Participants
Everyone in the record. Attendance and name spellings follow the agenda and approved minutes; where the dialogue file differs, both spellings are given. The roll on tape survives only in fragments.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Heather Whitney | Chair; Finance Subcommittee member | Presided (160 rows). Reordered the agenda and took the consent items by consent at 0:01:16; set the comment rules; seconded the modular motion herself at 1:31:29; proposed the fallback amendment at 1:38:23; explained the Finance Subcommittee’s process in Sprague’s absence; arranged the working session at 2:25:34; adjourned by consent. |
| Candace Crawford | Member; Finance Subcommittee member | Moved the ESSER modular purchase (1:30:34) and the FY25 budget (2:23:10); thanked CCTV and Josh Nelson for broadcasting the finance sessions (1:53:14); asked the other members to confirm the committee’s assumptions. |
| Jennifer Gallagher | Member; Curriculum and Ad Hoc Disruptive Behaviors committees chair | Arrived 6:39 per the minutes. On tape she argued for River Valley Community College (1:32:34) and moved the fallback amendment (1:39:58); the minutes name Skillen as mover and Gallagher as seconder (flag 2). Out of town for the working session and offered to call in (2:27:37). |
| Arlene Hawkins | Member; SAU 6 board chair | Spoke to the social-work presentation as “a retired educator” (0:30:55); asked why grade-two scores differ between schools (1:02:49), a question the minutes give to Bonnie Miles. |
| Bonnie Miles | Member; Capital Improvement chair | Present per the minutes. Not heard or named on the recording. |
| Whitney Skillen | Member; Policy Subcommittee chair | Present per the minutes, which credit her with moving the amendment. Not heard or named on the recording. |
| Frank Sprague | Vice chair; Finance Subcommittee chair | Absent. The agenda assigned him the budget presentation. |
| Nicole Bouchard, Kylee Plummer | Student board members | Not present (0:06:04; minutes: “Not present”). |
| Noelle Kronberg | School Board Clerk | Called the roll; kept time for public comment; read back the amendment (1:49:20) and the amended motion (1:50:28). Signed the minutes. |
| Christopher Pratt | Interim Superintendent; Stevens High School principal | Reported middle-school teaching loads and asked to defer the seven-period schedule (0:09:57); spoke for The Academy from the high school (1:09:43) and on hidden costs of leased buildings (1:19:24). |
| Mary Henry | SAU 6 Business Administrator | Presented the default gap, tax impact, revaluation shift, the $420,000 retained fund balance, cost drivers and staffing changes (1:58:58 onward). |
| Mike Koski | Assistant Superintendent | Presented the curriculum cycle and K–5 fall benchmarks (0:44:35); “it’s two years to see results. It’s a year to put it into place” (0:58:37). |
| Kat McLaughlin | Curriculum Director | Made the case for instructional coaching (0:50:06). Spelled “Cat” in the minutes. |
| Ben Nester | Director of Special Education | Presented location options and recommendations for The Academy (1:13:17, 1:23:50). |
| Lee Malloy | Lead teacher, The Academy | Self-identified at 1:04:38; presented pass, attendance, suspension and log-entry data; argued for proximity to the high school (1:34:58). The packet’s Exhibit A and the minutes spell her Mulloy; both forms are reported and neither is chosen. |
| Alex Herzog | Director, Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center | Addressed whether The Academy may use tech-center space (1:23:35, 1:41:05, 1:42:32, 1:45:01). |
| Courtney Porter | School social worker; McKinney-Vento liaison | Presented the role of school social workers, homelessness counts, DCYF referrals and the suicide-screening process (0:11:30 to about 0:29:58). |
| Rick Elliott | Instructional coach, Stevens High School | Described his work and ran a live coaching demonstration (0:31:43 onward); “I’m named in the Claremont lawsuit against the funding of education” (0:32:56). Spelled Elliot in the body of the minutes. |
| Sean McCarthy | Citizens’ comments — Ward 1 | The only public speaker (0:03:00): urged the board to look within the community for the next superintendent. The minutes spell him Shawn; neither spelling is chosen here. |
| Unidentified | Board table and room | 78 rows, mostly short assents. Includes the seconder of the amendment (1:40:28) and the member who asks when the $420,000 would be reflected (2:23:35); neither is named here. |
Agenda
Items as posted in “_CSB Agenda 1.17.24” (created in Drive January 17, 2024, about 2:34 p.m.), with dispositions from the recording and approved minutes. Item IV.3 was taken first by consent.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:01 | I. Call to order | “6:30 PM Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance” (agenda). |
| 0:00:34 | II. Roll call | Minutes: present Whitney, Miles, Skillen, Hawkins, Crawford, Gallagher (6:39); “Absent: Frank Sprague”. |
| 0:00:51 | II. Consent agenda (vote required): agenda; January 3 minutes | Item IV.3 moved to first by consent; January 3 minutes “Is is accepted” at 0:01:16. No motion or vote. Minutes: “Move item 3 to item 1, no objection”; “No amendments, minutes accepted”. See flag 4. |
| 0:01:50 | II. Citizens Comments | One speaker, Sean McCarthy (Ward 1); closed at 0:05:57. See flag 11. |
| 0:06:04 | II. Student Board Member Report | Not present. |
| 0:06:04 | III. Superintendent Report | Middle-school teaching loads; request to defer the seven-period schedule. No vote: “So we do not need to vote on this” (0:11:02). |
| 0:11:30 | IV.3 Impact of Teaching Coaches and Social Workers | Courtney Porter and Rick Elliott. Discussion only. |
| 0:43:38 | IV.2 Update on Student Achievement Data (Exhibit C) | Koski and McLaughlin. Discussion only. |
| 1:04:06 | IV.1 Update on Alternative Program (Exhibits A, B) | Agenda: “Vote to approve location for program school year 24-25.” Motion (Crawford/Whitney, 1:30:34) to buy a modular classroom with ESSER funds; amendment for one interim year at the tech center if the modular is not ready (1:39:58), carried by voice vote at 1:49:57; amended motion carried by voice vote, “Motion passes unanimously” at 1:50:53. No counts. See flag 2, flag 9, flag 10. |
| 1:51:20 | IV.4 Budget Approval (Exhibits D–E) | Agenda: “Presentation by Finance Subcommittee Chair Frank Sprague and Administrative Team”; Sprague absent. Motion (Crawford, 2:23:10) for $36,117,406.87; the minutes name Whitney as seconder, which is not audible. Voice vote at 2:25:07: “Budget passes. Budget is approved.” See flag 1, flag 14. |
| not reached | IV.5 School Board Sub-Committees | Six subcommittees listed by chair. Not taken up; the minutes print the heading and names with nothing beneath. See flag 5. |
| 2:25:25 | V. Other Business | Working session fixed for January 24 at 6:00 at the Dow. The minutes record it under IV.4 and give Other Business as “none”. See flag 6. |
| 2:29:06 | VI. Future Dates | Candidacy filing January 24 to February 2; warrant posting January 29; deliberative session February 3 (snow date February 10); voting March 12. See flag 18. |
| 2:29:40 | IX. Adjournment | A member asked for a motion (2:29:39); the chair: “No. Does anybody object.” Adjourned by consent. Minutes: “Consus for adjournment” (the district’s spelling). The agenda numbers items I–VI and then IX. |
Discussion timeline
Chronological topics from the dialogue transcript (787 rows). Quotations are the transcript as transcribed; bracketed text is an insertion or correction.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:01:16 | Consent agenda by consent | “Any objection to changing the agenda from item three? Moving to item one. Seeing no objection. … Is there any request to alter or amend the minutes from January 3rd, 2024? Seeing none the minutes from the Claremont School Board meeting of January 3rd, 2024. Is is accepted.” | MEDIUM |
| 0:01:50 | Comment rules | “Well, we can I think we’re going to open up to the budget for all items. If you could come to the podium and state your name and your ward, you have three minutes to speak.” At 0:02:11: “You can speak once.” | OBSERVATION |
| 0:03:00 | Citizens’ comment: superintendent search | McCarthy at 0:04:02: “instead of paying a big chunk of money for some buddy to go find a superintendent for us at this time, we do it differently in look within our own community that, we got Pratt here, just got appointed.” No board response. Period closed at 0:05:57. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:06:04 | Interim superintendent welcomed | “welcome Mr. Pratt to his first school board meeting as interim superintendent. We’re very fortunate to have in our district an administrator who has been a superintendent for eight years”. | |
| 0:06:40 | Middle-school teaching loads | Pratt revises figures given under Tempesta: “you’re up a little past 100” students per teacher per year (0:07:31); “the numbers before were on the lower side. It was showing 65 and 70 for the year” (0:08:06). | |
| 0:09:57 | Seven-period schedule deferred | “I would like to hold off on a switch in the schedule up for next year for the middle school.” Chair at 0:11:02: “So we do not need to vote on this. We can give Mr. Pratt the executive authority to operate and make those schedule as he sees fit.” | |
| 0:11:38 | Why the coach and social worker are here | Chair: “We’re trying to add an additional social worker and an instructional coach. And so this is to give the board an opportunity to hear what those individuals have to contribute”. | |
| 0:15:58 | School social work | Porter: president of the New Hampshire School Social Workers Association. At 0:17:32: “Senate Bill 282 charged us as a district in every district in this state to create a process where we had a building suicide prevention liaison.” | POSITIVE |
| 0:19:20 | Homelessness and DCYF referrals | “we’ve gone from 51 to 78 this year. We’re at 50.” At 0:20:20: “last year we had 161 calls and so I broke it all down for you.” She then gave breakdowns by school and by IEP status; this page does not repeat the small counts. | MEDIUM |
| 0:21:47 | Suicide screening | “the Senate bill 282 from Christine Nuno [Chris Sununu]. So we created the building suicide Prevention liaison. So we use something called the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.” At 0:23:21: in the red, “we’re actually going to make a call to New Hampshire Rapid response.” | POSITIVE |
| 0:25:26 | Medicaid billing | “School social workers can be written into IEPs in 504, which at the end of the day, can actually be a moneymaker for us as a district because we can build [bill] Medicaid for the services that we provide.” | |
| 0:26:50 | The chair redirects | “we are trying to respond to the principals. The elementary school. Principals request for social workers at the elementary school level.” At 0:27:23: “Can you speak specifically to how you would be relieving those burdens that are being weighed upon the administrators?” | |
| 0:32:56 | Instructional coach | Elliott: “I’m named in the Claremont lawsuit against the funding of education.” At 0:34:59: “We have 41 instructors at Stevens High School. I meet with 38 of them every week for at least 30 minutes.” A live demonstration with board members and staff follows. | |
| 0:42:39 | Why the coach was invited | Chair: “we are the finance subcommittee. It was supporting adding an additional instructor for the entire district so that the elementary schools can get the coaching that they deserve as well.” | |
| 0:44:35 | Curriculum cycle and benchmarks | Koski presents the 2022–2030 curriculum cycle. At 0:58:37: “it’s two years to see results. It’s a year to put it into place.” Crawford at 1:02:13: “there was some bad publicity a couple of months ago about our scores in our elementary schools.” | |
| 1:02:49 | Why scores differ between schools | “Grade two and the different schools and the, the numbers are different. They’re not similar.” Labeled Hawkins in the dialogue file; the minutes: “Bonnie Miles asked about the difference between test scores in different schools”. | MEDIUM |
| 1:04:38 | The Academy’s data | “Lee Malloy, lead teacher at what we are calling the academy.” Twelve students (1:05:32); suspensions “last year there was 59 suspensions. And this year there has been three” (1:07:19); log entries 137 last year, 18 this year (1:07:45). | |
| 1:09:43 | Pratt on The Academy | “as being the principal at the high school”. At 1:12:36: “It’s this program is student driven. It’s not adult driven”. | |
| 1:14:49 | Location options | Nester: “the first one is a cost of $56,000 annually to rent the space.” Other listings follow; Koski at 1:16:33: “if you want the whole building, it’s about $3,500.” Pratt at 1:19:24 on hidden costs of older buildings. | |
| 1:23:13 | “Exclusively” for technical classes | Chair: “the rules that we need to follow to improve the text. Seminole, how it says must be used for technical classes exclusively. This doesn’t matter because it’s outside the building.” Herzog at 1:23:35: “being outside the building would not be in conflict.” | OBSERVATION |
| 1:24:12 | Recommendations | Nester: “we do recommend maintaining the funding and supporting the program. The data speaks for itself. … The Academy should stay here for one more year while we work with Doctor Herzog and the Visioning Committee”. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:29:19 | ESSER timing and approvals | Chair: “the Esser funding goes through till the end of September of 24.” Supply chain and utility connections could delay a modular (1:29:46). | OBSERVATION |
| 1:30:34 | Motion: ESSER modular for The Academy | Crawford: “I make a motion that we use Esser funds to, to purchase a modular unit for the use of the for the academy, and located perhaps at the technical center, but, location to be determined by the administration.” Chair at 1:30:56: “we still need to get everything approved through SR [ESSER] and things of that nature.” At 1:31:16: “But I have written activities yet within the Esser funds to do so.” Chair seconds at 1:31:29. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:32:34 | The college option | Gallagher: RVC rents classrooms with a nonprofit rate; “it sounds like the best option on the table is actually to locate the academy at RVC”. Malloy at 1:35:25: “having it be that far away, we’re really removing them.” | |
| 1:38:23 | Fallback amendment proposed | Chair: “Would there be any interest in doing a friendly amendment to just give a caveat that if any of these, if it fell through, if we couldn’t be ready in time”. At 1:39:58: “Can I make the amendment?” At 1:40:01 the caveat; “Second that amended motion.” at 1:40:28 (unidentified). | MEDIUM |
| 1:41:05 | Risk to CTE renovation funding | Herzog: Mr. Upton “was not sure that it would affect. But he couldn’t say either way.” At 1:42:32: “I’m I’m just a letter of the law kind of guy. And the and the statement for the RSA specifically it should be exclusively for CTE.” At 1:45:25: the former superintendent refused a memorandum, “this is my building. We’re not doing that. I’m not doing a memo.” | OBSERVATION |
| 1:49:20 | Amendment read back and carried | Clerk: “the caveat if the modular unit is not ready for the start of the 2425 school year, the academy will will utilize the space at the tech for an interim period of one school year.” Voice vote at 1:49:57: “All in favor say aye. Aye aye. Any any opposed?” | |
| 1:50:53 | Amended motion carried | “All in favor, say aye. I posed [Opposed]. Motion passes unanimously.” No count. | |
| 1:51:20 | Budget: the Finance Subcommittee’s process | “Mr. Sprague, who is the chair of the finance subcommittee … was unable to attend due to illness this evening.” At 1:51:47: “Our finance subcommittee meetings were videotaped and televised live.” Crawford at 1:53:14: “We had I think we had 5 or 6 meetings. 2 to 3 hours each”. | MEDIUM POSITIVE |
| 1:54:39 | ESSER positions moving to the local budget | Crawford: “There are some positions that will end because Esser funding ends.” Some ESSER-funded positions “now have to be paid by the school district.” | |
| 1:58:58 | Default and increase | Henry: “our budget is 210,633 over default.” At 1:59:58: “our budget is 3.55% over last year’s, or that is roughly 1.2 million. … Because our revenues went up.” At 2:00:34: “852,000 of that would be added on to the tax rate.” | MEDIUM |
| 2:03:07 | Tax impact | “that would be $0.69 on the tax rate, or $69.39 per 100,000 of evaluation.” Repeated at 2:03:42. The minutes print $69.33. | MEDIUM |
| 2:04:32 | Revaluation shift | “residential went up by 42%, the values average whereas commercial only went up 23%.” | |
| 2:07:08 | The $420,000 retained from FY23 | Henry: “I think that’s something that the board needs to put on their agenda to do.” At 2:07:29: “even if we don’t do it, it’s going to go back to them in November because you can’t hold it for more than that year.” If used, “10 to $35.21” (2:09:32); minutes: “Will drop to $35.21 per $100,000 if used” and “will have to hold a public hearing”. | POSITIVE |
| 2:10:31 | Revenue and cost drivers | “We’re up about $519,000. So that is really what’s driving our revenue.” Health insurance rates 8.8% and 5.7% for the two bargaining units (2:11:01). | MEDIUM |
| 2:12:29 | Staffing | “we have removed any behavioral support specialists that are in the district, because most of those are funded through SR [ESSER].” At 2:15:46: “now because Esther’s [ESSER’s] going away, we have to pull them back out.” | OBSERVATION |
| 2:16:19 | Account corrections | ESL teacher moved to 1260: “The state requires it be in 1260, which is the proper account number for it.” At 2:16:47: “I did drop down the district wide substitute line by 125,000”. | POSITIVE |
| 2:23:10 | Budget moved and adopted | Crawford: “The school board approve a budget for fiscal year 25 of $36,117,406.87.” No second audible. At 2:23:35: “Where would the 420 pay that’s going to be applied against that bottom line?” Henry at 2:23:47: “That’ll be in your revenues?” Voice vote at 2:25:07: “Budget passes. Budget is approved.” | POSITIVE |
| 2:25:34 | An extra session before the deliberative | Chair proposes a meeting of “the finance committee and the admin team” before the deliberative session; floats “the 29th of January” at 2:26:59. Gallagher at 2:27:37: “Or I can call in if that’s all right.” Chair at 2:27:39: “that would be a work session. We wouldn’t need to do it in this formal setting.” Settled as the 24th, 6:00, “at the Dow” (2:28:55). | MEDIUM |
| 2:29:06 | Election and warrant dates | “the first day to declare candidacy for school board is January 24th.” At 2:29:14: last day February 2; warrant and budget posted by January 29; deliberative session February 3, snow date the 10th. | POSITIVE |
| 2:29:39 | Adjourned without a motion | Crawford: “I’m looking for a motion.” Chair: “No. Does anybody object.” At 2:29:42: “Seeing. No objection. Meeting is adjourned.” | MEDIUM |
Items flagged for review
These flags are a reviewer’s aid. They are not findings of violation and not legal advice. Each flag cites the rule it rests on, in the version in force on January 17, 2024; an Observation rests on no confirmed rule. No flag here is graded HIGH.
MEDIUM The board adopted $36,117,406.87 on packet documents that show no revenue at all
RSA 32:5, III requires appropriations to be stipulated on a “gross” basis, “showing anticipated revenues from all sources” (statute text, 2023 codification). The packet’s budget documents are Exhibit E, a one-page summary running from “1100 Regular Instruction” to “Total Budget” with no revenue line (read 2026-09-25), and Exhibit D, a 54-page line-item report that the project’s earlier reading found carries no revenue line either. Yet the argument made to the board rested on revenues: “Because our revenues went up” (1:59:58), state revenue “up about $519,000” (2:10:31), and the $420,000 fund balance. Those figures exist only as speech. The same gap was flagged at the January 3 hearing. Graded MEDIUM, down from the archived page’s HIGH: the budget form submitted with the warrant (MS-27) was not examined, so a breach in the document the statute governs is not established; what is established is that the public packet for the adoption vote showed no revenue side.
Sources: RSA 32:5, III (2023 codification); Exhibit E; Exhibit D.
MEDIUM The approved minutes name a mover for the only amendment whom the recording does not support
RSA 91-A:2, II: “The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes” (statute text; in force since January 1, 2019). The minutes: “Whitney Skillen amended the motion to add the caveat … Jennifer Gallagher seconded the motion” (minutes text). On tape the amendment is moved at 1:39:58 by a voice the chair addresses as Jennifer or Jen elsewhere (1:32:30, 1:43:26); the second at 1:40:28 is a different, unidentified voice; Skillen is never heard or named. Three smaller mismatches: the benchmark question at 1:02:49 is given to Bonnie Miles in the minutes and to Hawkins in the dialogue file; the minutes name Whitney as seconder of the budget motion, and no second is audible at 2:23:10–2:23:33; and the minutes print “$69.33 per $100,000” where Henry says $69.39 twice (2:03:07, 2:03:42). The board approved the minutes on February 21 unchanged. The recording is machine-diarized and two members present are never heard, so this page does not decide who moved the amendment; it records that the official record and the broadcast disagree.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2023 codification; 2023, 188:1); approved minutes.
MEDIUM The minutes of the budget meeting reached the public share on February 14, eleven days after the deliberative session
RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes “open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting” (statute text): Wednesday, January 24, 2024. Drive dates the draft to February 14, 2024, about 4:09 p.m. Eastern, in the packet folder for February 21, which is the twentieth business day; the approved version was created February 27. The deliberative session on the budget fixed here was held February 3. Drive shows when the public share received the file, not whether a paper copy was available at the SAU office sooner. Graded on the mitigated limb of the project’s rule: the minutes exist and were posted, late. The cause is the district’s practice of posting minutes with the next meeting’s packet (see the February 21 page).
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II; Drive metadata for the approved minutes (read 2026-09-25) and for the draft (project reading, 2026-08-29).
MEDIUM The agenda says “Consent Agenda (vote required)”; no vote was taken, and the meeting adjourned without a motion after a member asked for one
The agenda order and the January 3 minutes were disposed of at 0:01:16 by asking for objections: no motion, second or vote. The minutes record “no objection” and “minutes accepted”, so they name no mover or seconder because there were none. At 2:29:39 Crawford asked for a motion to adjourn; the chair answered “No. Does anybody object.” No statute forbids acting by unanimous consent, and RSA 91-A:2, II’s mover/seconder clause has nothing to attach to without a motion. The defect is against the district’s own agenda, and it leaves no member recorded as responsible for approving the minutes. Graded MEDIUM for consistency with the January 3 and February 21 pages on the same practice.
Sources: agenda; approved minutes; RSA 91-A:2, II.
MEDIUM The Finance Subcommittee met five or six times to build this budget, and no minutes of any session were located; the subcommittee-report item was skipped
RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) makes “any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto” a public body (statute text), owing minutes under RSA 91-A:2, II. Crawford at 1:53:14: “We had I think we had 5 or 6 meetings. 2 to 3 hours each”. The project holds recordings of sessions on November 30, December 1, 6, 13 and 18, 2023 and January 5, 2024; for each, MAP.md records no minutes in the packet share or the Meeting Minutes share (verified 2026-08-28). Item IV.5, subcommittee reports, was not taken up; the minutes print the heading and six subcommittee names with nothing beneath. Graded on the mitigated limb: the sessions were held in public and broadcast (flag 15). A video archive is not the minutes the statute requires. See the November 30, December 1, December 6, December 13, December 18 and January 5 pages.
Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d); RSA 91-A:2, II; approved minutes.
MEDIUM A board session was arranged as a “work session” with telephone attendance offered; the only record is minutes of a January 29 session with no attendance, times or place
RSA 91-A:2, I makes a meeting “the convening of a quorum” to discuss or act on matters within the body’s jurisdiction (statute text); calling it a work session and taking no votes does not change that. Remote attendance under III(a) is allowed only when in-person attendance “is not reasonably practical”, with the reason stated in the minutes (statute text). On tape (2:27:37–2:27:51) a member offered to call in and the chair said “that would be a work session. We wouldn’t need to do it in this formal setting” and “There be no votes taken or anything like that.” The minutes record “January 24th at 6:00 at Dow (working session)”. The only record located is “Minutes from CSB working session 1.29.24”, filed with the February 21 packet: substantive business, five members named, no attendance list, times, location or notice. No record of a January 24 session was found (a Drive search, not proof of absence). The February 21 page grades that session’s own record HIGH (flag 1 there); this page grades MEDIUM because at this meeting the session was announced in public and minutes were contemplated on the record.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I, II, III (2023 codification); Minutes from CSB working session 1.29.24; approved minutes.
MEDIUM Child-protection referral data were presented and published in cells small enough to point toward individual children
34 CFR 99.31(b)(1) allows release of de-identified education-record information only where the district “has made a reasonable determination that a student’s identity is not personally identifiable, whether through single or multiple releases”, “taking into account other reasonably available information” (regulation text, read 2026-09-25). 34 CFR 99.3 defines personally identifiable information to include information “linked or linkable to a specific student” that would let a reasonable person in the school community identify the student. At 0:20:42 the social worker broke last year’s DCYF referrals down by school and by IEP status, including a single-digit count for one program, on live television; the packet document SSW IN SAU 6 .pdf carries the corresponding slides and a suicide-screening distribution. This page does not repeat those counts. District-wide totals (161 referrals; 50 students experiencing homelessness) are ordinary public reporting. The concern is the granularity; the presentation was made in good faith to argue for more support.
Sources: 34 CFR 99.31(b)(1) (2023 edition); 34 CFR 99.3; SSW IN SAU 6 (packet).
OBSERVATION The adopted budget cuts the alternative-program function by 69.78 percent the same night the board voted to keep the program
Exhibit E shows “2190-2192 Alternative Support Programs” falling from $368,430.35 to $111,321.90, a change of −69.78% (read 2026-09-25). The project’s earlier line-by-line reading of Exhibit D found the remainder is the autism program and the alternative-program and Stevens alternative-education lines at zero. Nester had just said “we do recommend maintaining the funding and supporting the program” (1:24:12), and Henry said behavioral support positions funded “through SR [ESSER]” were removed (2:12:29). The program’s staffing may sit in another function or in ESSER; nothing establishes that it is unfunded. A reader of the adopted budget cannot trace the program to a line, and nobody at the table connected the vote to the document.
Sources: Exhibit E; Exhibit D.
OBSERVATION The board committed ESSER money to a capital purchase before the prior approval the chair said it needed, with the fund ending in September
2 CFR 200.439(b) (2023 edition) makes capital expenditures unallowable as direct charges without the prior written approval of the awarding agency or pass-through entity, and requires prior approval for special-purpose equipment of $5,000 or more; 2 CFR 200.344(b) (2023 edition) requires obligations to be liquidated within 120 days after the period of performance. The chair named the condition before the vote: “we still need to get everything approved through SR [ESSER]” (1:30:56), and “the Esser funding goes through till the end of September of 24” (1:29:19). No price for the unit, its site work or utility connections, and no ESSER balance, was given or appears in the packet. A board may authorize administrators to pursue a purchase subject to approvals; nothing here shows a purchase made without one.
Sources: 2 CFR 200.439(b) (2023 edition); 2 CFR 200.344(b) (2023 edition); 20 U.S.C. §1225(b).
OBSERVATION The fallback keeps a non-CTE program in a CTE center the statute then reserved “exclusively” for that use
RSA 188-E:3, II, in the text in force in January 2024 (source note ending 2021, 210:2), made a facility built with state CTE aid district property “for use by the career and technical education center exclusively” (statute text); the later repurposing exception did not yet exist. Herzog stated the rule at 1:42:32 and would not quantify the risk to renovation funding (1:41:05); he also said the state had advised a memorandum of understanding two years earlier and the former superintendent refused (1:45:25). The amendment keeps The Academy at the tech center for one more year if the modular is late. The minutes note “Will draw up an MOU”. Whether one classroom breaches the statute is for the Department of Education to judge.
Sources: RSA 188-E:3, II (2023 codification); Exhibit A; approved minutes.
OBSERVATION Public comment ran about four minutes against a board policy promising a minimum of thirty
RSA 189:74 requires a comment period “for no less than 30 minutes” (statute text); whether that measures elapsed time or opportunity is unsettled. Policy BEDH (adopted September 6, 2023) provides “a minimum of thirty minutes in total” and that the chair closes the period after no response to a “vocal invitation” (policy text). The period opened at 0:01:50; one speaker; the chair invited others at 0:05:57 and closed it. She followed the vocal-invitation clause; the thirty-minute clause cannot be met when the room is silent. BEDH §B.5 calls for board discussion of citizens’ comments; none followed McCarthy’s remarks. The chair widened the subject to all items, including the budget. Nobody was turned away.
Sources: RSA 189:74 (2022, 333:1); Policy BEDH.
OBSERVATION The agenda reached the public folder about four hours before the meeting
Drive dates _CSB Agenda 1.17.24.docx.pdf to January 17, 2024, 2:34 p.m. Eastern (read 2026-09-25); the budget exhibits were posted the previous morning per the project’s earlier reading. RSA 91-A:2, II requires 24 hours’ notice of time and place in two public places or a newspaper, not an online agenda; the posted notice is not in evidence, so no notice finding is made. The observation is about the public’s time with a 54-page budget before its adoption.
Sources: Drive metadata for the agenda; RSA 91-A:2, II.
OBSERVATION The two budget exhibits disagree by twenty cents on the prior-year figure
Exhibit E gives FY24 appropriated as $34,880,311.72 (read 2026-09-25); the project’s earlier reading of Exhibit D’s grand-total row gave $34,880,311.92. Both agree on $36,117,406.87. Nothing turns on twenty cents; it is recorded because the comparative column is how RSA 32:5, IV lets voters see what changed.
Sources: Exhibit E; Exhibit D; RSA 32:5, IV.
POSITIVE Reducing the budget by $196,001.10 after the hearing is what RSA 32:5, I contemplates
The board moved $36,313,407.97 to hearing on December 20, held the hearing January 3, and adopted $36,117,406.87 here. RSA 32:5, I requires a hearing “not later than 25 days” before the annual meeting and provides that the body “after the conclusion of public testimony shall finalize the budget” (statute text); ¶II bars only post-hearing insertions. A reduction in that window is the statute working. January 3 to the February 3 first session is 31 days. No document or statement at this meeting itemizes where the $196,001.10 came from.
Sources: RSA 32:5, I and II (2023 codification); Exhibit E; January 3 page, flag 6.
POSITIVE The Finance Subcommittee’s sessions were broadcast live and archived, which no statute requires
Chair at 1:51:47: “Our finance subcommittee meetings were videotaped and televised live.” Crawford at 1:53:40 credited the chair’s suggestion and the CCTV operator. Gallagher at 2:24:31 thanked everyone “for putting in the real hard work behind the scenes and televising it.” RSA 91-A requires open meetings and minutes, not broadcast. The same sessions produced no minutes (flag 5).
Sources: the recording as cited.
POSITIVE The suicide-prevention process presented rests on a policy adopted before the statute requiring it took effect
RSA 193-J:2, I: “Each school district and chartered public school shall develop a policy that guides the development and implementation of a coordinated plan to prevent, assess the risk of, intervene in, and respond to suicide”, including identifying “the person or persons who serve as the point of contact when a student is believed to be at an elevated risk for suicide” (statute text, read 2026-09-25; 2019, 315:1, eff. July 1, 2020). Claremont’s policy JLDBB was read and adopted May 6, 2020. The packet carries the district’s liaison protocol and the Department of Education’s technical advisory. The speaker attributed the law to “Christine Nuno [Chris Sununu]”; SB 282 was a 2019 Senate bill signed by the governor.
Sources: RSA 193-J:2; SB 282 Tech Advisory (packet); BSPL Packet.
POSITIVE The business administrator told the board it needed a public hearing before using the $420,000
RSA 198:4-b, II: “Prior to expending retained general funds, the school board shall hold a prior public hearing”, with newspaper notice at least 7 days ahead (statute text; 2020, 38:25). The board had retained $420,000 from FY23. Henry advised putting its release on an agenda (2:07:08), and the minutes record that the board “will have to hold a public hearing”. The hearing requirement attaches to spending; whether applying the money against the tax rate is spending within the paragraph is not decided here.
Sources: RSA 198:4-b, II; approved minutes.
POSITIVE Every statutory date the chair read out is correct
RSA 669:19, applied to school districts by RSA 671:19: “The filing period shall begin on the seventh Wednesday and end on the Friday of the following week before the town election” (statute text). For March 12, 2024 that is January 24 to February 2, as the chair said at 2:29:06 and 2:29:14. RSA 40:13, III puts the first session “between the first and second Saturdays following the last Monday in January, inclusive of those Saturdays” (statute text): February 3 and 10, 2024, the date and snow date given.
Sources: RSA 669:19; RSA 671:19; RSA 40:13, III.
POSITIVE Two account corrections announced aloud check out against the packet
Henry moved the ESL teacher from function 1100 to 1260 (2:16:19) and cut the district-wide substitute line by $125,000 (2:16:47). The project’s earlier reading of Exhibit D found both: the 1100 ESL line at zero with a new 1260 group, and the substitutes line from $300,000 to $175,000. Both are places where a spoken claim can be checked against the document.
Sources: Exhibit D.
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
- Budget law: RSA 32:5, I, II, III, IV (2023 codification); RSA 40:13, III (2019, 192:2); RSA 198:4-b, II (2020, 38:25)
- Right-to-Know: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d); RSA 91-A:2, I, II, III (2023, 188:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023; the 2025, 112:1 clauses are not applied)
- Schools: RSA 189:74; RSA 188-E:3, II (2023 codification); RSA 193-J:2
- Elections: RSA 669:19; RSA 671:19
- Federal: 34 CFR 99.31(b)(1); 34 CFR 99.3; 2 CFR 200.439(b) and 2 CFR 200.344(b) (2023 editions); 20 U.S.C. §1225(b)
- District policy: BEDH, Public Participation at Board Meetings (adopted September 6, 2023); JLDBB, Suicide Prevention and Response (adopted May 6, 2020)