Claremont School Board, May 18, 2016

OBSERVATION Nonpublic session for a "personnel matter" under RSA 91-A:3, II(c), first requested as a "non meeting"

At the agenda vote the superintendent asked the board "to go into a non meeting at the end of this meeting. Per RSA 91 a three Roman numeral two. See the personnel matter." (0:01:39). At the end the chair said "if it's personnel, it needs to be nonpublic, either A or C" and the superintendent answered "This would be C." (2:59:41). Brent Ferland began the motion and the superintendent supplied the citation (3:00:17, 3:00:22); Michelle Pierce seconded (3:00:26) and a roll call was called (3:00:27). The recording ends about 20 seconds later, so the roll-call answers, the length of the session, and any return to public session are not on tape.

Two points for a reviewer. First, in 2016 RSA 91-A:2, I took only collective bargaining strategy, consultation with legal counsel and a party caucus out of the definition of a meeting; there was no "non meeting" category for personnel matters, and the board correctly used a nonpublic session instead. Second, II(c) covers "Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself"; the employee-specific grounds are II(a) (dismissal, promotion, compensation, discipline) and II(b) (hiring). The motion did state an exemption on its face and a roll call was called, which is what I(b) requires. Whether II(c) fit the matter cannot be judged from the recording, so this is an observation, not a finding.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b), II(a)-(c), III (2015 codification; source note ends 2015, 270:2 and 105:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2016); RSA 91-A:2, I (2015 codification; the three exclusions from the definition of a meeting)

OBSERVATION Out-of-district placements drove the year's largest overruns; the legal framework described is broadly accurate, one figure is unsupported

The business administrator traced deficits at Stevens High School and in the elementary-wide account to out-of-district placements, some of which "can be $150,000 a year placements" (2:10:12). Staff told the board that placements are made by a team, that the law requires the least restrictive environment, and that "if a single child's version of a free and appropriate, appropriate public education requires an out of district placement, then that's what we as a community are required to provide for them" (2:10:42, 2:13:00). That matches 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A), which allows separate schooling "only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." The superintendent's description of catastrophic aid, "there's a limitation as to how much you will be reimbursed after you spend so much" (2:38:50), matches RSA 186-C:18, III as it read in 2016: the state paid 80 percent of costs above 3 1/2 times the state average per-pupil expenditure, up to 10 times, prorated when the appropriation fell short.

Two cautions. The superintendent's statement that refusing to follow the law would cost a penalty "in excess of $2 million" (2:13:44) is his characterization; the page could not tie it to a figure in the record. And the discussion went ahead without the special education director: a member asked why he attends so rarely (2:38:13), and the chair said "We're leaving Chris Bezos out of it." [the director, surname not established] (2:19:34). The business administrator asked that he come to the next meeting (2:15:19).

Sources: 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A) (least restrictive environment); RSA 186-C:18, III (2016 codification; source note ends 2011, 224:227)

OBSERVATION Several accounts over budget late in the year, with the year-end balance resting on one-time revenue

With about six weeks of the fiscal year left, the business administrator reported "I'm sitting on 323028 left, which concerns me a little bit. So I just sent an email about five minutes ago to freeze the budget for everybody." (1:58:34). Maple Avenue was "upside down. 147963" after the preschool moved there; elementary-wide was "over by 82,000"; building-level administration was "$100,000 upside down" because a high-school position budgeted as special education was being charged as an assistant principal; an athletic trainer "always shows up but never seems to get budgeted" (1:58:55, 2:00:02, 2:20:59, 1:59:20). On the revenue side a health trust premium holiday brought $408,000 against about $100,000 expected, and total revenue ran "$567,466" ahead (2:29:53, 2:30:13). Asked whether the premium holiday would recur, he answered "That was it." (2:34:23).

RSA 32:10, I, as it read in 2016, let the governing body transfer an unexpended balance to an appropriation that needed more, provided total spending stayed within the total appropriated, and required records from which a citizen could ascertain the purposes transferred to and from. The general fund was still positive overall, so nothing on this recording shows spending beyond the total appropriation. No transfer was voted at this meeting, and with no minutes or year-end report available, this page cannot say how the overspent accounts were covered.

Sources: RSA 32:10, I and I(a)-(b) (2016 codification; source note ends 2004, 113:1, in force until Aug. 15, 2017)

OBSERVATION Policy JLCA adopted on the understanding that a reference would be removed afterwards

A member noticed that policy JLCA (physical examination of students) still cited No Child Left Behind (2:51:13). Rather than return the policy for a third reading, the superintendent asked for approval "with the understanding that No Child Left Behind will be redacted" (2:51:51), and the board adopted it by voice vote (2:52:06, 2:52:15). The board voted on a text that was to be edited afterwards, and the edited text was not read into the record. No rule this page could verify forbids that, but the adopted wording can only be confirmed from the district's policy file.

Sources: Cablecast: SCHOOL BOARD MEETING 5-18-16