Claremont School Board, June 3, 2025

OBSERVATION Four policies posted as first reads were adopted outright, and policy ADC was adopted though it was on neither the agenda nor in the packet

The agenda lists GBEF, GBEF-R, JICL, JICL-R, JICK, IHBA and CHCA under "Policy Sub-Committee ... First Reads" (agenda text). On GBEF the chair asked "Do you think we'll need a second read for this or would you like to try to adopt it?" and Hawkins answered "I don't think we need a second read." (1:34:56, 1:35:00). GBEF (1:35:44), JICL (1:37:07), JICK (1:38:23) and IHBA (1:39:57) were each adopted on a voice vote with none opposed; the chair's JICL announcement ends "policy is adopted. First reading.". CHCA was handled differently: the packet copy "is not the revised one." (1:40:50), and the board moved it to a second reading with the amendments stated on the floor (1:47:07).

Policy ADC was then presented as "which is not in your packet." (1:47:31), a revision "to include these e-cigarettes" (1:48:13), and adopted after the chair asked "Is, is the board comfortable adopting this without a second read?" (1:48:23, 1:48:36). ADC is not on the posted agenda, and the only floor amendment at the start of the meeting added a handbook discussion (0:00:17). By contrast, Hawkins explains that rescinding the two superseded bullying policies must wait because "we have to have seven days notice for withdrawing" (1:38:08). The public had the GBEF, JICL, JICK and IHBA texts in the packet, but no text of ADC as adopted. No statute sets the number of readings, so this is an observation about the board's own procedure and the record available to the public.

Sources: CSB Agenda 6.3.25 (policies listed as First Reads); Drive folder 23. CSB 6.3.25 (no ADC exhibit); Approved minutes 6.3.25 (item 8, ADC)

OBSERVATION The assessment results were presented from slides that the agenda calls Exhibit A, but no Exhibit A is in the public packet

The agenda item reads "Presentation of Grade 3-8 NHSAS results and Grade 11 School Day SAT results and other internal benchmarks (Discussion) (Exhibit A)" (agenda text). The assistant superintendent presented from slides showing school-level and grade-level results against the state average (0:02:21 to 0:50:29). The packet folder holds Exhibits B through I, the agenda and the May 21 draft minutes, ten documents in all; no Exhibit A was found there or by a Drive title search. The figures a reader can recover come only from the recording: grade 11 science "last year, which was 39% huge improvement" (0:02:52), fifth-grade i-Ready reading proficiency "was only 36%" against "Fifth grade on the Sass test was 48%." (0:08:02, 0:08:22), and a district SAT combined score "in the 1050 range" (0:50:05). No statute requires a district to post presentation slides; the observation is that the agenda promised an exhibit the public packet does not contain.

Sources: CSB Agenda 6.3.25 (item III.1, Exhibit A); Drive folder 23. CSB 6.3.25 (contents)

OBSERVATION A member proposed making state-test opt-outs harder; state law requires a district form and bars penalizing exempted students

William Madden: "I think we should make it uncomfortable to opt out." and "Why don't we make them sign a form and they got to come into the school and sign the form?" (0:19:21). The same transcript segment, labeled as Madden, also carries the reply "We can't exactly put up barriers to a state rule." and the participation figure "We had 95% participation." (0:19:46); the approved minutes credit that reply to Assistant Superintendent Koski. RSA 193-C:6, as amended effective October 1, 2024, provides that "A school district shall develop a form to be signed by the parent or legal guardian of any student exempted" and that "A school district shall not penalize any exempted student" (statute text). No motion was made, and the administration's answer on the record matches the statute. Recorded here because a future change to the opt-out process would have to fit within that section.

Sources: RSA 193-C:6 (parental exemption from the statewide assessment; source note ends 2024, 350:3, eff. Oct. 1, 2024); Approved minutes 6.3.25 (Koski's reply)

OBSERVATION The approved minutes credit some remarks to people the recording does not support, and the consent agenda again passed without a vote

The approved minutes say "Mary Henry shared that the district has two psychology interns through a partnership with Plymouth State starting next year" (minutes text). On the recording that account is given in the superintendent's voice (1:04:30 to 1:05:15), and the dialogue file attributes no row to Henry, although the chair addresses "Mary, thank you for getting those procedures." near the end (1:51:00). The minutes also give Hawkins the questions about summer professional development and whether the Skillful Teacher course is free, which the dialogue file gives the chair (0:26:50, 1:09:47). These may be diarizer merges; the minutes are the board's official record, so the differences are shown rather than resolved.

The consent agenda (the agenda change and the 5/21 minutes) passed when the chair said "There'll be no vote, but it just allows us to have an opportunity for discussion." and then "Seeing none, the consent agenda is approved and the minutes are adopted." (0:00:54). The agenda labels the consent agenda "vote required" (agenda text); the minutes record "Consent approval of all consent agenda items" (minutes text). No statute requires a counted vote on approving minutes; the observation is that the board's practice differs from its own agenda wording.

Sources: Approved minutes 6.3.25; CSB Agenda 6.3.25 ("Consent Agenda (vote required)")