Claremont School Board — March 18, 2026

OBSERVATION Unity’s withdrawal from SAU 6 is being implemented through Claremont’s agenda, with no authorizing document in any Claremont packet

Three items this evening follow from it. The SchoolCare resolution, subtitled on the agenda “Returning Dow Employees to SchoolCare coverage” (the Dow is the district’s name for the SAU office building): the business administrator said at 1:55:35 that SAU 6 “didn't get a resolution from the school board” and that he must “check that box off before. Saw six employees get merged to the school district.” The chair at 1:56:11: “So this is part of the, unity does leaving the saw. And it only the saw and the Claremont School District will be one in the same.” The minutes: “before the SAU becomes just Claremont, there needs to be a resolution approved.” And by-law 4.03 delegates three of the clerk’s duties to “the executive assistant at SAU6”, which the chair and clerk agreed must be rewritten (1:01:04).

The mechanism the record points to is Unity’s withdrawal under RSA 194-C:2, IV. The unit continues with Claremont as its one district; this page does not describe it as dissolving. That paragraph assigns the study, fiscal analysis, plan, a public hearing at least 14 days before submission, state board review within 60 days and a three-fifths vote to the planning committee and the withdrawing district, and the withdrawal takes effect when the state board issues its certificate. None of those steps appears in any Claremont packet, agenda or minutes this project holds, and none of them is Claremont’s to take.

Why an Observation. The earlier version of this page graded this MEDIUM. No verified rule places a duty on Claremont’s board that the record shows unmet: the statutory steps belong to Unity and the planning committee, and the “by statute” resolution the business administrator described is not a duty this page could verify (RSA 5-B:5 sets standards for pooled risk programs, not a resolution requirement on a participating district). What is recorded is that a change moving central-office staff to a new employer is being carried out through Claremont’s agenda with no public document behind it in the district’s packets. The SAU 6 board’s own records and Unity’s warrant would settle it.

Sources: RSA 194-C:2, I(a) and IV (withdrawal from an SAU; source note ends 2024, 250:1, 2, eff. July 1, 2024; text read 2026-09-25); RSA 5-B:5 (standards for pooled risk management programs); approved minutes, 3/18/26; 3.18.26 agenda.

OBSERVATION Both ad hoc committees created this evening depart from by-law 1.08, one in size and the other in having no vote

By-law 1.08 requires special or ad hoc committees to be “created at the direction of the CSB” with three members unless the board orders otherwise, and says “The vice-chair shall appoint all special committees and shall designate their chairs, unless otherwise ordered by the CSB by a simple majority.” Rule 4.02 repeats the vice chair’s duty.

• The School Reconfiguration Exploratory Committee has two members, Whitney and Lavalette. It was created on a motion, debated and carried 6–1 on a roll call; no order on its size appears.
• The by-laws review committee (Whitney, Lavalette, Crawford) was named by consensus. The clerk objected at 1:31:30: “No, you needed to vote on it there.” Whitney at 1:31:35: “It was bored consensus.”
• Both were named by the chair. The chair had read rule 1.08 as conflicting with the chair’s appointment power; on the text, rules 1.04 and 4.01 give the chair the standing committees and rules 1.08 and 4.02 give the vice chair the special ones.
• Rule 2.13 says a roll call begins “with the requester of the roll call” and continues alphabetically with the chair last. The minutes say Rapp requested the reconfiguration roll call; the clerk began with Howard.

No statute is engaged, and rule 1.08 lets the board order otherwise by simple majority; it did not. The three-member cap was applied elsewhere, and the chair said so aloud at 1:07:56: “we can't have more than three.”

Sources: Claremont School Board By-Laws (live document, read 2026-09-25), rules 1.04, 1.05, 1.08, 2.13, 4.01 and 4.02; approved minutes, 3/18/26.

OBSERVATION A district officer twice told residents at the comment period that their concerns belonged with the superintendent, the second time a parent who is not an employee

At 0:21:01 the business administrator told a staff member who had just spoken: “there's a school board policy that specifically talks about, the union and employees. Those if you have a complaint, you need to address the superintendent.” At 0:36:46, to a parent: “In the future, if you have a concern, there's a school board policy that requires you to go to the superintendent.” She answered “Not a teacher in a different district. I'm just a parent”, and he apologized. Rapp then said at 0:37:09 that “if someone needs to speak up, it should be the chair.” The last speaker read the district’s staff email citing policy BCC into the record and called it “collective punishment”. The interim superintendent explained at 1:11:21 that the email concerned program questions and that its timing was not aimed at the meeting, and at 1:11:50: “you're always welcome as community members, if you're a community member to speak up as a community member.”

No verified rule was breached. RSA 189:74 requires a school board to “provide the opportunity for the public to comment on school district matters” for no less than 30 minutes. Both speakers had finished; nobody was cut off. The period ran about 26 minutes, from 0:17:06 to 0:42:42, and closed after the chair asked for more speakers and none came forward; whether the 30 minutes is a floor on opportunity or on elapsed time is not settled by the text. The chair then opened board discussion of the comments, as policy BEDH §B.5 provides. What is recorded is that it was not the chair who addressed the speakers, and that a member had to say so.

Sources: RSA 189:74 (public comment; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022); policy BEDH, linked from the agenda; approved minutes, 3/18/26. Policy BCC itself is not in this packet.

OBSERVATION What the meeting shows about the March 10 vote, and a two-dollar gap between the warrant and the MS-22 the board signed

No election return is in the district’s shares. The meeting supplies the outcome indirectly. The operating budget passed: the MS-22 (“Report of Appropriations as Voted”) books every line to article 02, with School Administration Service to “02,03”, and totals $42,957,715, the proposed budget rather than the $44,449,704 default. Open enrollment passed, per the chair at 0:10:37 and Rep. Damon at 0:23:57. The property articles passed, per the business administrator at 1:54:22. The petitioned tax cap did not: “If the tax cap had gone through” (1:18:20). Turnout was 28% (0:52:57).

RSA 21-J:34, II requires the governing body to certify the appropriations voted and file the report “within 20 days of the close of the meeting”. March 10 plus twenty days is March 30, the date the business administrator gave; the form prints “Form Due Date: 20 Days after the Annual Meeting”. It was generated March 12 and signed at the table on March 18.

The warrant for Article 2, as read at the February 7 deliberative session, put the operating budget at $42,957,713. The MS-22 reports $42,957,715; its own subtotals add to that figure. Two dollars does not affect the tax rate, which is why this is an observation. It is recorded because the form is certified “Under penalties of perjury”, and because the posted copy carries an unsigned certification block, so the public packet does not show who signed.

Sources: MS22.pdf generated 3/12/2026; certification unsigned in the posted copy; RSA 21-J:34, II (2007, 182:2, eff. Apr. 1, 2007); RSA 40:13, VII (second session on the second Tuesday in March); the February 7, 2026 deliberative session page for the warrant figures.

OBSERVATION Five of the ten residents who spoke asked for a public process for choosing the next superintendent

The requests, from Beaton, Rhines, Springer-Blake, Edwards and Bean: publish the finalists’ names; hold public forums; let candidates walk the schools; hold staff meetings; survey families; put someone other than the board and one principal on the interview panel; and slow down. Rhines at 0:20:33: “They'll be coming in and facing a massive uphill battle of having to earn our trust and respect”. Bean at 0:29:26: “what the people want, they want a real process.”

No rule requires a public superintendent search, and discussion of named candidates is what RSA 91-A:3, II(b) permits in nonpublic session. The board’s response on the record: Howard asked whether there would be a report and was told yes; the committee chair gave the numbers; the recommendation went into nonpublic session that night with its minutes sealed for four weeks. None of the specific requests was answered on the recording or in the minutes.

Sources: the recording at the timestamps above; approved minutes, 3/18/26, which name all ten speakers by ward; RSA 91-A:3, II(b).

OBSERVATION The recording stops at the nonpublic roll call, so the appointment of a moderator pro tempore is recorded only in three lines of minutes

The stated 6:36 p.m. call to order plus the recording position of the nonpublic roll call (1:58:13) gives about 8:34 p.m., matching the minutes. The board returned at 9:49 p.m. and adjourned at 10:00 p.m.; Other Business, “Appointment of Moderator”, fell in those eleven minutes. Asked what followed, the chair said at 1:59:20 it was “just a discussion of moderator and that's a very small item”, and Howard asked at 1:59:39: “Should we warn CCTV that that like, do we think there's enough of a conversation about the moderator or.”

No rule requires a meeting to be recorded, and the item was noticed on the agenda. It is recorded because the appointment of the officer who presides at the district meeting is absent from the public video.

Sources: approved minutes, 3/18/26 (8:34 p.m., 9:49 p.m., 10:00 p.m.); 3.18.26 agenda. CCTV’s coverage is discussed on the recording; see the maintainer disclosure in the footer.