Participants
Everyone heard or recorded as present. Names follow the minutes and packet documents; where the transcript renders a name differently, the rendering is noted. No voter other than the presenters sought recognition, so there are no floor-speaker rows.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Tracy Pope | District Moderator (presiding) | 41 rows. Opened the session, reviewed the rules, called the voice votes on the 2024 minutes and on both motions to restrict reconsideration, and passed each article to the ballot. |
| The moderator’s husband (not named) | Assisting the moderator | Announced at 0:00:29; does not speak on the recording. |
| Heather Whitney | School Board Chair | Introduced the board; moved approval of the February 3, 2024 district-meeting minutes; gave the board’s reasons for closing the preschool program. The preschool block is attributed to her in the dialogue file “by elimination” as the remaining announced co-presenter. |
| Frank Sprague | School Board Vice Chair; Finance Subcommittee chair | Gave the finance subcommittee’s rationale; read and spoke for Article 2. The dialogue file marks his presentation block uncertain (attributed by the announced presenter order); the moderator introduces him as “Praise. Greg.” Seconded the 2024 minutes per the minutes. |
| Candace Crawford | School Board member | Reported on board work (Tech Center, capital improvement, curriculum, bullying, retention, libraries); read and spoke for Article 3. Rendered “Kings Crawford” once. |
| Michael Petrin | School Board member; chair, Ad Hoc Communications Improvement Committee | Read Article 1; moved to restrict reconsideration of Articles 3 and 4. Rendered “Mr. Michael Patron” and “Mr. Peter”. |
| Arlene Hawkins | School Board member; board negotiator for the Claremont Administrators Association | Read and spoke for Article 4. Rendered “Miss Army Hawkins” and “Miss Hopkins”. |
| Whitney Skillen | School Board member; Policy Subcommittee chair | Present per the minutes, which name her as mover of the motion to restrict reconsideration of Articles 1 and 2. The recording cannot confirm it: the motion and its second are one merged, unnamed segment at 1:01:32. Not seeking re-election (Whitney at 0:03:23, rendered “Skilling”). |
| Bonnie Miles | School Board member | Led the Pledge (0:00:45); per the minutes seconded both motions to restrict reconsideration. Not seeking re-election. |
| Noelle Kronberg | District Clerk | Signed both sets of minutes; does not speak on the recording. |
| Christopher “Chris” Pratt | Superintendent, SAU 6 | Introduced the administration (0:01:32) and opened the budget presentation (0:10:30). |
| Mary Henry | Business Administrator, SAU 6 | 53 rows, 0:14:12–0:35:45: the budget, revenues, default budget, tax impact, staffing changes and each article’s cost. |
| Michael Koski; Michael McCosker; Patrick O’Hearn; Jeff Small | Assistant Superintendent; Director of Student Services; Director of Human Resources; Director of Technology | Introduced by the superintendent; none speaks. Koski’s surname drops out of the transcript (“Michael. Assistant superintendent”). |
| Roth (district attorney) | School district attorney | Introduced by the superintendent as “Mike Roth, school district attorney”; the minutes list “District Attorney Mark Roth”. Not otherwise verified; both renderings are given. |
| Joshua Nelson; Jason Bonneville; “Chelsea” | CCTV executive director; SAU technology staff; SAU 6 administrative assistant | Thanked by the moderator at 0:05:18–0:05:48: Nelson for the live broadcast, Bonneville and Jeff Small for the technology, and Chelsea (surname not spoken) for organizing the session and posting the public notices. |
The moderator also thanked the person who presided over the 2024 session, who “took over at a moment’s notice” (0:05:18); the name is lost in the transcript. The dialogue file labels three rows Unidentified and one Multiple.
Agenda
Items as posted in Agenda.docx (1).pdf and the four-article 2025 Warrant, with the time each was taken up and its disposition. The agenda lists the budget presentation under Article II; it was given before Article 1.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:05 | I. Call to order | “Call to Order for the Deliberative Session.” Minutes: 9:07 a.m. Pledge led by Bonnie Miles at 0:00:45. |
| 0:01:32 | I.B Introductions | Administration (Pratt) and, at 0:02:34, school board and officers (Whitney). Minutes: all seven members present. |
| 0:06:20 | I.C Rules of Procedure | The moderator reviewed five minutes for a presenter, two per speaker, name and ward at the podium, written comprehensive amendments, and that articles go to the ballot without a vote. She did not read the sheet’s sentence on doubted votes. See flag 4. |
| 0:09:02 | II.A Minutes of the February 3, 2024 district meeting | Minutes: Whitney moved, Sprague seconded; “voice vote taken, all present voting in favor”. Declared at 0:09:24. |
| 0:09:51 | Special presentation on the budget | “Special Presentation by School Board and School Administration” (agenda). Pratt, Henry, Sprague, Whitney and Crawford, 0:10:30–0:54:12, about 44 minutes. |
| 0:54:49 | Article 1: Election of officials | Warrant: “To elect a Moderator, District Clerk, and District Treasurer, each for a one (1) year term, and 2 School Board members, for a three (3) year term.” Read by Petrin. No speaker for or against; passed to the ballot at 0:55:49. |
| 0:55:49 | Article 2: Main budget | Warrant: operating budget $42,933,564; default $42,772,778; Note A, the first year of the Sugar River Education Association (teachers) agreement, $516,836 in 2025–26 and $558,516 in 2026–27. “The School Board Recommends this Article (4) Yes (0) No.” Read and spoken to by Sprague. No speaker against; passed to the ballot at 1:00:56. |
| 1:01:28 | Motion to restrict reconsideration of Articles 1 and 2 | Minutes: “Whitney Skillen made a motion to restrict reconsideration of Articles 1 & 2, Bonnie Miles seconded the motion”. Voice vote declared at 1:02:51. |
| 1:03:12 | Article 3: Paraprofessionals agreement | Warrant: $168,000 (2025–26), $139,718 (2026–27), $137,791 (2027–28), and $168,000 raised and appropriated. Recommended 4–0. Read and spoken to by Crawford. No speaker against; passed to the ballot at 1:07:32. |
| 1:07:42 | Article 4: Administrators agreement | Warrant: one-year agreement, $78,000 for 2025–26, raised and appropriated. Recommended 4–0. Read and spoken to by Hawkins. No speaker against; passed to the ballot at 1:11:24. |
| 1:11:35 | Motion to restrict reconsideration of Articles 3 and 4 | Petrin moved; minutes name Miles as seconder (unnamed on the recording, 1:11:46). Voice vote declared at 1:12:17. |
| 1:12:17 | IV. Closing | Reminder of the March 11 ballot. Minutes: “Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm”. |
Discussion timeline
Chronological topics. Quotations are from the dialogue transcript as transcribed; bracketed text is an insertion or correction, and the transcript’s wording stays visible where a correction changes the sense.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:00:05 | Documents by QR code | “We have QR codes available at the end of the aisles that you can scan, and your documents will be uploaded to the device.” | POSITIVE |
| 0:06:45 | The rules as read | “Debate will be limited to two minutes per speaker. We will be using a timer when told your time is up.” At 0:07:11: “Amendments, if comprehensive, must be in writing, presented to the moderator”. At 0:07:45: “If there are no amendments, the adequate [article] is automatically passed onto the ballot as presented. There is no vote. Necessary.” | MEDIUM |
| 0:10:30 | Superintendent’s framing | Pratt: “Education spending was increased by approximately 20% over the last five years”; the budget aligns “with our new strategic plan.” | |
| 0:14:26 | The target: under 5% | Henry: “The goal that we were set was to make sure that the increase was on [under] the 5%.” Health and dental insurance were the main pressure. | |
| 0:16:02 | The two numbers on the warrant | “So the total that you see on the board is 42,933,564. The default operating budget is $160,000, 780 $0.06 less than the general budget.” The packet summary: general fund $39,468,564 plus grant and food-service funds $3,465,000; the warrant’s default is $42,772,778, $160,786 lower. | |
| 0:18:27 | What the district cannot control | “71.85% of our budget is wages and benefits that are out of our control.” Teacher retirement rate down “for 19.64% to 19.23%”. | |
| 0:20:05 | Catastrophic special-education aid | “I can’t guarantee Cat eight [Cat A] this year. They did not give us the 94% that they’re supposed to do.” At 0:20:27: “They only gave us 67%, which again is not good, but reality of it, they did not have the money to disperse.” | MEDIUM |
| 0:21:32 | Adequacy: the extraordinary need grant | Revenue up mainly from the extraordinary need grant after the state changed its formula; Henry warns it will step down “about $396,000” every two years (0:23:04). | |
| 0:23:17 | 7.44% gross, 2.12% net | “The overall budget percentage increase was 7.4. … It’s actually 2.12% higher than last year.” The summary: increase $2,971,297 (7.44%), less additional revenues $2,125,345, leaves $845,952 (2.12%). At 0:24:39: “Under the 845,000, there’s 514 [$516,836 on the warrant] in there for the first year of the teachers contract”. | |
| 0:24:39 | The default budget, as defined to the voters | “So the budget means the amount of the same approach as contained in the operating budget authorized for the previous year reduced an increase, as it may be, by that service.” At 0:25:09: “… and reduced by one time expenditures contained in the operating budget, one time spent, or appropriations not likely to recover in the budget.” At 0:25:49: the $160,786 gap is mainly “the cost of outing district placements”. | MEDIUM |
| 0:26:45 | Tax impact is an estimate | “I can’t tell you that this is actually going to be what your tax rate is going to be”. At 0:27:27: “$0.69 per contract, be $0.14 in the admin contract for B6 sentence for a total of $0.89” [$0.69 budget, $0.14 paraprofessionals, $0.06 administrators]; “for every 100,000 would be $80.78”. Surplus returned in recent years: about $300,000 (0:27:06). | |
| 0:30:16 | Budget drivers | “Health insurance is 15%. And then by ten it was a $1.2 million increase”; placements $1.4 million; “Those alone are $2.6 million that we have no control over in our budget.” | |
| 0:32:19 | Positions cut, preschool closed | “So we decrease five teachers and benefits for roughly 334,000, decrease 4.35 and benefits from 185,000 will be reduce the guidance counselor at CMS.” At 0:33:15: “pre-K program close”; “So that total budget adjustment is 438,000.” At 0:33:43: affected staff should find other open positions, but “can’t guarantee anything.” | MEDIUM |
| 0:34:44 | Expendable trusts not funded | “A good way to do that is to take some of your end of year surplus and put it into your thoughts [trusts]. We did not do that this year given the budget.” Future deposits to follow the capital improvement plan (0:35:20). | OBSERVATION |
| 0:36:35 | Finance subcommittee rationale | Sprague (attribution marked uncertain): the health-insurance increase “it really looks like it’s a national issue”; catastrophic aid reduced “due to budget shortfalls at the state level” (0:37:33); ESSER ended, so programs “have to be either eliminated or shifted to the main budget” (0:38:01); “we really wanted it to be less than 5%” (0:38:22). | |
| 0:40:50 | Two minutes the transcript barely captures | One row spans 0:40:50 to 0:42:51 with a single short sentence. The next fragments (“Private preschool or no programs at all.”, 0:42:52) belong to the preschool argument but are labeled Sprague. | |
| 0:42:56 | Why the preschool program was cut | Whitney (by elimination): “The state of New Hampshire does not require districts to couch in [provide a] preschool environment for any student.” At 0:44:19: “The district will continue as before to provide special education services to all residents age two and a half to 22 years old and accordance with each student’s ID [IEP]”. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:45:14 | Crawford on board work | Tech Center visioning group of about 25; new medical assistant program and an introduction-to-teaching program (0:47:00); “The tech sector currently has about 125 students per quarter.” Year two of the ELA curriculum and year one of math: “it takes 4 to 5 years after the new curriculum to see the results” (0:49:33). About $12,500 more for elementary libraries (0:51:32). She describes getting “to a 2.5% increase” (0:50:42), against Henry’s 2.12%. | |
| 0:48:07 | No capital warrant article this year | “This year, the subcommittee recommended to the full board, and they agreed that we put off having a warrant article to add capital funds because the warrant articles addressing bargaining units were the priority.” | OBSERVATION |
| 0:54:35 | The moderator narrows the floor | “I’d like to remind voters at this time that the discussion should be limited to comments about the articles and not questions which should have been asked at an earlier public meeting.” | MEDIUM |
| 0:55:06 | Article 1 | Petrin: “This is purely just to allow us to elect.” Pope at 0:55:32: “Anyone wishing to speak against this article?” At 0:55:49: “Seeing now [none] I’d like to move this article along to the ballot as presented.” | OBSERVATION |
| 0:56:16 | Article 2 read | “… totaling $42,933,564. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $42,772,778”. Note A read at 0:57:07 as “516,836 20,000 to 20 2627 558,000 516” [$558,516]. | |
| 0:58:29 | Sprague for the budget | “We tried very, very hard to keep this budget manageable. There were some sacrifices made”. Priorities: competitive salaries, in-house social-emotional support, instructional support “with a laser focus on the elementary level”, and Tech Center expansion. “We hope you will affirm the main budget today and in March.” (1:00:48) | |
| 1:01:28 | Reconsideration restricted, Articles 1 and 2 | “Pursuant to, say, 22.” then, merged, “For I moved to restrict reconsideration of articles one and two. Then moderator I second that motion.” Pope at 1:02:20: it “means that voters will not be allowed to go back to further discussion or to amend the articles”. Carried by voice. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:04:41 | Article 3: paraprofessionals | Crawford read “$139,782” for 2026–27 (1:03:14; the warrant prints $139,718). About 80 employees; “all but 2 or 3 of this group work solely with approximately 375 special needs students.” Starting pay “from 1665 an hour to 1807”; steps “from 21 steps to 14 steps”; dollar-for-dollar retirement match up to $2,000 (1:06:11); “an increase of $0.14 per $1,000 property valuation” (1:07:00). | |
| 1:09:10 | Article 4: administrators | Hawkins: “The association has 12 members.” One-year contract; values “parody [parity], number two was retention, and number three was excellence.” At 1:10:35: “approximately $0.06 per thousand, so for a $200,000 property, the increase is roughly $12 a year or a dollar a month.” | |
| 1:11:35 | Reconsideration restricted, Articles 3 and 4; close | Petrin: “Moderator RSA 4413 [40:13] Roman numeral for [IV] a move to restrict reconsideration of articles 3 to 4.” Seconded from the floor; carried by voice. Pope at 1:12:17: “remind you that the ballot session is Tuesday, March 11th, 2025.” | OBSERVATION |
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; an Observation rests on no confirmed rule. A deliberative session is a meeting of the voters, so the school-board rules (public comment under RSA 189:74, nonpublic sessions, roll calls) do not apply to it.
MEDIUM Voters were told that questions belonged at “an earlier public meeting”
RSA 40:13, IV says the first session “shall consist of explanation, discussion, and debate of each warrant article, including warrant articles pertaining to the operating budget and the default budget.” Explanation is the first of the three. Immediately before Article 1 the moderator told the room that “the discussion should be limited to comments about the articles and not questions which should have been asked at an earlier public meeting” (0:54:35). Her own Rules of Procedure say the moderator “can also field questions from the voters and is the facilitator of debate.” A voter who took the instruction at its word would have stayed seated with a question the statute makes this session’s business. Mitigation: it was a reminder, not a ruling on anyone; she invited speakers for and against every article; the presenters had just explained the budget for about 44 minutes; and no voter sought recognition, so no question was refused. The flag records the instruction, not a denial.
Sources: RSA 40:13, IV (first session for “explanation, discussion, and debate”; last amended 2019, 192:2, eff. July 10, 2019; text read 2026-09-25); Rules of Procedure.docx (1).pdf.
MEDIUM The default budget was defined to the voters without its eliminated-positions clause, in a budget that eliminates positions, and no default budget form is in the packet
The statutory definition of the default budget, RSA 40:13, IX(b), ends by requiring the prior-year appropriation to be “reduced by one-time expenditures contained in the operating budget and by salaries and benefits of positions that have been eliminated in the proposed budget,” excluding “vacant positions under recruitment or positions redefined in the proposed operating budget.” The business administrator read the definition to the voters at 0:24:39–0:25:09 and stopped after the one-time-expenditure clause; the eliminated-positions clause is not on the recording. The same presentation described five teaching positions cut (“roughly 334,000”), another 4.35 positions (“185,000”), a middle-school guidance counselor and the preschool program, “So that total budget adjustment is 438,000” (0:32:19–0:33:15), and put the $160,786 gap between the proposed and default budgets mainly down to out-of-district placements (0:25:49). Whether the default was reduced for the eliminated positions cannot be checked from the public record. RSA 40:13, XI(a) requires a default budget form showing, at a minimum, changes “by account code, and the reasons for each change” and “Reductions for eliminated positions and benefit expenditures”. The deliberative packet holds no such form, and none of the four documents in the January 15, 2025 hearing folder is titled as one. Some of the positions may be vacancies under recruitment, which the statute excludes; the record does not say. The same truncation appears on the project’s February 3, 2024 deliberative session page and December 18, 2024 board page.
Sources: RSA 40:13, IX(b) and XI(a) (2019, 192:2); Claremont Budget Summary (1).pdf; 12. CSB Budget Public Hearing 1.15.25 (folder).
MEDIUM Catastrophic special-education aid was described to the voters with a “94%” the law then in force does not contain
At 0:20:05–0:20:27 the business administrator said the State “did not give us the 94% that they’re supposed to do” and paid “67%” because it lacked the money. RSA 186-C:18, III as in force in February 2025 (2023, 79:141, 142, eff. July 1, 2023) makes the department liable for “80 percent of the cost above the 3½ times the estimated state average expenditure per pupil” and for all costs above ten times it, with an insufficient appropriation prorated proportionally on entitlement. It sets no 94 percent figure and no minimum payment. The 67 percent is consistent with the FY2025 rate of 67.5 percent reported by the New Hampshire Bulletin on November 15, 2024. No breach by the State is implied: the 80-percent-of-entitlement floor in today’s text was added by 2025 legislation (HB 2, §137) and did not exist at this session. The defect is in the information given to voters about what the State owed. Mitigation: the point she was making, that the district carries mandated costs the State does not fully fund, is accurate, and Sprague put it correctly as a reduction “due to budget shortfalls at the state level” (0:37:33).
Sources: RSA 186-C:18, III (2024 codification, in force at this session; text read 2026-09-25); New Hampshire Bulletin, November 15, 2024 (reporting, not law); companion page Finance Subcommittee, December 13, 2024.
MEDIUM The Rules of Procedure misstate what a voter can do about a doubted vote, and omit the limits on amendment
The sheet handed to voters ends: “any voter who doubts the accuracy of any non-counted vote may require the Moderator to determine a vote by a counted show of hands.” The statutes that govern this session say otherwise. RSA 40:13, IV makes the first session “governed by the provisions of RSA 40:4, 40:4-a, 40:4-b, 40:4-f, and 40:6-40:10.” Under RSA 40:4-a, five voters may ask in writing before a vote that it be taken by secret ballot, and may obtain a recount of a close result; under RSA 40:4-b, a declared vote questioned immediately by seven or more voters must be retaken by secret “yes-no” ballot. The sheet’s remedy is a counted show of hands, available to one voter; the statute’s is a secret ballot on the demand of five or seven. The sheet also describes amendment without the statutory limits: it omits RSA 40:13, IV(a) (“Warrant articles whose wording is prescribed by law shall not be amended”), IV(c) (no amendment may “eliminate the subject matter of the article”, and “An amendment that changes the dollar amount of an appropriation in a warrant article shall not be deemed to violate this subparagraph”), and XI(b) on the default budget (“This amount shall not be amended by the legislative body”). The same sheet was used in 2023 and 2024. Mitigation: every vote at this session was procedural and none was close or questioned, so no voter lost a remedy on February 1.
Sources: RSA 40:13, IV and XI(b); RSA 40:4-a (secret ballot on request of 5 voters; 2006, 117:1); RSA 40:4-b (vote questioned by 7 or more voters retaken by secret ballot; 1971, 524:1); Rules of Procedure.docx (1).pdf.
OBSERVATION No amendment, no voter at the podium, and reconsideration restricted on all four articles
Amendment is the voters’ only power at a first session; RSA 40:13, VI puts every article on the ballot in any case. No amendment was moved to any article, no voter spoke for or against any of them, and each went to the March 11 ballot as printed. The only votes were procedural: the 2024 minutes, and two motions to restrict reconsideration (1:01:28–1:02:51 and 1:11:35–1:12:17). The second mover cited a provision the transcript renders “RSA 4413 Roman numeral for”, most likely RSA 40:13, IV, which incorporates RSA 40:10; the operative section is RSA 40:10, which lets a meeting restrict reconsideration of votes already taken, lasting “until final adjournment of the meeting”. On February 1 that was minutes away, so the restriction had little practical effect. The first mover’s words, “Pursuant to, say, 22”, cannot be matched to a provision. No petitioned article appears on the 2025 warrant.
Sources: RSA 40:13, IV and VI; RSA 40:10, I, III and V (1996, 64:1); 2025 Warrant.
OBSERVATION No capital-reserve or trust-fund article, and the expendable trusts were left unfunded
The warrant carries four articles and nothing to raise money for, or withdraw it from, any capital reserve or expendable trust fund. Both presenters said why. Crawford (0:48:07): the Capital Improvement subcommittee recommended, and the board agreed, to “put off having a warrant article to add capital funds because the warrant articles addressing bargaining units were the priority.” Henry (0:35:02): the usual route of depositing year-end surplus was not used, “We did not do that this year given the budget.” Capital reserve money is held by the trustees “until such time as the town, district or county shall have voted to withdraw funds,” so both deposits and withdrawals run through the voters. The effect is that the Tech Center capital plan Crawford said would reach the board “this spring” (0:47:32) has no funding article behind it before the 2026 meeting. The voters were told this, which is the point of the session.
Sources: RSA 35:15, I (capital reserve held until the district votes to withdraw; last amended 2021, 105:2); 2025 Warrant.
OBSERVATION The preschool program was closed with an assurance about special education and no detail on where eligible three- and four-year-olds will be served
Whitney told the voters the State does not require a district preschool and that the district “will continue as before to provide special education services” in accordance with each student’s IEP (0:42:56, 0:44:19); the minutes say the same. The statement about general preschool is not contradicted by anything the project has located. The special-education duty is federal: a free appropriate public education must be available to “all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive,” and each child’s placement is decided by a group including the parents, in the least restrictive environment. Closing the program removes the classroom in which many preschool IEPs were delivered alongside typically developing peers; the record gives no account of the replacement settings. The proposal first surfaced at the December 13, 2024 finance session. Part of the presentation falls in a stretch the transcript barely captures (0:40:50), so the page may miss detail that was said.
Sources: 34 CFR 300.101 (FAPE, ages 3 through 21); 34 CFR 300.116 (placements).
OBSERVATION The minutes record an adjournment at “10:20pm” and a mover the recording cannot confirm
Both versions of the minutes end “Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm” for a session called to order at 9:07 a.m. and recorded at 1:12:36; 10:20 a.m. is what those facts give. Both spell the moderator “Tracey Pope”, against the “Tracy Pope” on her own Rules of Procedure. They name Whitney Skillen and Bonnie Miles as mover and seconder of the first reconsideration motion; on the recording the motion opens with an unnamed voice and the motion and second are one merged segment (1:01:28–1:01:32), so the attribution rests on the minutes alone. The “Approved” Google Doc was last modified February 24, 2026, about a year later; its text matches the February 3, 2025 draft. RSA 91-A:2, II requires the names of movers and seconders, which both versions give.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2023 codification, in force at this session); approved minutes; draft minutes.
POSITIVE Every date in the SB 2 calendar was met, and the session sat on the first day of its window
RSA 40:13, II-a applies “Notwithstanding any other provision of law” and sets the schedule for official-ballot districts: budget hearings “on or before the third Tuesday in January” (January 21, 2025) and warrants and budgets “posted and copies available to the general public on or before the last Monday in January” (January 27). Claremont held its hearing on January 15, and the warrant, generated by the Department of Revenue Administration on January 22, carries the board’s certification that it was posted “on or before January 27,2025” at the place of meeting and on the SAU 6 website. RSA 40:13, III puts the first session “between the first and second Saturdays following the last Monday in January”, February 1 to 8; the session sat on February 1. The copy in the district’s Drive archive is dated January 28, a day after the posting deadline; the certification covers the website and the meeting place, not the archive. An earlier version of this page left open whether RSA 32:5, I’s 25-day hearing rule was met (January 15 to February 1 is 17 days); II-a’s notwithstanding clause and its own January schedule answer that question for an SB 2 district. The elected moderator presided, which was not the case in 2024.
Sources: RSA 40:13, II-a and III (2019, 192:2); RSA 32:5, I and VII(a); 2025 Warrant (certification page); project page for the January 15, 2025 budget hearing.
POSITIVE Documents in hand, by QR code and online; the session televised; the minutes public on the next business day
The warrant, budget summary, agenda and rules were in the district’s Drive folder by January 28, handed out at the session, and offered by QR code (0:00:05); the moderator reviewed the rules aloud (0:06:20–0:08:26). The session was carried live on CCTV Channel 8 and the recording is public. The draft minutes PDF was created in the public minutes folder at 9:07 a.m. on Monday, February 3, the first business day after the session, within the five business days RSA 91-A:2, II allows, and names a mover and seconder for every motion.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2023 codification); RSA 32:5, VII(a) (certified budget posted with the warrant); Drive creation dates of the packet and minutes files, read 2026-09-25.
Appendix — source files
Official and public sources
- Cablecast: School Board Deliberative Session - 2/1/25 (show 16315)
- Drive folder: 13. CSB Deliberative Session 2.1.25 — 4 documents, created January 28, 2025
- Agenda.docx (1).pdf double extension as filed by the district
- 2025 Warrant (1).pdf (DRA warrant, four articles, governing-body certification)
- Claremont Budget Summary (1).pdf (FY23–FY24 actual, FY25 appropriated, FY26 proposed, by function)
- Rules of Procedure.docx (1).pdf
- Minutes: 2.1.25 Approved CSB Deliberative Session Minutes; 15. DRAFT CSB Deliberative Session Minutes 2.1.25 (both in “2025 Meeting Minutes”)
- Not located: a default budget form (RSA 40:13, XI(a)) in this folder or, by title, in 12. CSB Budget Public Hearing 1.15.25.
- Related project pages: Budget hearing, January 15, 2025; School Board, January 21, 2025; School Board, February 5, 2025; Deliberative session, February 3, 2024
Project files
Working files this page was built from. The dialogue file is linked; the others are not published with the page. “Deliberatibe” is the spelling in the source file name.
Laws and rules cited on this page
- Official-ballot district meeting: RSA 40:13, II-a, III, IV, VI, IX(b), XI(a), XI(b) (2019, 192:2, eff. July 10, 2019); RSA 40:10 (1996, 64:1); RSA 40:4-a; RSA 40:4-b
- Budget and funds: RSA 32:5, I and VII(a); RSA 35:15, I
- Special education: RSA 186-C:18, III (2023, 79:141, 142; 2024 codification); 34 CFR 300.101; 34 CFR 300.116
- Minutes: RSA 91-A:2, II (2023 codification; the start-time, end-time and minutes-producer clauses added in 2025 do not apply to this session)