Claremont School Board — May 18, 2016

OBSERVATION A "personnel matter" went to nonpublic session under the reputation exemption, II(c), and the roll-call vote is not on the recording

At 0:01:39 the superintendent asked for a nonpublic session "Per RSA 91 a three Roman numeral two. See the personnel matter." At the end of the meeting the chair said "I think if it's personnel, it needs to be nonpublic, either A or C." and the superintendent answered "This would be C." (2:59:41, 2:59:48). The motion that followed cited the paragraph and letter (3:00:17), and Pierce seconded; stating the exemption on the face of the motion is what RSA 91-A:3, I(b) required, and the board did so.

Two points remain for a reviewer. First, fit: as the statute read in 2016, II(a) covered "The dismissal, promotion, or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him or her", while II(c) covered matters that "would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself". The chair's own question shows the board weighing the two; the subject was not stated, so the choice cannot be tested here. Second, the roll call: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) required a roll-call vote to enter nonpublic session. "All right. Roll call." is heard at 3:00:27, but the next words on the recording are an aside and then "We're back." seven seconds later (3:00:39), so the recording was evidently stopped or cut across the vote and the session. Removing the nonpublic discussion from a public recording is appropriate; the public vote to enter it, however, is not on the tape. The minutes would show the roll call and whether the nonpublic minutes were released within 72 hours or sealed by a recorded two-thirds vote under paragraph III; none are online.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b), II(a), II(c), III (2015 codification, the text in force on May 18, 2016).

OBSERVATION With six weeks of the fiscal year left, $323,028 remained unencumbered in a $31.19 million general fund and spending was frozen, chiefly because of unbudgeted out-of-district placements

The business administrator reported at 1:58:10 and 1:58:34 that of a general fund budget of about $31.19 million, all but $323,028 was spent or encumbered, and that he had emailed a freeze "about five minutes ago". Several locations and functions were over budget: Maple Avenue by $147,963 (preschool costs moved there), Stevens by $352,174, the elementary-wide location by about $82,000 and special education by $144,188, which he attributed mostly to students who moved in already placed out of district. He said revenues were running $567,466 above budget, including a $408,000 health trust premium holiday against about $100,000 expected and Medicaid near $530,000 against $400,000 budgeted, which is why he could "sleep at night".

The frame for this in 2016: RSA 32:8 barred a school board from spending or incurring liability beyond its appropriations except as RSA 32:9 to 32:11 allow, and RSA 32:10, I let the governing body move an unexpended balance from one appropriation to another during the year, so long as total spending did not exceed the total appropriated. On the figures reported, overruns at some locations were being covered by balances elsewhere and the total stayed within the appropriation, so no violation appears; the observation is that the margin was about one percent of the budget and depended on unexpected revenue. The board took no vote. The superintendent's description of catastrophic aid, "a limitation as to how much you will be reimbursed", matches the statute as it then read (the State paid 80 percent of a child's costs above 3 1/2 times the state average per pupil, prorated if the appropriation fell short). His estimate that ignoring federal special education law would cost "in excess of $2 million" in federal funding is his characterization and was not verified. The special education director reported the same pressures in detail on June 1.

Sources: RSA 32:8 (limitation on expenditures; 1993, 332:1, unamended); RSA 32:10, I (2016 codification; source note ends 2004, 113:1); RSA 186-C:18, III (2016 codification).

OBSERVATION No agenda, packet or minutes for this meeting are posted online, and the financial reports discussed are not available

MAP.md records that neither district Drive share holds anything before July 2022 (checked 9/26/26), so this page rests on the recording alone, including the business administrator's reports by location, function and object and the revenue sheet, which members had in hand but a reader cannot see. That is a limit of what the district posts online today, not by itself evidence that records were never made: the board approves its May 4 minutes, with a correction, on this recording (0:02:16). In 2016, RSA 91-A:2, II required minutes to be "open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting". The limb of the project's missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2015 codification, in force until January 1, 2017); Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 9.