Claremont School Board — January 4, 2017

OBSERVATION Five collective bargaining agreements were voted onto the ballot before any cost figure was stated in public, and with the unions' ratification status only partly on the record

The board voted on the five agreements between 0:11:28 and 0:12:50. No cost figure for any agreement was read before or during those votes. The cost items came about an hour later, when O'Neill presented his year-over-year sheet (1:06:26), explaining that "I couldn't really go public with what those numbers look like" before ratification. At the start of the meeting the superintendent said the agreements, apart from the paraprofessionals', had not been ratified by the parties, then corrected himself that the teachers had ratified (0:01:26, 0:01:47); the recording does not say whether the transportation and maintenance, secretaries' and administrators' units had ratified by the time of the vote.

The procedure itself fits the statute: in 2017, RSA 273-A:3, II(b) provided that "Only cost items shall be submitted to the legislative body of the public employer for approval at the next annual meeting", which is what a vote to place an agreement on the ballot does. The point for a reader is sequence: someone watching the votes learned what the agreements would cost only later in the meeting, and the cost figures on the tape are heavily garbled (see flag 5). Members had the superintendent's January 3 memo, which is not available.

Sources: RSA 273-A:3, II(b) (source note ends 2013, 244:1, eff. Sept. 22, 2013, so the current text governs 2017): only cost items go to the legislative body at the next annual meeting.

OBSERVATION The nonpublic motion named no statutory basis ("for negotiations")

At 0:09:03 the chair called for a motion "for nonpublic for negotiations"; a roll call followed and all audible answers were yes. In 2017, 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." Paragraph II has no collective-bargaining ground, because the statute handles bargaining differently: RSA 91-A:2, I(a) excludes "Strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining" from the definition of a meeting altogether. A board discussing bargaining strategy therefore did not need a nonpublic session at all, which is why this is graded as an observation, not the MEDIUM given to the "for personnel" motion on the January 11 page, where a paragraph II exemption was required and not named.

Two caveats. The superintendent said the session was also to "discuss some financials" of the agreements (0:01:26); whether that went beyond bargaining strategy cannot be told from the tape. And Irish's remark on return, "One of them is the residency issue.", is unexplained. The session was brief: the board was back in about a minute of recording time.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) (2017 codification; source note ends 2016, 30:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2017); RSA 91-A:2, I(a) (2016 codification, the text in force for calendar 2017): collective bargaining strategy is not a meeting.

OBSERVATION A Saturday budget work session of the board was set for January 7; no recording or minutes of it are available online

The board scheduled a Saturday session at 8:00 in the tech center (1:14:04) to go through the budget line by line. Irish said "it's just going to be us"; five members attended, according to Sprague on the January 11 recording, which is a quorum and so a meeting under RSA 91-A:2, I, carrying the notice and minutes duties of RSA 91-A:2, II. The record here is favorable on notice: the chair appears to ask that it be posted (the transcript reads "And Penny post as well, only to warn the meeting.") and the superintendent said he would send out "an agenda that's going to be worn [warned] to all the members".

MAP.md lists no Cablecast recording for January 7, and the district's online shares begin in July 2022, so neither the notice nor minutes can be inspected. The work product mattered: on January 11 the vice chair put the board's resulting reduction list at $897,254. Graded as an observation about online availability under the project's missing-records rule.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I and II (2016 codification, in force for calendar 2017): meeting of a quorum; 24-hour notice; minutes; Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md sections 22 and 23.

OBSERVATION No agenda, packet, budget documents or minutes for this meeting are posted online

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 PowerPoint, the three budget handouts and the superintendent's January 3 memo on the agreements are not available. In 2017, 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 December 21 minutes at 0:03:40, so minutes were being kept; whether this meeting's were timely cannot be tested from here. The limb of the missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2016 codification, in force for calendar 2017); Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 22.