not accept a warrant or bring a warrant to the public, we don't get anything" (Lambert). The superintendent's answer was "That's my understanding with council. And it is vague." Crawford asked for counsel's ruling in public; Whitney asked for it "on a piece of paper"; Horsky's tabling motion named it as one of two open questions. The board voted to send the article anyway, reasoning that further delay risked the tax-rate deadline. The minutes record the answer the board settled on (a defeated article reduces taxes), but no written opinion was produced at this meeting.
Two weeks earlier the business administrator had described the mechanics consistently: added state aid "becomes a funding source" that "reduces the amount that needs to be raised in taxes" unless the voters appropriate it (October 5 recording). He was absent tonight. No rule required the board to have the answer in hand; the flag records that it did not, on the question voters would most want answered.
OBSERVATION Staff confirmed that unspent federal Title funds lapsed on September 30
Sprague asked at 0:40:58 whether money "we sent back" could have paid for the new materials. The literacy specialist explained that the expiring Title allocations "expired on September 30th", that "some of those activities didn't get to take place because of Covid", and that "we had extra money we didn't have anything to do with because there wasn't time to be able to implement before the 30th of September". Federal education formula funds not obligated in their first year remain available for one additional fiscal year, and then lapse; that is the September 30 cliff she described. No amount was stated. The flag records an admission that federal money for Claremont students was returned, without a figure, and without a board request for one. Separately, her statement that Title funds cannot buy core (tier one) curriculum is consistent with the supplement-not-supplant rule for Title I.
OBSERVATION The hearing notice and agenda gave a different meeting date and a different statute from the warrant
RSA 197:3-a, IV requires a hearing "at least 14 days prior to the meeting", with notice "of the time, place, and subject of such hearing" posted at least seven days before it. This hearing was fifteen days before November 3, and its notice entered the district's share on October 12, seven days ahead: the statutory terms appear met. But the notice described a special meeting "to be held on October 27, 2022", while the warrant read at the hearing said November 3; and the agenda headed the item "Special Town Meeting (RSA 197:3)", a section that would require a ballot vote, while the warrant correctly cites RSA 197:3-a. Neither discrepancy goes to an element the statute requires in the hearing notice, and the correct date and section were read aloud. A resident relying on the notice alone would have had the wrong date.
OBSERVATION These minutes reached the public share four weeks later, and the special meeting's packet did not carry them
The minutes of this meeting, which record the warrant vote the November 3 special meeting acted on, first appear in the district's public Drive share on November 15, 2022, in the November 17 packet: the seventeenth business day after the meeting, counting out the November 8 election day and Veterans Day (both legal holidays under RSA 288:1), against a requirement that minutes be "open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting". The November 3 packet did not include them. A Drive created time measures when the district assembled a later packet, not when the minutes were written or first available at the SAU office, so this is recorded as an observation about online availability, not a finding that the deadline was missed. The minutes themselves are good: they name movers and seconders and list the members voting no on both split votes, as RSA 91-A:2, II requires.
POSITIVE The board rewrote its warrant after residents challenged it, and members said so on the record
On October 5 the board heard a draft that would have put the SB 420 money into reserve funds; residents read the statute's purpose aloud and the board tabled it for counsel. Tonight's warrant puts the whole sum in the operating budget "for the purposes of improving student achievement", which is the grant's stated goal under the 2022 text of RSA 198:40-f, II, and it is the form of increase RSA 197:3-a, III contemplates. Sprague told residents at 1:00:01: "it turns out that for the most part, they were right." Skillen secured the administration's agreement to report on the accountability plan at coming meetings. The ad hoc parliamentary procedure committee's report (1:52:28) was similarly candid about the board's own lapses, naming a line-transfer notification policy and a new-member onboarding policy "we're not doing".
POSITIVE Residents were heard during the board's deliberation, not only in the hearing
The chair took resident comment in the middle of the action item (1:01:41, 1:19:37, 1:27:58), and the administration answered residents' questions directly. That goes beyond the statutory minimum. RSA 189:74, in force since September 6, 2022, requires a school board to "provide the opportunity for the public to comment on school district matters" for at least thirty minutes; the chair's framing of the formal comment period as for items "not related to agenda items" (0:03:29) is narrower than that text, but on this night no one was turned away and residents spoke on the agenda item at length.
New Hampshire statutes.RSA 197:3-a: special meeting for change in education funding; III (what the warrant may propose), IV (hearing at least 14 days before; hearing notice 7 days); source 2013, 197:1, unamended. RSA 197:3: ballot vote for special-meeting appropriations. RSA 198:40-f (2022 codification): extraordinary need grants. RSA 189:74: school board public comment period. RSA 91-A:2, II (2022 codification): minutes. RSA 288:1: legal holidays, used to count business days.
Session law. 2022 N.H. Laws ch. 318 (SB 420), approved July 1, 2022, eff. July 1, 2022 (bill status).
Federal.20 U.S.C. §1225(b): carryover of federal education funds for one additional fiscal year. 20 U.S.C. §6321(b): Title I supplement not supplant.