Claremont School Board, May 21, 2025

OBSERVATION Policy JBAB was added to the agenda from the floor and adopted the same night with both readings waived; the revised text was not in the packet

At the agenda-amendment stage the chair's segment carries the request "I would like to amend the agenda to include the revision of policy JBAB to item number three" (0:02:11); the approved minutes credit the request to Arlene Hawkins. Loren Howard moved "to accept Jabez as revised and to raise or to waive the first read" (0:58:49; Jabez is the ASR rendering of JBAB), then corrected it: "Frank whispered to me, waive the second read." (0:59:12). He explained the board had sent JBAB back to committee "to be revised to fit within, new laws, new federal. Executive orders." and had planned a first read in June, but "under the advice of legal counsel, want to make sure that we're going to be able to get our funding." (0:59:16, 0:59:46). He added that Pratt had provided a list of other anti-discrimination policies "including transgender students who would be covered under JB." (1:01:13). Hawkins: "We are suspending our rules for tonight." (1:00:40). The voice vote carried with none opposed (1:02:56).

What the public could see: the posted packet contains no JBAB exhibit, so the revised text the board adopted was not available before the vote. The copy of the policy found in Drive, titled "JBAB Transgender & Gender Nonconforming Students", was last modified January 7, 2019; the chair said the website would carry the revision within 24 to 48 hours, and this page could not inspect the website as it stood then. No statute requires two readings, so this is an observation about the board's own procedure and the record available to the public.

Sources: Drive copy of policy JBAB (last modified 2019-01-07); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (subcommittees are public bodies); Approved minutes 5.21.25 (item 3, Approval of Policy JBAB)

OBSERVATION A $2,089,152 shortfall from FY2020 and FY2021 was presented orally; the packet held no audit report or schedule behind the figures

Mary Henry: "In fiscal year 20, we should have had $966,213 in the surplus." The ASR then garbles the amount returned ("1.7 million $31,546.") and gives the result as "deficit of seven $765,333." (0:19:46). For FY2021: "We had $133,150 in surplus." (0:20:54). The approved minutes give the figures cleanly: FY2020 surplus $966,213 against $1,731,546 returned, deficit $765,333; FY2021 surplus $133,150 against $1,456,968 returned; combined deficit $2,089,152 (minutes text). The arithmetic checks to within one dollar: 1,731,546 minus 966,213 is 765,333, and 1,456,968 minus 133,150 is 1,323,818, for a total of 2,089,151. Henry ties the cause to the tax-rate filings ("we gave back too much to the taxpayers on our pulling out our DOF 25 and the miss 25", 0:20:29; read as [DOE-25] and [MS-25]) and to grant money "that were spent but never claimed" (0:21:43). She also says the current year's deficit was covered when "we had just taken some money out of our, our trust funds to cover that." (0:22:27).

Counsel recommends that the March 2026 annual meeting "establish a deficit reduction, expendable trust" and "appropriate $400,000 in March of 2026 into that expendable trust" (0:29:32, 0:30:30). The auditor says he had advised management in FY2020 and FY2021 "to be conservative with what they returned in terms of use of fund balance." (0:39:21). No statute is cited for the trust on the recording, and this page does not supply one. Asked by the chair "Why isn't this a criminal act?", counsel answered that there was "no indication from what Mary has indicated. Or Mr. Campos indicated that there was any criminal activity." (0:45:14, 0:45:19). The documents that would settle the figures are the completed FY2020 and FY2021 audit reports and the district's tax-rate filings for those years; none is in this packet, and the trust-fund withdrawal is not itemized anywhere in it.

Sources: Approved minutes 5.21.25 (item 2, figures as minuted); Drive folder 22. CSB 5.21.25 (contents)

OBSERVATION A non-meeting with counsel was announced after the roll call, and the recording resumes about half a minute later

After the roll, the chair says "there has been a request from our legal counsel to have a non meeting before the meeting." and asks the audience to be patient (0:00:45). The next transcript row, a single Okay., begins at 0:01:03, and the chair resumes business at 0:01:20. Consultation with legal counsel is excluded from the definition of a meeting by RSA 91-A:2, I(b), so the consultation itself needed no public session. Two points of record remain. The approved minutes place it "Before start of meeting", while the recording shows it after the call to order and roll call. And the recording runs almost continuously across the pause, so either the consultation was very short or the camera was stopped and the file joined; the video cannot decide which (see the project's method note on zero-gap recordings). A minutes line giving the time out and time back would settle it.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I(b) (consultation with legal counsel is not a meeting); Approved minutes 5.21.25 ("Before start of meeting")

OBSERVATION Donors who asked not to be named are named in the posted agenda and the approved minutes

The chair introduced the field-trip gift as one "in which we're not supposed to mention who it's from." (0:05:44). During the consent agenda a member named the donors aloud, and the superintendent explained "the donors have asked that we do not publicize their name." (0:13:18); the chair replied "Which we just did." and added that the request came after "When this was printed." (0:13:30, 0:13:35). The posted agenda (consent item 5) and the approved minutes, approved two weeks later, both print the donors' names with the $4,000 amount. This page does not repeat the names. No statute requires a district to withhold a donor's name; the observation is that the board's own documents did not follow the request it acknowledged on the record, including the minutes it approved after hearing it.

Sources: CSB Agenda 5.21.25, consent item 5; Approved minutes 5.21.25, consent item 5