Claremont School Board — April 19, 2017

OBSERVATION $11,787 of unspent health insurance money was voted toward resurfacing a City-owned track, a purpose not in the year's budget

At 2:25:47 the superintendent explained that the City manager had asked for help with a track resurfacing that was "2 or 3 years late"; the district had money because the health insurance rate came in below what was budgeted, and "We didn't talk about it when we were doing this year's budget." Business Administrator O'Neill confirmed at 2:36:52 that the guaranteed maximum rate "went down after the budget was set. So there is a this money left in that account." The chair put the motion himself (2:33:03), a member moved it, a second was taken, and the board approved it by voice vote at 2:39:28, with no call for opposition audible.

In April 2017, RSA 32:10, I let a governing body move money between appropriations when changes "make it necessary to expend more than the amount appropriated for a specific purpose", provided total spending stayed within the total appropriated, and paragraph I(b) required records from which any citizen could "ascertain the purposes of appropriations to which, and from which, amounts have been transferred". The recording does not say which appropriation the payment was charged to, whether a transfer was recorded, or what the district would own or receive for the payment. No provision verified for this page addresses whether a school district may contribute to a municipal facility its students use; the discussion on the record (the track built for the Stevens team with donated money, and school teams accounting for most field use) goes to the practical case. This is an observation because the governing records are not available online, not a finding that anything was done wrong. On the other side: the superintendent brought the request to a public meeting rather than acting alone ("But I didn't want to go forward without being public about it"), and the motion was debated in public for about fourteen minutes.

Sources: RSA 32:10, I and I(b) (2016 codification, in force until 2017, 127:4, eff. Aug. 15, 2017): transfers between appropriations and the records that must show them.

OBSERVATION The superintendent offered to relay members' e-mailed priorities to one another

Asking members to send him their preferred budget-presentation topics, the superintendent said at 2:22:06: "You can't you can't communicate over the email with your board members, but you can share it with me and I can share it with you." His caution against members e-mailing one another matches the statute. The offer to pass their views along is the pattern RSA 91-A:2-a, II addresses: as then in force it provided that communications outside a meeting, "including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body", shall not be used to circumvent the chapter's purpose, and paragraph I required public bodies to deliberate on matters within their authority only in meetings. The subject here was which topics staff would present, a scheduling matter, and nothing on the record shows that any member's view was in fact relayed. The point is recorded because the same channel, used for a substantive question, would raise the statutory concern.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2-a, I and II (2016 codification; source 2008, 303:4): deliberation only in meetings; sequential communications may not be used to circumvent the chapter.

OBSERVATION A district presentation argued against a pending bill, and the superintendent proposed a district letter to parents about it

Under the agenda item for the fiscal 2019 budget, the superintendent spent about seven minutes (1:30:43 to 1:37:27) on Senate Bill 93 (the transcript also renders it "Senate Bill 193" at 1:34:00; on April 5 he called it Senate Bill 193) and House Bill 356, saying he had testified in Concord and urging that community members "make a choice whether they wish to express their feelings to their legislators". Members joined in (the chair at 2:12:30: "Basically to to dismantle public education."). Asked to post the information on the website, he said at 2:10:44 that with the board's approval he would write to parents, that "it would not be please vote for this", and that it would "be inappropriate to use municipal funds to influence a resident".

The line he drew tracks RSA 659:44-a as in force in 2017, which bars a public employee from electioneering in the performance of official duties and defines electioneering as acting "specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office". A bill before the legislature is not a question put to the district's voters, so that statute does not reach this presentation, and no other provision verified for this page limits a school district's advocacy on pending legislation. It is recorded as an observation so that a reader of the district's later letter, if one was sent, can check it against the standard the superintendent set for himself. The cost figures in the presentation are his characterization and are not verified here.

Sources: RSA 659:44-a, I and III (2019 codification; source note ends 2016, 176:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2017, so the text in force in April 2017): public employees may not electioneer on duty; "electioneer" defined by reference to a voter's vote on a question or office.

OBSERVATION No agenda, packet 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. That is a limit of what the district posts online, not by itself evidence that records were never made: the recording shows a written agenda and packet in use and shows the board approving the April 5 minutes at 0:02:16. In April 2017, RSA 91-A:2, II required minutes to include the names of members, persons appearing before the body and a brief description of the subject matter and final decisions, and to be "open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting". Whether that was met cannot be tested from here. The limb of the project's missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation, because the recording itself shows minutes being kept and approved. The nonpublic session's minutes (flag 5) are likewise not available.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2016 codification; source note ends 2016, 29:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2017, so the text in force for all of 2017): minutes content and five-business-day inspection; Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 31.