Claremont School Board — December 7, 2016

OBSERVATION The vice chair was right that the access statute does not say equal; the board adopted counsel's wording without checking

At 1:18:17 and again at 1:23:20 Irish objected that the policy on access to school programs by nonpublic, charter and home educated pupils used the word equal when the statute did not. The superintendent answered that the paragraph "was written by legal counsel" and that the policy "is not optional"; a member suggested asking counsel, and Irish declined to spend legal fees on it. The six policies went to third reading as written.

The statute as it read in December 2016, RSA 193:1-c, I, gave these pupils "access to curricular courses and cocurricular programs" and required that a district's policy "shall not be more restrictive" for them than for its own pupils. The word equal does not appear in the section. Counsel's paraphrase may well capture the "not more restrictive" standard, and the board may have had good reason to keep it; but Irish's reading of the text was accurate, and the concern he raised (a stronger promise in the policy than the law requires) was set aside rather than answered. The final text of policy JJJ is not available to compare.

Sources: RSA 193:1-c, I (2016 codification; source note ends 2016, 4:1, eff. March 26, 2016): access for nonpublic, charter and home educated pupils; policy not more restrictive.

OBSERVATION The nonpublic motion recited its exemption in full, but a roll call was held only after members questioned the view that none was needed

The motion at 1:32:32 stated the ground on its face, in the words of the reputation exemption, although the section is heard as RSA 91 a Dash two rather than 91-A:3, II(c). In 2016, RSA 91-A:3, I(b) required that "Any motion to enter nonpublic session shall state on its face the specific exemption under paragraph II" and that "The vote on any such motion shall be by roll call". When the presiding officer asked whether a roll call was needed, a voice answered "We don't do that, I." and the superintendent "Don't believe." (1:32:51); Adrian began "I thought we." and another voice added Should.; a roll call was then taken. The roll heard Irish, Brent Ferland, Herzog and Sprague voting yes; Adrian's answer is not audible, and the recording ends there. On December 21 the same board took a roll call without prompting, so this looks like uncertainty in the moment rather than a practice. The nonpublic session itself is not recorded, and no vote to seal appears on either recording.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) and II(c) (2015 codification; the 2016 amendments left these sentences unchanged): motion states the exemption; roll call; reputation ground.

OBSERVATION No agenda, packet or minutes for this meeting are posted online, and the recording stops before adjournment

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. The agenda (with its dropped non-meeting item and grant footnote), the Pathway to Success document, the policy drafts and the resignation letters are not available. In 2016, RSA 91-A:2, II required minutes "open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting". The recording shows the board approving the November 16 minutes, and the December 21 recording shows these minutes approved, so minutes were kept. The recording ends during the nonpublic roll call, so any action after the nonpublic session and the adjournment are not on tape. The limb of the missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2015 codification, the text in force until January 1, 2017); Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 20.