Claremont School Board — August 3, 2016

OBSERVATION The board voted on whether to defy the ruling while appealing it; the motion failed, and the chair's account of the appeal's effect is not what the appeal statute says

At 1:04:44 Irish moved "that we do not comply with the PLO, be ruling" [the ruling for the teachers' association; the attribution report reads the transcript's PLO, be and PR LP as the PELRB] and continue the A/B schedule "while pursuing an appeal". The motion failed 3 to 4 on a roll call (1:46:23). During the debate the chair said the ruling was "not a court order" (1:22:18) and that "part of that system allows us to continue on with the schedule as we have it and continue to appeal" (1:31:57); Pierce said "we're not breaking any laws"; Brent and Becky Ferland and Adrian argued for appealing while complying.

The Valley News reported the next day that an arbitrator had ordered a return to the old block schedule and that the Public Employee Labor Relations Board had found an unfair labor practice and ordered compliance. If that is right, the appeal ran under RSA 273-A:14, which sends review of a PELRB final order through RSA 541, and RSA 541:18 provides that "No appeal or other proceedings taken from an order of the commission shall suspend the operation of such order", though "the supreme court may order a suspension". On that reading the chair's statement overstated what an appeal allows, and the majority's refusal to defy the order was the course the statute contemplates. The page does not have the arbitrator's award, the PELRB decision or counsel's advice, so it cannot say what the order required or when; that is why this is an observation rather than a finding.

Sources: RSA 273-A:14 (2016 codification; source 1975, 490:2): review of a PELRB final order "in the manner prescribed in RSA 541"; RSA 541:18 (2016 codification; source ends 1951, 203:16): an appeal does not suspend the order unless the supreme court so orders; reporting: Valley News, August 4, 2016 (Patrick O'Grady).

OBSERVATION The board had met with counsel in a session the recording does not show; a member then described counsel's advice in public

Speaking to the appeal motion at 1:48:55, Sprague said "I like the lawyers recommendation that it becomes a a negotiating chip as we move forward with negotiations." The chair responded "That was not in public." and "But that was nonpublic." Earlier, asking for a break, he said "some of us have been here since 530" (0:46:00). The recording begins at the approval of minutes, so no call to order, roll call, or motion to enter nonpublic session is on the tape.

In 2016 RSA 91-A:2, I excluded "Consultation with legal counsel" and "Strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining" from the definition of a meeting, and RSA 91-A:3, I(b) required any motion to enter nonpublic session to "state on its face the specific exemption under paragraph II" on a roll call, with minutes under 91-A:3, III. Which route the board used, and whether it was followed, cannot be tested from here: the start of the meeting was not recorded and no minutes are online. This page identified no provision of RSA 91-A then in force that barred a member from repeating counsel's advice in public; the chair's objection reads as a caution, not a ruling.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I(a)-(b) (2015 codification, in force through 2016): collective bargaining strategy and consultation with legal counsel excluded from "meeting"; RSA 91-A:3, I(b) and III (2015 and 2016 codifications identical on these passages).

OBSERVATION With school weeks away, a run of motions left the schedule undecided, and several tallies are not fully audible

After the non-compliance motion failed and the appeal passed, the board voted on keeping the A/B schedule "till we get a ruling" (1:50:00); the chair seconded it, then answered the roll "I'll go. No." (1:58:36), and it failed 2 to 5 as heard. He then moved to reconsider (2:00:36; "which is why I made the motion to reconsider", 2:11:32). His No is consistent with the common parliamentary rule that reconsideration is moved from the prevailing side, which a voice on the tape states at 2:23:50, but he gives no reason on the record. The reconsideration roll call (2:23:07) failed with Adrian's answer unclear and the chair's vote not heard. A motion "that we comply" was then made and seconded with no terms ("We need a whole lot more detail motion than that because we don't know what that means."), and after a seven-minute recess the whole matter was tabled to a special meeting on a voice vote (2:35:40).

No statute governs this sequence; the board's own rules of procedure are not in the record. The effect for a reader is that the public left without a decision on the schedule for a school year starting weeks later, and that the only complete tallies available are the one on the tape and the one in the press. The August 9 recording shows the school board then authorizing its chair to sign an agreement with the teachers (see the August 9 page); no record of a special meeting between the two dates was found in MAP.md.

Sources: No statute identified; board rules of procedure not located. Reporting: Valley News, August 4, 2016.

OBSERVATION An 8% pay addition of $157,000 for some high school teachers was tied to the schedule; its approval route is not in the record

The superintendent listed among the consequences of reverting that "the 8% additional compensation of $157,000 for our colleagues will be gone" (1:59:43); the chair later said "the high school teachers are getting their 8% raise"; and the principal added that "Not everybody on the staff got the 8%" (2:32:49), naming guidance counselors, the nurse, support staff and special educators. Richard Seaman said the money question had been "corrected during the hearing". Nothing on the recording says how the 8% was authorized. Under RSA 273-A:1, IV a "cost item" is a benefit acquired through collective bargaining whose implementation requires an appropriation, and RSA 273-A:3, II(b) sends only cost items to the legislative body for approval. Whether this addition was a bargained cost item, and if so whether voters approved it, would need the agreement and the warrant; neither is available here.

Sources: RSA 273-A:3, II(b) (source note ends 2013, 244:1); RSA 273-A:1, IV (source note ends 2014, 13:1, 2), gc.nh.gov.

OBSERVATION The recording omits the start and end of the meeting, and no agenda or minutes are online

The tape opens at the approval of the July 6 minutes (0:00:05) and ends on the tabling vote at 2:36:10, so the call to order, roll call, any session before it, and the adjournment are not in the public recording. During the second recess the chair spoke with the principal about "an opportunity to actually meet" (2:33:50); what else was discussed off tape is unknown. MAP.md records that neither district Drive share holds anything before July 2022 (checked 9/26/26). That is a limit of what the district posts online, not evidence that minutes were never kept: the recording shows the July 6 minutes being approved. Under the project's missing-records rule this is an online-availability observation for 2016.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2015 codification): minutes open to inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting; Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 11.