Participants
Everyone heard in the recording. The committee’s membership follows the project’s roster notes; titles follow the board’s December 2024 agenda masthead. Unidentified voices stay unidentified.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Frank Sprague | Chair, Finance Committee; vice chair, Claremont School Board | Opens the televised session and says the recordings exist so that people can “go back and see what was discussed” (0:00:00); calls the draft “really a draft of the budget. It is not the budget” (0:00:40). Reads an opening statement on aligning spending with the strategic plan (0:02:12–0:03:49). Asks the administration to explain insurance costs (0:07:52), flags questions for the director of student services on paraprofessional allocation and on social workers and out-of-district placements (0:44:00), presses on the year-over-year jump in special-education tuition (0:57:45), and recalls writing a dropout-prevention grant at Stevens after SB 18 (1:07:38). Gives a time check at 1:35:28. |
| Heather Whitney | Member, Finance Committee; chair, Claremont School Board | Stresses that most costs are mandated (0:04:16). Proposes a technology reserve fund (0:15:55) and asks for reserve balances (0:18:04). Questions whether permanent substitutes are budget neutral (0:34:37). Forecasts the cost of school-based social workers at roughly $450,000 a year (0:49:13). Compares middle-school class sizes with Ed 306 (1:13:48). Asks about a GEAR UP request and an after-school van (1:15:08, 1:16:37). Proposes dissolving the in-house pre-K program and redeploying its paraprofessionals (1:40:25–2:05:21; flag 6). Totals the draft at 11.3% before the teachers’ contract (2:15:15). |
| Candace Crawford | Member, Finance Committee; chair, Capital Improvements and SRVRTC Visioning subcommittees | Not named in the chair’s opening as transcribed, but heard from 0:06:02. Leads the school-by-school analysis: Bluff (0:20:11), Maple Avenue (0:25:53), Disnard (0:39:32), the middle school (0:55:11), Stevens (1:21:08), SRVRTC (1:29:21), alternative programs (2:06:00) and district-wide costs (2:10:07). Describes the state’s special-education reimbursement as “set, I think, at a 95% by law” (0:06:56; flag 5). Reports on her Visioning meeting with the technical center director (1:29:47). |
| Chris Pratt | Superintendent, SAU 6 | Describes regular meetings with the city manager and mayor (0:04:58). Explains that ESSER-funded positions were absorbed rather than cut (0:14:35). Reports a pending five-year federal social-services grant of $125,000–175,000 a year (0:45:07). Plans a self-contained grades 8–12 alternative program funded from an existing reserve (1:02:27–1:04:30). Gives average middle-school class sizes (1:12:09) and the count of 33 teachers without traditional preparation (1:28:43). |
| Mary Henry | Business Administrator, SAU 6 | Explains a 17% health-insurance increase and $1.4 million more in premiums (0:08:18, 0:10:40); ESSER items now returning to the budget, about $600,000 of out-of-district placements (0:13:47); reserve balances (0:18:12). Answers line questions throughout; says the SAU assessment is not yet in the district-wide figures (2:13:13) and that revenues are up about $2 million (2:19:48). |
| Mike McCosker | Director of Student Services, SAU 6 | Joins after the start, as the chair forecast (0:00:00); first heard at 0:35:22. Estimates four or five unfilled paraprofessional positions (0:51:47) and total out-of-district costs “under five, but probably not much” (1:25:57). |
| Unidentified | Committee member (the transcript’s role note offers Heather Whitney or Candace Crawford) | Moves to adjourn and another voice supports it (2:22:22, 2:22:26). Two rows in all. |
Order of business (reconstructed)
No agenda was located for this meeting. The items below are reconstructed from the chair’s and members’ transitions on the recording. No motion other than the adjournment was made and no vote was taken.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:00 | Opening statements | Chair’s introductions and prepared statement; Whitney, Pratt and Crawford add remarks on mandates and city collaboration. No action. |
| 0:07:52 | Uncontrolled costs: health insurance, ESSER, reserves | Business administrator’s explanation of insurance increases and ESSER costs returning to the operating budget; reserve fund balances. No action. |
| 0:20:11 | Elementary schools: Bluff, Maple Avenue, Disnard | Line review led by Crawford; permanent-substitute positions and social workers discussed. No action. |
| 0:55:11 | Claremont Middle School | Line review; out-of-district tuition, class sizes, after-school van. Middle-school figure called “to be determined” (1:21:08). No action. |
| 1:21:08 | Stevens High School and SRVRTC | Line review; out-of-district placements; accreditation; career counselor. No action. |
| 1:40:25 | Pre-kindergarten program | Whitney’s proposal to dissolve the program and redeploy staff; the committee asks the administration to report back. No motion, no vote (flag 6). |
| 2:06:00 | Alternative programs and district-wide costs | Academy, autism program, ESL, related services. No action. |
| 2:14:11 | Collective bargaining and the percentage increase | Whitney’s arithmetic: 11.3% before the teachers’ contract, about 12% with it. No action. |
| 2:19:48 | Revenues and close | Henry notes about $2 million more in revenues; motion to adjourn at 2:22:22, supported, no vote heard. |
Discussion timeline
Times are taken from the dialogue transcript (Dialogue/16215 SchoolBoardFinance121324.mp4.CSV) and link into the recording. Quotations are as transcribed; bracketed words are corrections.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:00:00 | Purpose and framing | Sprague: the session is televised so the public can “go back and see what was discussed”; the draft “is not the budget.” Cost drivers named: collective bargaining agreements, health insurance (employees moving to family plans), special education and out-of-district placements (0:00:40–0:01:43). His statement: “We intend to, piece by piece, peel back layers to the bare basics of what we were required to do by mandate” (0:03:00). | POSITIVE |
| 0:06:56 | State special-education aid | Crawford: “The state reimbursement for special ed is set, I think, at a 95% by law and over costs of $70,000 per student”; the state “said that they don’t have the money to pay with the 95%. It’s going to be like 63%” (0:07:23). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:08:04 | Health insurance | Henry: the provider doubled deductibles; “it’s a 15% increase” plus a lost 2% premium holiday, “abruptly a 17% increase” (0:08:18); dental up 10% (0:09:12). Total: “$1.4 million is our increase to our insurance” (0:10:40). | |
| 0:13:29 | ESSER costs returning | Henry: out-of-district placements written into ESSER “totaled around $600,000” and now come into the budget; ESSER bought computers for “half $1 million” (0:13:47). Pratt: ESSER-funded positions were absorbed rather than cut (0:14:55). | |
| 0:15:55 | Reserve funds | Whitney proposes saving for technology replacement; Henry: “we do not have a tech reserve fund” (0:16:24). Balances as stated: buses “around 270,000”, buildings “around 150”, special education “a little over 600,000” (0:18:12). Whitney: expenditures “have to be approved by the board” (0:18:48). | |
| 0:20:11 | Bluff School | Crawford works from “the budget copy that we had last Friday” (0:20:11): about $3.5 million with a roughly $400,000 increase, a quarter of it health care (0:20:26, 0:25:15). The requested half-time secretary is not in the draft (0:22:18). | MEDIUM |
| 0:25:53 | Maple Avenue | Crawford: $4.6 million, a $656,000 increase, of which “150,000 is for salary already preordained” and $181,000 on one health line (0:27:56). No new positions (0:27:48). | |
| 0:31:47 | Permanent substitutes | Henry calls the elementary permanent-substitute positions a budget-neutral line change (0:31:58). Whitney: “It will be need neutral, but not necessarily budget neutral” (0:34:53). McCosker: his last district had building substitutes in every building (0:35:22). | |
| 0:39:32 | Disnard School | Crawford: a $288,000 increase, most of it salaries, health insurance and special education (0:50:25); $7,000 for library books is in. Elementary summer school is out; Henry: “It’s not even a cost savings” because ESSER paid for it (0:41:30). | |
| 0:45:07 | Social workers and a pending grant | Pratt: a federal grant of “anywhere between 100 and 25, $175,000 a year” for five years is held up, so no additional social workers were budgeted (0:45:07, 0:46:12). Whitney forecasts “450,000 a year increase” and warns against accepting the grant without planning for the positions afterward (0:49:13). | |
| 0:51:20 | Vacant paraprofessional positions | McCosker: “There may be 4 or 5” budgeted paraprofessional positions unfilled (0:51:47); a school-psychologist vacancy is being covered through contracted services (0:52:58–0:53:11). | |
| 0:55:11 | Middle school: a 33% increase | Crawford: 280 students; “the budget for the middle school is $4.5 million. This is a jump to 6 million. That’s a big jump. That’s a 33% increase” (0:55:43). Instructional salaries up $168,000; a $500,000 increase on the line she reads as “the increase in private spend”, which Henry answers as out-of-district (0:57:19, 0:57:31). Henry: ESSER had carried “600,000 that went through SR [ESSER] special ed tuitions” (0:58:26). Whitney: is the district “truly seeing that big of a jump in at a district placement. And the answer is no” (0:58:54). | |
| 1:02:27 | An in-district alternative program | Pratt: a grades 8–12 self-contained program off site, built with “the funds we already have”, to bring students back; out-of-district costs “probably around $70,000 per student” and “up to $77,000 just in transportation costs alone” (1:03:14, 1:03:47). Whitney asks whether that means “the funds that are in our reserve fund for the special education alternative” (1:02:38). | |
| 1:12:09 | Middle-school class sizes | Pratt: averages of about 18 (grade 6), 15 (grade 7) and 17–18 (grade 8) (1:12:28). Whitney: “according to the new the at 306 [Ed 306] New Hampshire administrative code in, in middle school and high school, there should be 30 students or fewer” (1:13:48). The readopted Ed 306 took effect this day, December 13, 2024; its student-educator ratio rule (Ed 306.14) sets 30 or fewer for middle and high school, as she says. | |
| 1:15:08 | GEAR UP and an after-school van | Whitney asks about a $5,000 GEAR UP request and the middle-school principal’s long-standing ask for an after-school van (1:16:37). Henry’s rough estimate: “maybe 20,000” (1:19:43). | |
| 1:21:08 | Stevens High School | Crawford: about 500 students, “a $11 million budget”, “almost a $2 million increase” (1:21:28), “a 20% increase” (1:21:52); “the real winner here is sped. Transportation is up 87,000 and sped tuition. Private in-state is up 1,000,005” [1.5 million] (1:22:32). “So 4 million out of district in high school alone? Yes.” (1:25:21). District-wide out-of-district: McCosker, “It’s under five, but probably not much” (1:25:57). | |
| 1:26:35 | Accreditation and staff training | Crawford: $10,000 for the five-year accreditation visit (the knees in the transcript, the NEASC evaluation) is in the budget (1:26:56). Pratt: 33 teachers came without traditional preparation (1:28:43). | |
| 1:29:21 | SRVRTC | Crawford: about 125 students in six programs; she met the technical center director “earlier this week” for about two hours (1:29:47); a renovation is not ready for this year (1:33:30). The career counselor hired in September is described (1:35:50). | |
| 1:40:25 | Pre-K: proposal to dissolve the program | Whitney: the program serves children with IEPs plus about 20 “model” students; earlier data showed the model students did not gain academically (1:45:22, 1:46:05); “we’re not required to provide this standalone service in Claremont per RSA one six C semicolon 3-A” (1:46:05); “We currently spend in salaries alone close to $450,000” (1:46:54). She asks the committee “to consider the radical move of moving these resources” to unfilled IEP positions (1:55:43). Crawford summarizes it as a request to the administration (2:02:04). No motion. | OBSERVATION |
| 2:06:00 | Alternative programs, autism, ESL | Henry finds two paraprofessional lines in the $132,000 academy line that are not real openings and removes them (2:08:33, 2:08:51). Autism program about $30,000 (2:09:35); ESL about $38,000 of the increase for roughly 12 more students (2:11:18, 2:11:36). | |
| 2:10:07 | District-wide | Related services alone $93,000 (2:12:27). Crawford sees the $7.6 million district-wide group falling; Henry: “I hadn’t put in the saw [SAU] assessment yet, so that would add 2.2 million to it” (2:13:13). | MEDIUM |
| 2:14:11 | Collective bargaining and the total | Whitney: the teachers’ contract adds “roughly 514,001st year” [514,000 first year] (2:14:11); her packet shows “an 11.3% increase in our budget before our two other collective bargaining agreement warrant articles” (2:15:15), “roughly a 12%” with the teachers (2:16:05). | |
| 2:17:56 | Unfilled vacancies and fund balance | Whitney: past increases were offset “by reserving the end of year balance”, generated by unfilled vacancies (2:17:56); “it’s been a failure of the district to recruit staff” (2:18:56). Henry: “we also have 2 million more in revenues as well” (2:19:48). | OBSERVATION |
| 2:22:22 | Adjournment | An unidentified member: “I’d like to make motion to adjourn.” Another: “I would fully support that” (2:22:26). No vote is heard. Crawford had noted “Our next meeting is next week” (2:17:20). | HIGH |
Items flagged for review
These flags are a reviewer’s aid, not findings of violation and not legal advice. Each names the rule it rests on; where no verified rule applies, the item is an observation. Statutes are cited as they read on December 13, 2024.
HIGH No minutes of this meeting exist in any district share, more than 21 months later
The Finance Committee is a public body: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) reaches any “committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body” of a school district. RSA 91-A:2, II (2024 text) required minutes including “the names of members, persons appearing before the public bodies, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions”, open to inspection “not more than 5 business days after the meeting”, here by Friday, December 20, 2024. The board’s own by-law 1.05(d) (adopted text) says subcommittee minutes “must be recorded and available for public inspection on the SAU 6 website within 5 days of the meeting”, and by-law 1.11 makes the subcommittee chair responsible for assigning a minutes recorder.
None were located: not in the 2024 Meeting Documents packets, the Meeting Minutes share, the district’s Claremont Finance Sub Committee folder (a parentId search returned nothing; a negative from that search alone is not proof), or the next board packet. The comparison is the December 18 board packet: two other subcommittees minuted their December meetings and the district filed them there (Visioning, December 9; Capital Improvements, December 10). The Finance Committee filed nothing for any of its televised sessions.
Severity: the HIGH limb of the project’s rule applies. A public body met, no minutes exist, and nothing in the record explains the absence. No notice was located either (flag 2). The board’s approved December 18 minutes answer the Finance item by recommending that people “watch the CCTV recordings of the committee meetings”. A recording is not the minutes the statute requires. The December 18 session is graded MEDIUM on its own page because it was noticed.
Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (subcommittees are public bodies); RSA 91-A:2, II, 2024 codification (minutes within 5 business days); Claremont School Board By-Laws, adopted June 5, 2024, rules 1.05(d) and 1.11; Approved CSB minutes 12.18.24
MEDIUM No posted notice was located, and every published list of committee dates omits December 13
RSA 91-A:2, II requires notice of the time and place posted in two appropriate places at least 24 hours ahead, excluding Sundays and legal holidays; by-law 1.05(c) requires subcommittee notice “at least 24 hours in advance on the SAU 6 website”. The November 20 agenda listed Finance meetings for December 4 and December 18, 1–3 p.m.; the December 4 agenda listed only December 18. December 13 is on neither, and this was a morning meeting.
The mitigating fact is in the approved December 4 minutes: “Ms. Henry had emailed Frank Sprague to ask to meet with the finance committee on Thursday next week and then a second meeting on Friday to be televised”. So the meeting was announced at a public board meeting nine days ahead. Those minutes reached Drive only on January 7, 2025 (file metadata), and an announcement in another body’s meeting is not the posted notice the statute describes. A notice may have been posted on the SAU 6 website; the site as it stood in December 2024 cannot be inspected from here, so this is “not found”, not “never posted”.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (24-hour notice of time and place); By-law 1.05(c) (notice on the SAU 6 website); CSB Agenda 11.20.24; CSB Agenda 12.4.24; Approved CSB minutes 12.4.24
MEDIUM The committee worked from page-numbered budget drafts that were never published
Members cite a draft by page throughout: Crawford on “the budget copy that we had last Friday” (0:20:11), “page 23” (1:01:04), “page 47” (2:06:00), “page 52” (2:11:33); Sprague on “page 43” (1:35:28); Whitney on “A packet that I have here” (2:14:49). A viewer cannot follow a line review without the document, and no version of it was found in any district share.
The board’s by-laws require it. The second rule numbered 2.09 in the adopted text says “Any and all presentations by the administration to the board or any committee shall be contained in the agenda and made available to the public in its original format online so the public may download or access the information prior to or during board meetings.” Rule 4.03(d) delegates to the superintendent’s executive assistant posting “any and all agenda materials not-exempt from public dissemination by RSA 91-A in conjunction with the posting of any board or committee agendas.” A departure from the board’s own rule is a process gap, graded MEDIUM. Draft budget documents are governmental records that anyone may request under RSA 91-A:4; that right does not cure the posting rule. The by-laws contain two rules numbered 2.09; the text is quoted so the reference is unambiguous.
Sources: Claremont School Board By-Laws, adopted June 5, 2024: the second rule 2.09 and rule 4.03(d)
OBSERVATION A Thursday “premeeting” of the committee was planned for December 12, and nothing shows whether it was held
The approved December 4 minutes record: “The meeting on Thursday the 12th will be a premeeting for the 13th so that the finance committee understands the budget before it is presented to the public”. If the three members met on December 12 to discuss the budget, that was a meeting of a public body under RSA 91-A:2, I, with the same notice and minutes duties; the statute has no exclusion for a working or preparatory session. Nothing on this recording refers to a meeting the previous day; Crawford refers only to “the budget copy that we had last Friday” (0:20:11). No notice, minutes or recording of a December 12 session was found. The record cannot say whether it happened.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I (meeting defined; exclusions); Approved CSB minutes 12.4.24
OBSERVATION The “95% by law” reimbursement rate does not appear in the statute
Crawford told viewers that state reimbursement for special education “is set, I think, at a 95% by law and over costs of $70,000 per student” (0:06:56) and that payment would be “like 63%” (0:07:23). RSA 186-C:18, III as it read in 2024 makes the district liable up to 3½ times the estimated state average expenditure per pupil, the state liable for 80 percent of the cost above that up to 10 times, and for all costs above 10 times, with appropriations prorated when insufficient. The numeral 95 does not appear in the section. The 80-percent-of-entitlement floor in today’s text came later (2025) and does not apply to this budget year. The speaker hedged (“I think”), and the point she drew from it, that a shortfall in state aid lands on local taxpayers, does not depend on the figure. The 63% payment figure could not be checked from here.
Sources: RSA 186-C:18, III, 2024 codification (source note ends 2023, 79:141, 142)
OBSERVATION The pre-K proposal rested on a statute that says nothing about preschool, and went to the administration without a motion
Whitney said the district is “not required to provide this standalone service in Claremont per RSA one six C semicolon 3-A” (1:46:05). RSA 186-C:3-a is headed “Duties” and assigns duties to the state’s special-education division (“The division shall help school districts meet their responsibilities”). It does not mention preschool, pre-kindergarten or children aged three to five. Whether the district must run its own program is a separate question that this citation does not answer. Federal rules do reach preschool children: 34 CFR 300.116 governs the placement of “a preschool child with a disability” and requires the placement to be decided by a group including the parents, at least annually, as close as possible to the child’s home.
Whitney said repeatedly that required services would continue (“We will continue to provide all the necessary services that we are required for these kids”, 1:55:43). The committee took no vote. Crawford framed it as a request for the administration to report back (2:02:04, 2:02:16). Five days later the business administrator had taken pre-K out of the draft (December 18 page), and the board moved the budget to hearing on January 7, 2025, after Arlene Hawkins read a statement dissenting from the pre-K cut and Whitney Skillen agreed with her; the vote is recorded as all present in favor (approved January 7, 2025 minutes). Under by-law 1.05 the committee is advisory and the board decides, which is what happened. The record contains no description of where the identified children would be served.
Sources: RSA 186-C:3-a (duties of the division; source note ends 2024, 351:2, eff. Oct. 1, 2024); 34 CFR 300.116 (placements, including preschool children); By-law 1.05 (subcommittees are advisory)
OBSERVATION The $350,000 the board retained in October to offset the FY2025–26 tax rate is not mentioned
The approved October 16, 2024 minutes record: “Frank Sprague made a motion to retain up to $350,000 with the stipulation that it be used to offset the 25/26 tax rate”, carried on a voice vote. This session built the FY2025–26 budget. The only related remarks are Whitney’s general point that past increases were buffered “by reserving the end of year balance” (2:17:56) and Henry’s “2 million more in revenues” (2:19:48). Whether the retained amount is inside that revenue figure is not said. A viewer cannot tell from this session how the earmarked money enters the FY2025–26 tax calculation. On the December 18 recording (show 16226) the question comes up once, when Crawford asks about reserves to offset taxes, and Whitney closes it with “We’ve already voted on that”.
Sources: Approved CSB minutes 10.16.24 (retention motion)
POSITIVE A line-by-line budget review held on camera, with an explicit purpose of letting the public trace decisions
Nothing in RSA 91-A requires a subcommittee to televise its work. This committee did, and said why: “we can strengthen back to the, the televised shows so they can go back and see what was discussed” (0:00:00). Members repeatedly addressed viewers directly with the numbers (“Just as an example to give to give voters kind of a sense of, size of what we’re talking about”, 0:09:54), separated mandated from optional costs, and asked the administration for data behind program choices. This is good practice. It does not replace the minutes the statute requires (flag 1), and the documents being reviewed were not published (flag 3).
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes, not recordings, are the statutory record)
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/16215 SchoolBoardFinance121324.mp4.CSV (939 attributed rows; the basis of this page)Input/Videos/16215 SchoolBoardFinance121324.mp4Input/Transcripts/16215 SchoolBoardFinance121324.mp4.jsonInput/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md, section 248
Laws and rules cited on this page
- RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (source note ends 2008): committees and subcommittees of a school district are public bodies
- RSA 91-A:2, I and II, 2024 codification (source note ends 2023, 188:1): meeting defined; notice 24 hours ahead; minutes within five business days
- RSA 186-C:18, III, 2024 codification: special-education aid (80 percent above 3½ times; all costs above 10 times; proration)
- RSA 186-C:3-a (source note ends 2024, 351:2, eff. Oct. 1, 2024): duties of the state division
- 34 CFR 300.116: placement of children with disabilities, including preschool children
- N.H. Admin. Rules, Ed 306 (Doc. #14150, eff. 12-13-24): Ed 306.14, student-educator ratios
- Claremont School Board By-Laws, adopted June 5, 2024: rules 1.05, 1.11, the second 2.09, 4.03(d)