Participants
Everyone the record places in the room: the moderator, the six sitting board members, the SAU administrators the superintendent introduced, the meeting's clerk and camera, and every voter the approved minutes name as having spoken. Name spellings follow the approved minutes; where the minutes, the recording and the project's dialogue file disagree, the row gives every version rather than picking one silently. The minutes group the eighteen floor speakers by position — in favour, opposed, concerns — not in the order they spoke, and the recording leaves most of them unnamed, so no row claims to match a named person to a particular timestamp unless the recording itself supplies the name.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Tracy Pope | Moderator, Claremont School District — presiding officer | Ran the entire meeting. Welcomed the room, asked Bonnie Miles to lead the Pledge, called on the board chair for introductions, thanked the CCTV director and the two staff who set the meeting up, read the Rules of Procedure aloud, took the minutes motion, moved both warrant articles, verified that everyone who had signed the secret-ballot request was present, explained the row-by-row balloting procedure, ruled that a voter must "speak to the agriculture [article], not ask a question to the board", put the question, announced the result, and closed the session. Identification note: she is never named on the recording — the transcript catches only "Madam Moderator", and the project's dialogue file therefore carries her as Unidentified. She is named here on three documents: the approved and draft minutes ("Meeting called to order by Moderator, Tracy Pope"), the packet's Rules of Procedure, headed "Deliberative Session Rules of Procedure Tracy Pope, Moderator", and the minutes of the November 3, 2022 special district meeting ("Meeting called to order by Moderator Tracy Pope at 6:30 PM"). She presided over a session at which her own seat — moderator, one-year term — was on the warrant for the March 14 ballot; this project's corpus notes record her as returned unopposed at that election. |
| Michael Petrin | Chair, Claremont School Board — attending as a voter | Introduced the board at 0:01:46 — the cleanest formal roll of the pre-election board anywhere in this corpus, though the transcript mangles almost every name in it: "I like featuring the chairman of the Fairmont School Board. We have Frank Sprague, school board member Stephen Hauschka, school board member, Whitney School and school board member, Bonnie Miles, board member. And Heather Whitney, vice chair." Moved approval of the November 3, 2022 special district minutes, and per the minutes "asks that the moderator move the question to vote" on the amendment. The moderator introduces him as "chairman of the school board, Michael Patron" and thanks "Chairman Peter". He lost the March 14, 2023 one-year-seat race and left the board; a "Petrin" voice between mid-March 2023 and March 2024 is not a board member. |
| Heather Whitney | Vice Chair, Claremont School Board — attending as a voter, Ward 3 | Read Article 2 into the record at 0:10:09, including both budget figures and the whole of Note A, and was thanked as "Vice Chairman Whitney". Then spoke against the amendment at 0:33:37 — the board's only sustained defence of its own process: "It's a misperception that no conversations had occurred," and "I really urge this community to take a deep breath, recognize that perhaps you haven't watched every board meeting, that perhaps you haven't review all the things that we have reviewed, and that what you seem to think was just a hasty, off the cuff vote was most likely not that." A later speaker called that account "disingenuous" (flag 9). The minutes list her among those opposed to the amendment, giving her ward as 3. Not to be confused with member Whitney Skillen — two people, one shared name, in the same room. |
| Whitney Skillen | Board member — attending as a voter | Read Article 1 aloud, per the approved minutes: "School board member Whitney Skillen reads Article I." On the recording the hand-off at 0:06:32 survives only as "The lottery recognizes what keeps them", which is what this transcriber does to the moderator recognising Whitney Skillen; the reading that follows is assigned by the dialogue file to the moderator's diarized cluster, so the page relies on the minutes for the attribution and shows the garble rather than hiding it. Not otherwise heard. Rendered Skillet, Skilling, Miss Gillan, Scullin across this corpus; here she comes through as "Whitney School". |
| Steven Horsky | Board member — attending as a voter, Ward 2 | The member who had moved the $1,000,000 cut at the January 17 budget hearing, and he owned it from the floor at 0:35:06: "Even asking [Steve Horsky,] Ward two, probably the elephant in the room, because I'm the one that had the discussion about how I saw a way to save millions of dollars by looking at minimum standards." Argued the cut was efficiency, not reduction — "So we're not following the minimum standards" — and that the only change was "the of the fifth grade, going into the middle school and the eighth grade going to the high school." Per the minutes he seconded both of the night's other motions: Petrin's motion on the November minutes and Sprague's motion to restrict reconsideration. Rendered Hauschka, Mr. Horse Keeper, Even asking on this recording alone. He resigned from the board on June 21, 2023. |
| Frank Sprague | Board member — attending as a voter, Ward 2 | Spoke once, at 0:55:54, to add a factual footnote to the special-education staffing exchange: "Franks great [Frank Sprague,] Ward two. I just want to address quickly what Marion just said. Those positions are budgeted. It's there are not filled." and "So it isn't that we don't have the money to step up, and we just we have the money. We just don't have the people, the staff." Moved to restrict reconsideration of Articles 1 and 2 at 1:43:19 (flag 11). The minutes do not list him among the floor speakers, only as the mover of that motion. Rendered Greg, Craig, Spriggs, Frank. Strange. across this corpus. |
| Bonnie Miles | Board member — attending as a voter | Led the Pledge of Allegiance at the moderator's request — the one thing both the recording and the minutes record her doing, and the only 2023 meeting in this corpus where her participation needs no inference. Not otherwise heard. As in nearly every 2023 Claremont recording, nobody says her name during the meeting except in the chair's introduction. |
| — vacant seat — | Seventh school board seat | Vacant. Six members were introduced and six signed the warrant on January 23, 2023. Joshua Lambert was a sitting board member at the November 3, 2022 special district meeting, per the minutes in this packet, and is in the audience on this night; which seat fell vacant is not stated in either record. The one-year term on the March 14 ballot is the seat's remainder. |
| Michael Tempesta | Superintendent of Schools, SAU 6 | Introduced the SAU administration, per the minutes, then gave the warrant presentation at 0:15:06 and the case for the teachers' contract at 0:25:12: turnover of "22%, 14%, it's 17%" in the first three years, "about 20% turnover of teachers every year for the past two decades", and the reduction's logic — "it is less expensive to shift teachers and staff up, thus leaving enough money for everything else in the budget." Estimated job losses at "minimal loss of actual jobs… But we can't predict that. That's why can't we spoke about the 4 to 7 positions." Then, answering a voter's question about special-education staffing at 0:55:08, made the most consequential statement of the night (flag 2). Superintendent from July 2019 until his dismissal in January 2024 — every 2023 recording in this corpus has Tempesta, never Pratt. Rendered Mr. Dempster elsewhere in this corpus, which reads as a real surname and is dangerous. |
| Richard Seaman | Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations (business administrator), SAU 6 | Gave the budget walkthrough at 0:16:50 — building by building, then revenues, then the tax rate: "a local tax rate of $21.75. Add to that the statewide property tax, which is the dollar 44… gives us a total tax rate of $23.19," a reduction of "$0.39 from what was approved a year ago." Explained the default budget three times, in two irreconcilable ways (flag 1), and closed the night by asking the board to revise it (flag 3). Attribution caution: the dialogue file marks the two later default-budget answers UNCERTAIN, because the moderator introduces the second as coming from "the attorney" while the diarizer puts it in a different cluster from his presentation. Attorney Matt Upton was in the room per the minutes and is never heard elsewhere on the recording; this page does not resolve it. He read his retirement letter to the SAU 6 board on March 30, 2023, effective April 14. Rendered Assistant Superintendent Simmons here. |
| Ben Nester | Director of Special Education, SAU 6 | Introduced by the superintendent, per the minutes. Not heard on the recording. The night's two special-education staffing questions — whether the district has enough one-to-one paraprofessionals to meet IEP and least-restrictive-environment requirements — were answered by the superintendent, not by him. He was the board's de facto secretary through this era, the clerk's seat being vacant. |
| Jeff Small | Director of Technology, SAU 6 | Introduced by the superintendent and thanked by the moderator "who was responsible for coordinating all the technology for tonight's meetings". Not otherwise heard. |
| Matt Upton | School District Attorney | Introduced by the superintendent, per the minutes: "Matt Upton, School District Attorney." Never identified by name on the recording, and no voice on it is attributed to him by the project's dialogue file. He matters anyway: at 1:45:01 the moderator refers a repeat of the default-budget question back to an earlier answer with "I think the attorney has entered [answered] that question about the default budgets earlier" — so either counsel gave the answers this page attributes to the business administrator, or the moderator misspoke. See the method footer. |
| Chelsea Weatherford | Administrative assistant to the Superintendent, SAU 6 — recorded the minutes | Took and submitted the minutes of a school district meeting in place of the elected clerk. The moderator announced it at 0:02:33: "Like to know that in the absence of a board district clerk, Chelsea will also became minutes for tonight's meeting." Thanked in the same breath for organising the session, the hosting and the public notices. No motion to choose a clerk pro tempore appears anywhere in the record (flag 6). Both sets of minutes end "Respectfully submitted by Chelsea Weatherford". |
| Joshua Nelson | Executive Director, Claremont Community TV (CCTV) | Thanked by the moderator at 0:02:21 as the person "who was filming tonight's meeting, just being televised live on CCTV channel a [8]". The recording this page is built from is his. |
| Patrick Adrian | Voter, Ward 1 — mover of the amendment | Moved the only amendment of the night, at 0:29:47. The approved minutes: "Patrick Adrian (Ward 1) makes a motion to increase the proposed operating budget by extending the budget by 1 million dollars; seconded by Joshua Lambert." On the recording the motion is read as "to move to increase the proposed school district operating budget for 2023 2003 [2023-24] for school year by the amount of $1 million, and thereby change the proposed budget, some [sum] to be raised and appropriated from $37,345,812 [$37,345,312]. Do you propose some $38,345,812 [to the proposed sum of $38,345,312]?" His argument: "I do not support this budget as proposed. It is a poison pill, in my opinion," and the objection was to method, not to cutting — "I don't have an inversion [aversion] to… Cutting a budget where the spending cuts have been planned and considered, and that plan has been properly vetted by the community. Unfortunately, none of that can be said about the board's recent decision to cut an additional $1 million." He described himself as "Speaking as a former school board member". The minutes also place him among the speakers in favour. Identification note: the recording never says his name; the minutes name him as the mover, and the moderator's line before the recess — "I'd like to take a short break right now as, Patrick, if you want to see" — is consistent with the written amendment being handed up then, but is not itself proof. |
| Joshua Lambert | Voter — seconded the amendment | Seconded from the floor. The second is audible only as the moderator working out who wrote it — "I think it has to be signed", then "Joshua Lambert second did it" at 0:32:49, then "I couldn't read it. Thank you." The minutes name him as the seconder. He had been introduced as a sitting school board member at the November 3, 2022 special district meeting, whose minutes are in this packet, and moved the amendment to the February 2022 minutes at that meeting; by February 8 the seat he held was the board's vacancy. The minutes do not list him among the floor speakers. |
| Arlene Hawkins | Voter, Ward 3 — spoke against the amendment | The one floor speaker the recording names in her own voice, and she does it by correcting herself mid-sentence at 0:43:51: "I support the… The proposed. Budget because it provides the teachers. Oh, I'm sorry, Arlene Hawkins, more information. I am opposed to. The amendment." Her position separates the two questions the room kept merging: "I support. The proposed budget since it provides our teachers through their contract, their raises… Budget also lowers attachment [the tax rate] by $0.39 per thousand. Supporting this budget does not mean that I support the proposed school restructuring that was presented at the last school board meeting on February 1st," and "Restructuring is not woven into this budget." A candidate, not yet a member — she was elected to the board at the March 14, 2023 ballot session (this project's corpus notes give her vote count as 417, not verified here). The approved minutes give her Ward 3; the draft minutes gave Ward 2 and were corrected. |
| Candace Crawford | Voter, Ward 2 | Self-identified at 1:44:44 — "Candace Crawford, talk to [Ward two]" — and asked the question that produced the meeting's last piece of substance: "with a new but a number of. Well, article two, will the default budget be altered?" She had asked a version of the same question at the February 1 board meeting a week earlier. She is not in the minutes, because she spoke after the moderator had begun the closing. A former board member and chair (this project's corpus notes give her service as 1991–2002, six years of it as chair — not verified against a primary source here) and a citizen on this night; she was appointed back onto the board on July 19, 2023. |
| John Wadsworth "Shawn Wadsworth- Ward 3" in the approved minutes | Voter — spoke in favour of the amendment | At 1:00:16, the angriest two minutes of the night: "We're already asking the teachers to do so much, and they're already being paid nothing currently compared to the other towns around"; "The middle school is a pretty mess. People aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing there. There's investigations left and right and they just bluffs [brush] under the rug"; "This restructuring is the dumbest idea of ever. We're going to take 12 year old kids, and we're going to put them in with 18, 19 year olds who thought that was a good idea"; and on staffing, "you have all these different IEPs that are supposed to be one on one. There's very few one on ones in this in any of these schools districts." Name conflict, unresolved: the recording's sign-in is heard as "And John Wadsworth… Ward two" and the project's dialogue file follows it; the approved minutes list "Shawn Wadsworth- Ward 3" in the in-favour group. Both versions are given here; neither has been verified against a third source. |
| Michelle Beaton | Voter, Ward 2 — recorded in the minutes as expressing concerns | Spoke at 0:40:17 on the district's restructuring committees: "I have been on the results [restructuring] committee from in the past and in this fall and ended the two meetings and just wants the public to be aware that this restructuring proposal was never discussed in any of those meetings." She raised a 2021 commitment — "I was at the meeting in fall 2021 where it was discussed by the board present then that curriculums would be aligned before any restructuring moved forward. I've been told there's not an alignment of curriculums yet" — and closed with a warning quoted back to the board: "if your community is not behind you, you're walking alone. I am not sure that you have the support of your community as you are moving forward with this plan." Identification note: the dialogue file leaves this voice unidentified, because her own sign-in is heard as "Shelby in Ward two" while a nearby voice supplies "Michelle" after the moderator says she cannot hear her. She is named here because the minutes list Michelle Beaton, Ward 2, among the speakers, and because the substance — service on the district restructuring committees, Ward 2 — matches the speaker the same minutes and the February 1 record identify. The inference is stated rather than buried. |
| Scott Pope | Voter, Ward 2 — recorded in the minutes as expressing concerns | Put the night's sharpest procedural question, at 0:50:46: "I think I have a procedural question… the default budget that is, that was proposed on the 17th of. January was 37 million. 342,948, and now the default budget is 36,000,342 and 948. Which would be the default budget that the voters would be voting on… that would actually be a $2 million difference." It is the same question he had put to the board on February 1, with the same figures, and it produced the answer this page flags first (flag 1). Identification note: the dialogue file leaves the voice unidentified; the moderator calls him "Mr. Polk" and the answering official "Mr. Paul", and the moderator's earlier read-out of the secret-ballot signers includes what is heard as "Scott. Hope." The minutes place Scott Pope, Ward 2, among the speakers. The name is offered on that combination, not on any single source. |
| Andy Bernier | New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project — invited to speak after the close | Recognised by the moderator by name at 1:48:00, after she had declared the meeting over. Argued that the evening was a symptom, not an event: "there is a long standing disparity in funding and resources between school districts in New Hampshire… The disparity is a violation of the constitutional mandate that the state is responsible to provide an adequate, equitable education for all New Hampshire students and to fund the state." Named the two decisions that carry this district's name — "Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Agreed, and decided so in the landmark Claremont one and Claremont two" — and the 2019 Commission to Study School Funding, whose 2020 report "currently sits in Concord, with many legislators either unaware of its existence or unwilling to discuss its findings in a meaningful way." See flag 8. He is not in the minutes. Do not merge him with the minutes' "Andy Lafreniere - Ward 3", who is listed among the speakers opposing the amendment during debate: two different appearances, at different points in the meeting, and this page does not equate them. |
| Hope Damon | New Hampshire State Representative, Croydon — invited to speak after the close | Spoke last, from 1:51:15 to the end of the recording: "I hope Damon [I'm Hope Damon], I'm a resident of Croydon. I'm one of your five state reps and I'm on the education committee of the House." Brought her own town's 2022 experience as a warning about turnout: "Last spring we had a 53% cut in our school budget by six votes at a poorly attended meetings… in our little town of less than 800 people, we restored that budget by a vote of 377 to 2." Her point to the room was that it was not representative: "you might not represent all the people who will come to the polls in Claremont to vote for the budget on March 14th." She is not in the minutes. A non-resident, so a non-voter in Claremont; the packet's Rules of Procedure provide that "Non-voters may not speak at the meeting without the permission of the Moderator", and the moderator recognised her on the record. Her account of Croydon checks out against contemporaneous reporting (see the appendix). |
| Cassandra Edwards | Voter, Ward 3 — in favour (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking for the $1,000,000 amendment. Not identifiable on the recording; a Disnard Elementary teacher who spoke at the February 1 board meeting a week earlier. |
| Rob Beaton | Voter, Ward 2 — in favour (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking for the amendment. Not identifiable on the recording. |
| Jessica Christian | Voter, Ward 1 — in favour (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking for the amendment. Not identifiable on the recording. |
| Raqual Fluette "Raquel Fluette" elsewhere in this corpus | Voter, Ward 2 — in favour (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking for the amendment; PTO president at Maple Avenue School and a frequent speaker at the February 1 board meeting. The minutes spell the given name "Raqual"; the district's own February 1 minutes spell it "Raquel". Not identifiable on this recording. |
| Jennifer Austin | Voter, Ward 2 — in favour (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking for the amendment. Not identifiable on the recording. She is the parent who gave the sexual-assault testimony at the February 1 board meeting. |
| David Putnam | Voter, Ward 2 — opposed (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking against the amendment. Also named by the moderator at 0:12:54 when she read the signers of the secret-ballot request and confirmed each was present — "David Putnam, Cindy Putnam I'll fight for present" — so he signed the request and then spoke against the amendment it was demanded for. Not otherwise identifiable on the recording. |
| Andy Lafreniere | Voter, Ward 3 — opposed (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking against the amendment. Not identifiable on the recording, and not to be assumed identical to Andy Bernier, who spoke after the close on a different subject. |
| Gary Merchant | Voter, Ward 2 — opposed (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those speaking against the amendment. A New Hampshire state representative; he had seconded the successful amendment at the November 3, 2022 special district meeting recorded in this packet. Not identifiable on this recording. |
| Marion Lovett | Voter, Ward 2 — concerns (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those expressing concerns. Frank Sprague's floor remark at 0:55:54 answers "what Marion just said", which places a speaker of that name immediately before him — the special-education staffing question — though the transcript's confidence on the name is low. A later speaker urges the room to "Maybe consider using Mr. Lovett's ideas for finding a solution to the problem", a referent this page does not resolve. Spelled "Marion" in the minutes, "Marian / Mary Ann" elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Anne Feln "Ann Fine" elsewhere in this corpus | Voter, Ward 2 — concerns (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those expressing concerns. The surname as the minutes give it, "Feln", does not match the "Ann Fine" recorded in this project's notes for the Ward 2 retired Landmark College professor who spoke on February 1; both spellings are unverified against a third source and both are given. |
| Pamela Ruest | Voter, Ward 1 — concerns (per the minutes) | Named in the approved minutes among those expressing concerns. Not identifiable on the recording. |
| Unidentified voters from the floor | About a dozen further speakers | The recording carries roughly twenty separate turns at the podium during the amendment debate; the dialogue file can name only five of the speakers, and the minutes name eighteen without saying when any of them spoke. Among the unnamed voices: the speaker at 0:37:18 who called the January 17 vote "a reckless move" yet opposed the amendment for fear of widening the gap to the default budget; the voter at 0:53:18 who asked the special-education compliance question; the voter at 1:02:21 who itemised where the $1,000,000 could be found without any restructuring; the parent at 1:04:05 whose colleagues "Loved our school. Loved our kids. Loved our administration. Had to get out. For financial purposes"; and the voter at 1:12:01 who called the vice chair's account "disingenuous". No attempt is made here to match them to the minutes' eighteen names. |
Agenda
From the posted Agenda 2.8.23, with dispositions from the approved minutes and the School District Warrant. Quoted agenda, warrant, minutes and statute wording is marked as such; everything in quotation marks that is not so marked is speech from the recording, transcribed as heard. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:18 | I. Call to Order for the Deliberative Session
I.A Pledge of Allegiance | Agenda: "I. Call to Order for the Deliberative Session" and "A. Pledge of Allegiance". Minutes: "Meeting called to order by Moderator, Tracy Pope" and "Pledge of Allegiance led by school board member Bonnie Miles." On the recording the moderator's welcome runs straight into the request — "welcome you to the February 8023 [8, 2023] deliberative session. I'd like to ask school board member Bonnie Miles to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance" — and the Pledge itself is not transcribed. No roll call is taken: this is the legislative body, and attendance is by checklist at the door, not by roll. |
| 0:01:34 | I.B Introductions — Administration; School Board and Officers | Agenda: "B. Introductions", "Administration School Board and Officers". Per the minutes the superintendent introduced "Jeff Small, Director of Technology, Ben Nester, Director of Special Education, Richard Seaman, Assistant Superintendent of Finance & Operations, Matt Upton, School District Attorney", and "Michael Petrin, Claremont School Board Chair introduces the school board members, Frank Sprague, Steven Horsky, Whitney Skillen, Bonnie Miles, vice chair Heather Whitney and school district moderator Tracy Pope." The recording contains only the second half of that, and the transcript garbles most of the names. The moderator then thanked the CCTV director, the SAU administrative assistant and the technology director. Six board members, one vacant seat. |
| 0:03:08 | I.C Rules of Procedure for the Deliberative Session | Agenda: "C. Rules of Procedure for the Deliberative Session". Minutes: "Moderator Pope reads aloud the Rules and Procedure for the Deliberative Session." The moderator summarised rather than read verbatim — "One of the handouts available to you this evening is the rules of procedure" — and covered the five-minute opening, the two-minute debate limit and the timer, the sign-in sheet and the requirement to state name and ward, the second-speech rule, and the written-amendment rule: "Amendments must be in writing, presented to the moderator, signed by a person making the motion and the person set [seconding] the motion." She also stated the article-by-article default at 0:04:34: "If there are no amendments, the article is automatically passed on to the ballot as presented. There is no vote necessary. The only voting tonight will be on any motions made" — and disclosed the pending secret-ballot request in the same breath. The written rules are in the packet. |
| 0:05:35 | II.A Approval of Minutes — November 3, 2022 Special District Meeting | Agenda: "II. Approval of Minutes" and "A. November 3, 2022 Special District Meeting". Minutes: "Michael Petrin makes a motion to approve the special district meeting minutes from 11/3/22; seconded by Steven Horsky; no further discussion; all in favor via voice vote." The recording matches: motion, two voices offering a second, then "We'll have a voice vote. Those in favor? Minutes, please say aye… Those opposed? Nay, nay, I have it." Adopted, voice vote, no count. Those minutes are in the packet; they record the district's November 2022 vote on the extraordinary-need grant. |
| 0:06:32 | III.A Article I … School Board & Officers | Warrant, Article 1: "To elect a Moderator, District Clerk, and District Treasurer, each for a one (1) year term, and 3 School Board members, two for a three (3) year term, and one for a one (1) year term." Read from the floor by Whitney Skillen per the minutes. No amendment, no discussion, no vote: "Anyone wishing to speak against this? … Anyone wishing to speak to favor is at home. … No one should. I am closing discussion. The adequate [article] will be forwarded to the ballot as presented." Two record problems here. The minutes' list of positions omits the District Clerk that the warrant includes — five items listed against the warrant's six — and the recording's rendering, "to elect a moderator, district court and district treasurer", is the transcriber's version of "district clerk". The clerk's seat was the one nobody filled: no candidate stood, and the office stayed vacant through 2023 (flag 6). Followed by a recess, 0:07:24 to 0:09:13. |
| 0:09:45 | III.A Article II … Main Budget | Warrant, Article 2: "Shall the Claremont School District raise and appropriate as an operating budget the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session and second session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling… ($37,345,312)? Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be… ($36,342,948)… (Majority vote required) (The School Board Recommends this Article)", with Note A funding the first year of the two-year SREA teachers' agreement at an estimated $1,002,364 in 2023-24 and $573,097 in 2024-25. Read by Vice Chair Heather Whitney. Disposition: amended from the floor and forwarded to the ballot as amended. Patrick Adrian (Ward 1) moved to add $1,000,000, seconded by Joshua Lambert, at 0:29:47; roughly forty-eight minutes of debate followed; the question was moved at 1:17:37 and carried on a voice vote; the amendment itself went to the secret ballot demanded before debate opened. Minutes: "Moderator Pope reads the results from the secret ballot: 41 in favor and 27 opposed. The amendment passes… The article will be forwarded to the ballot as amended." The article reached the March 14 ballot at $38,345,312. |
| 1:43:19 | Floor motion — not on the agenda: restrict reconsideration of Articles 1 and 2 | Minutes: "Frank Sprague moves to restrict reconsideration of warrant articles 1 and 2; seconded by Steven Horsky; all in favor via voice vote." The moderator explained the effect before the vote: "Strict [To restrict] reconsideration of award [the warrant] as the intent of Otis [is that it is] not be allowed to go back to further discuss and amend these animals [articles], we'll have a voice vote on this". Adopted, voice vote, no count. The authority is RSA 40:10, which applies to school district meetings by its own terms (flag 11). The draft minutes rendered the motion "moves to strict reconsider"; the approved minutes corrected it. |
| 1:43:41 | IV. Closing Activities for the Deliberative Session | Agenda: "IV. Closing Activities for the Deliberative Session". Minutes: "Moderator Pope closes the Deliberative Session and reminds citizens that voting day is March 14, 2023." The close took two attempts: "the eyes [ayes] having that concludes tonight's meeting" at 1:43:41, then a voter's default-budget question and the finance officer's answer, then the closing again at 1:48:00 — "remind you that the ballot session is Tuesday, March 14th, 2023 at the second night [session]. And now the meeting is over." |
| 1:48:46 | Not an agenda item — two invited speakers after the close | With the meeting declared over, the moderator recognised two people who had asked for the floor: Andy Bernier of the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project, and State Representative Hope Damon of Croydon. Neither appears in the minutes, and neither spoke to a warrant article. Their remarks run to the end of the recording. See flag 4 for what the minutes do and do not carry, and flag 8 for the school-funding argument. |
Discussion timeline
Chronological, from the project's dialogue file (352 attributed rows). Times are rendered from the file's own start-second value and each links to that moment in the Cablecast recording. Speech is quoted as the transcript records it, ASR errors included; square brackets mark an insertion or correction, and where a correction changes the sense the garbled wording is kept visible. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell for the full text.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:00:15 | Recording opens | Three seconds of room noise before the gavel — "You don't want the hot bank." The camera is running before the meeting starts and keeps running after it ends, so the recording is longer than the meeting. | |
| 0:00:18 | Call to order; Pledge of Allegiance | "Good evening. At the culprit water [garbled]. And welcome you to the February 8023 [8, 2023] deliberative session. I'd like to ask school board member Bonnie Miles to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance." Seventy-three seconds pass before the next transcribed word: the Pledge itself is not transcribed. | |
| 0:01:34 | The board introduces itself | "Now, as chairman of the school board, Michael Patron [Petrin] to introduce the school board and the school district officers." The chair's list follows at 0:01:46: "We have Frank Sprague, school board member Stephen Hauschka [Steven Horsky], school board member, Whitney School [Whitney Skillen] and school board member, Bonnie Miles, board member. And Heather Whitney, vice chair." Six members, one vacancy. The superintendent's introduction of the SAU administration — Small, Nester, Seaman and Attorney Upton, per the minutes — is not on the recording at all. | |
| 0:02:21 | Thanks — and the clerk's vacancy, stated in one sentence | The moderator thanks "Joshua Nelson, executive director of CCTV, who was filming tonight's meeting, just being televised live on CCTV channel a [8]", then the SAU administrative assistant, and then discloses the gap: "Like to know that in the absence of a board district clerk, Chelsea will also became [take the] minutes for tonight's meeting." That is the only mention all night of the fact that the district has no elected clerk. "And thanks to Jeff Small, who was responsible for coordinating all the technology for tonight's meetings." | MEDIUM |
| 0:03:08 | Rules of Procedure | Five minutes for the article's proponent, two minutes for everyone else, a timer, sign-in on the podium sheet, name and ward stated aloud — "state your name. And Warner Breckin [ward or precinct] of residence" — a second speech only after everyone has spoken and only with new information, and: "Amendments must be in writing, presented to the moderator, signed by a person making the motion and the person set [seconding] the motion." Also the sanction: "Disregard of these rules of procedure will result in being asked to leave immediately." The written rules in the packet are milder on that point, allowing removal only "After warning by the Moderator". | |
| 0:04:34 | How an SB 2 first session actually works — and notice of the secret ballot | "Articles to the warrant are discussed and debated tonight. If there are no amendments, the article is automatically passed on to the ballot as presented. There is no vote necessary. The only voting tonight will be on any motions made." Then, in the same segment: "I already received a request for secret ballot for any quotients [questions] having to do with two on the warrant." The rule she is describing is the packet's own: "Warrant Articles do not require a motion to be passed on to the voters." | POSITIVE |
| 0:05:35 | Minutes of the November 3, 2022 special district meeting approved | Petrin moves, Horsky seconds (per the minutes; on the recording two voices say "Second"), and the vote is by voice: "We'll have a voice vote. Those in favor? Minutes, please say aye… Those opposed? Nay, nay, I have it." Thirty seconds, no discussion. Those November minutes record the district voting an amendment sponsored by David Putnam and seconded by Gary Merchant that conditioned the extraordinary-need grant on an accountability plan — both men speak again tonight, on opposite sides. | |
| 0:06:32 | Article 1 — election of officers, passed to the ballot untouched | "The lottery recognizes what keeps them" is the transcriber's version of the moderator recognising Whitney Skillen, who reads Article 1 per the minutes: "to elect a moderator, district court [clerk] and district treasurer each for one year term, and three school board members, two for a three year term and one for a one year term." Nobody speaks either way — "Anyone wishing to speak against this? … No one should. I am closing discussion. The adequate [article] will be forwarded to the ballot as presented." The moderator's own seat is one of the six on it. | MEDIUM |
| 0:07:24 | Recess | "I'd like to take a short break right now as, Patrick, if you want to see." One minute forty-nine seconds of silence follows, then "Thank you for your patience" at 0:09:13. When the meeting resumes the moderator has both a secret-ballot request and a written amendment in hand. | |
| 0:09:45 | Article 2 read — $37,345,312 against a default of $36,342,948 | "Article two the main budget. The moderator is [recognizes] Heather Whitney." The vice chair reads the article as the warrant has it: "totaling $37,345,312. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $36,342,948, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Claremont School District or by law." She reads the special-meeting proviso as "RSA 40, colon 1310 and 414" — the warrant says "RSA 40:13, X and XVI" — and then the whole of Note A: the first year of the SREA teachers' agreement, "for fiscal year 2020 324 [2023-24] $1,002,364 for fiscal year 2020 425 [2024-25] $573,097." | |
| 0:12:16 | Two things arrive at once: a secret-ballot demand and an amendment | "Thank you, Vice Chairman Whitney. A typical [atypical] moment now because I have received a… Except [request] for a secret ballot and also received an amendment which will be presented." The amendment is in the moderator's hands before debate opens, which is what the packet's rules require: "any amendment must be in written form, presented to the Moderator." | |
| 0:12:38 | The moderator verifies the secret-ballot signers in public | "I've been given a kitchen [petition] for a secret ballot to act [Article] two main budget. When I read your name, please confirm that you were present and you signed the request." She then reads the names — heard as "And yes, Scott. Hope. Alan Damron." and "David Putnam, Cindy Putnam I'll fight for [all right, four] present." The minutes record the result of the check rather than the names: "All citizens that requested a secret ballot are present." That check is the statutory condition: the request must be in writing, from five voters, and they must be present. | POSITIVE |
| 0:13:13 | How the ballot will be run | "We will have two pounders [counters], one that either a row will excuse the row of voters to come to the front of the auditorium to vote the ballot boxes down there." Registered-voter cards marked at the box, one row at a time, ballots returned, then "the counties [counters] will bring the ballot box to the stage where the moderator encounters will vote." Note the word auditorium — which is where the warrant and the public notice said the meeting would be, though the agenda and minutes head it "Gymnasium". | |
| 0:15:06 | Superintendent Tempesta's preface | "I'd like to speak to some of the documents that you have here tonight. Obviously this is the warrant… I'm going to have Mr. Seaman playing [explain] the financials, but I also wanted to do a preface on some of the items in this." He describes an FAQ compiled from residents' written questions — "we had people send us requests for information and we tried to put out an epic view [an FAQ] and get that out to everyone" — and apologises that two emailed questions, one from a board member, arrived too late to include. Neither that FAQ nor the slide deck he refers to is in the packet folder. | |
| 0:16:50 | The budget, building by building | "Report by location on the budget, which you've got here in the first column is what the budget was, was approved for this year that were currently in. And the second column is the proposed budget." Debt service down; elementary out-of-district special education "down $20,000"; Bluff up on "a combination of the impact of the Sri [SREA] contract… and the fact that we're looking at 11.4% increase in the health care expenses"; the middle school down $800,000 on out-of-district costs and the high school up correspondingly, "so there's an offset between those two line items"; pre-K "reduced… to be focused really on Sped needs as opposed to regular education needs." The Claremont Budget Worksheets in the packet carry the same figures line by line. | |
| 0:19:33 | Two board-ordered reductions, one on top of the other | "The primary reason for this relates to the first request from the board to reduce the budget by $754,000, and that's included within this line item. The next line item is the $1 million reduction, which was at the 117 [1/17] Claremont School Board is put in as a lump sum number here." A lump sum, not a plan — which is precisely the objection the amendment's mover would make ten minutes later. The worksheet shows it the same way: a single line reading "(1,000,000) As of 1.18.23 … School Board Motion". | OBSERVATION |
| 0:20:25 | The proposed budget is smaller than the current one | "what you're looking at for the proposed budget is a reduction of $794,540 from the budget that was approved for this year, fiscal 23 into next year, fiscal 24." The packet's worksheet gives the two totals it is drawn from: $38,139,852 for FY23 and $37,345,312 for FY24. The year-over-year figure is a cut of about 2.1 percent in a year the same budget adds a teachers' contract worth just over a million. | |
| 0:21:25 | Why the state grant fell: equalised valuation | "The adequacy education grant is down 700 000… both a reduction in the budget, as well as an increase in the amount of statewide property tax that we're having to pay as taxpayers." The mechanism, in his words: "statewide property tax is done against the equalized valuation. It's not done against the valuation that we use in calculating our own taxes… equalized valuation is up close to $1 billion. We value our properties to 747 million, but equalized is closer to a billion. So we're going to pay more on the statewide education property tax. And that money, in effect, we're paying to ourselves. And it reduces the amount that the state has to pay to us." A $420,000 swing. An hour and a half later a speaker would call this the whole problem. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:23:09 | The tax rate | "we're looking at a total collection of 37. Three. 45. Three. 12 [$37,345,312]… The assessed valuation actually went down from last year to this year… we're looking at a local tax rate of $21.75. Add to that the statewide property tax, which is the dollar 44 [$1.44], is dictated by the state, gives us a total tax rate of $23.19. That's a reduction of $0.39 from what was approved a year ago." The district assessment is "down by $524,000". Arlene Hawkins would cite the $0.39 back to the room as a reason to leave the budget alone. | |
| 0:24:00 | The default budget, explained the first way | "The default budget, which we've spoken about briefly. The only difference between the proposed budget, the default budget is the Sri [SREA] negotiated teacher contract for the $1,002,364 because that is, in effect, not a contract. Until the budget is approved, it needs to be taken out in calculating the default budget. So the default budget is lower by that $1,002,364, which impacts how much needs to be raised by taxes… it's down by $1.74. The teachers contract. The impact on on local tax rate is $1.34." The arithmetic checks: $37,345,312 minus $36,342,948 is $1,002,364 to the dollar. The statute's method is not that method, and twenty-eight minutes later the same official gives a different account. | HIGH |
| 0:25:12 | The superintendent on the contract and on turnover | "I just wanted to speak for a minute about the importance of the teachers contract… there's no other way to educate children. Then having qualified, consistent educators in the classroom." The evidence he puts up is the first-years retention table: "When you look at that 22%, 14%, it's 17%. That's the turnover we've had of teachers for going back many years", and later "we had about 20% turnover of teachers every year for the past two decades." Per the minutes he also said "The default budget does not support the SREA… contract for the upcoming school year", and spoke to the grade reconfiguration. | |
| 0:27:04 | Where the $1,000,000 comes from | The same four-part split the board heard on February 1: "we felt that we could move as by what, fifth grade to the eighth grade [the middle school] and the eighth grade to the high school. That shift would allow because in general, it is less expensive to shift teachers and staff up, thus leaving enough money for everything else in the budget." Then the components: "15%, approximately 15%" elementary, "the secondary 25% and a couple of teachers into grants has been out of the local budget, as well as working with the behavior of assistants who are only ways to go to [being moved to] academic support specialist". Sixty per cent of the reduction is people moving to another funding source, not people leaving. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:28:55 | How many jobs | "we also think that there will be minimal loss of actual jobs in that. Okay. But we can't predict that. That's why can't we spoke about the 4 to 7 positions. I think that's very, extremely conservative. I don't think it would be so." The figure "4 to 7" is the superintendent's own from February 1, where his assistant superintendent had said "6 to 9. I guess." No number is offered for how many of those are vacant rather than filled — a distinction that matters to the default budget (flag 1). | HIGH |
| 0:29:30 | Debate opens | "Thank you for the Assistant Superintendent Simmons [Seaman]. Now open debate, anyone wishing to speak against staff [the article]." The floor is open for seventeen seconds before the amendment lands. | |
| 0:29:47 | The amendment: add $1,000,000 | "I'm going to cut to the chase to move to increase the proposed school district operating budget for 2023 2003 [2023-24] for school year by the amount of $1 million, and thereby change the proposed budget, some [sum] to be raised and appropriated from $37,345,812 [$37,345,312]. Do you propose some $38,345,812 [to the proposed sum of $38,345,312]?" The case is about method, not money: "It is a poison pill, in my opinion"; "Cutting a budget where the spending cuts have been planned and considered, and that plan has been properly vetted by the community. Unfortunately, none of that can be said about the board's recent decision to cut an additional $1 million"; "they did not have any discussion between the members. They didn't ask the administration what impact such a cut would entail before the board just took vote passed." And the credential: "Speaking as a former school board member". The minutes name the mover as Patrick Adrian, Ward 1. | MEDIUM |
| 0:32:18 | Is it an amendment? Is it seconded? | The moderator has to establish both: "I ask you now this in the form of an amendment, because we handed it to me. You said you'd like to amend it. And then when you started speaking, you didn't say that. So I'm asking you to clarify. Is this a an amendment to the budget?" — "Yes." — "Do you have a second for that meant for the motion?" Then, reading the paper: "I think it has to be signed", and at 0:32:49, "Joshua Lambert second did it… I couldn't read it. Thank you." The signature requirement the moderator announced in the rules is the reason the seconder's name is on the record at all. | MEDIUM |
| 0:33:37 | The vice chair answers for the board | "It's more of a statement at this point that I'm speaking against this amendment. It's a misperception that no conversations had occurred… We've had extensive discussions about the proposal for reconfiguration. We have talked about the pros and cons of such a reconfiguration in public." The purpose she gives for the cut is the contract: "we wanted to make 100% sure in every way possible that while we were ensuring a high quality level of learning in our schools, we could all but guarantee that our teachers would get their well-deserved contract." And the ask: "I really urge this community to take a deep breath, recognize that perhaps you haven't watched every board meeting… and that what you seem to think was just a hasty, off the cuff vote was most likely not that." | OBSERVATION |
| 0:35:06 | The member who moved the cut, from the floor | "Even asking [Steve Horsky,] Ward two, probably the elephant in the room, because I'm the one that had the discussion about how I saw a way to save millions of dollars by looking at minimum standards. Very simply, everybody thinks that we're coming in here with an ax… That's not accurate." He denies two rumours — "everybody's saying, oh, we're cutting sports for the tech. No, but that is an area that could be saved and is not required by minimum standards. So we're not following the minimum standards" — and minimises the change: "The only thing that happened here is the of the fifth grade, going into the middle school and the eighth grade going to the high school. There is not huge changes." | |
| 0:37:18 | "A reckless move" — and a vote against the amendment anyway | The most careful speech of the night comes from someone who agrees with the amendment's premise and votes against it. On the January 17 vote: "Steve made the motion to cut the million dollars, and at that moment, I felt that it was a reckless move because even though he had presented, traps [charts], knowing what minimum standards are… it's very rare. A school district in the Hampshire follows the minimum standards because for the most part, it does not deliver the type of education a lot of us expect from our children." But then the calculation: "the main purpose of this budget, I feel, is the teacher's contract… Some teachers earn up to 20 to $30,000 more than what we paid here… I'm not in favor of of this amendment because I think that it is expands the difference between a proposed budget and a department [default] to a place that a lot of people might not support." The gap between the two budget figures is being used as a tactical argument by both sides all evening — which is what makes the finance officer's closing request at 1:45:12 worth reading twice. | MEDIUM |
| 0:40:17 | The restructuring committee member: "never discussed in any of those meetings" | After a struggle to be heard — "I'm sorry. I can't hear you", then a voice from the floor supplying "Michelle" — and a ruling from the chair that a speaker may address the amendment's subject matter ("you can speak everyone that whatever you want to say, as long as it's about the amendment because the amendment is about the the money"), she gets to it: "I have been on the results [restructuring] committee from in the past and in this fall… and just wants the public to be aware that this restructuring proposal was never discussed in any of those meetings. So I'm just looking for honest honesty and transparency." Then the 2021 commitment: "it was discussed by the board present then that curriculums would be aligned before any restructuring moved forward. I've been told there's not an alignment of curriculums yet." And the warning: "if your community is not behind you, you're walking alone." | OBSERVATION |
| 0:43:51 | Arlene Hawkins separates the budget from the restructuring | "Oh, I'm sorry, Arlene Hawkins… I am opposed to. The amendment. I support. The proposed budget since it provides our teachers through their contract, their raises, which are deserved and are well earned… Budget also lowers attachment [the tax rate] by $0.39 per thousand." Then the distinction the room kept losing: "Supporting this budget does not mean that I support the proposed school restructuring that was presented at the last school board meeting on February 1st. At that meeting, parents, staff and community members spoke in opposition. Because of how quickly this plan was presented, there were many requests for specific data and opportunities for community input. Restructuring is not woven into this budget." | |
| 0:46:14 | "The restructuring issue, in my opinion, is a is a separate issue" | "the restructuring plan that's being talked about is not complete, and it's not part of the vote tonight. What is part of the vote tonight is how we're going to support teachers in this community with increased salary… the budget still reduces the education tax rate here… teachers have to be brought up to speed with their salary requirements. They really do. I mean, they're just there's just too much disparity between towns and our kitchen [garbled]. Talent needs to be retained here." | |
| 0:47:43 | If not restructuring, then what? | A voter walks the room through the logic and the moderator has to stop her from cross-examining the board. "Mr. Horse Keeper [Horsky] closed [proposed] a reduction of $1 million to align with what the budget was… So the amendment on the table is to put that million dollars back in… once you have given the decree that we have decided that this million dollars is coming out of the budget, we need a plan of what that will look like… if it's not the restructuring, it's probably going to be positions, extracurriculars. ET cetera. That money has to come from somewhere. Am I correct?" The ruling: "You need to speak to the agriculture [article], not ask a question to the board." Her conclusion anyway: "I would be, you know, ideally in favor of returning the money so that the restructuring is no longer an issue, because I know that if restructuring is voted down, that money will still have to come from somewhere." | |
| 0:50:46 | The procedural question: which default budget will voters be voting on? | "I think I have a procedural question… I'm not going to speak for against on this, but the default budget that is, that was proposed on the 17th of. January was 37 million. 342,948 [$37,342,948], and now the default budget is 36,000,342 and 948 [$36,342,948]. Which would be the default budget that the voters would be voting on, because the difference would actually be if this motion was made and the… Default of 36, that would actually be a $2 million difference. Right?" The moderator tries to deflect — "Mr. Polk. I explain that at that on the Warren [warrant] article" — and he presses: "$2 million. Why is it different?" This is the same question the same speaker put to the school board seven days earlier, with the same two figures. | HIGH |
| 0:52:08 | The default budget, explained the second way — and it is not the first way | "it depends if the million dollars gets added back into the budget and board when it meets next week, decides it wants to reinstate any of the positions that were previously cut, it has the option up until the date the ballots are printed to adjust the default budget. The reason why the default budget was reduced after the million dollars was taken out of the budget was because there were positions that were eliminated that were not going to be part of the proposed budget that's required by law. So the answer to your question, Mr. Paul, it depends on what the board determined to get wanted to return in positions if the million dollars was put back into the budget." Twenty-eight minutes earlier the same official said the only difference between the two budgets was the teachers' contract. Both cannot be true of a pair of figures that differ by exactly the contract's cost. | HIGH |
| 0:53:18 | The special-education compliance question | "my main question is a legal question that I would like to look into, because at the last board meeting I attended, a question was proposed of do you even have enough special Ed Perez [paras] to meet the legal requirements, at least restrictive environment. And if it requires a one on one para, are we adequately staffed? And from what I remember, I can be corrected was that we don't have a sufficient support staff to support that. So if we reduce this budget… this reduction includes a severe reduction of pride [PRIDE] if I saw from the presentation. So I'm wondering if we continue to reduce our special ed support services, how are we still in compliance with our data [IDEA] and with the legislation?" It is the question a board member had asked Ben Nester on February 1 and never had answered. | HIGH |
| 0:55:08 | The superintendent answers it | The moderator asks whether "someone from the school [board would] like to address your question", and the superintendent takes it: "I think I can address that question, if I may, school board. Yeah. So, compliance. Is an. Issue in Claremont. It certainly doesn't make us feel any better. As a school. District, but I know of no other district that is in. Compliance. This year, in particular. In the state. Due to the nationwide staffing shortages that have been, you know, widely discussed in the news, etc.. I think that answers your question here again." The transcript breaks the sentence across nine one-line segments; it is quoted here with those breaks intact. No follow-up question is asked, by anyone, at any point in the remaining fifty-eight minutes. | HIGH |
| 0:55:54 | A board member adds the money is there | "Franks great [Frank Sprague,] Ward two. I just want to address quickly what Marion just said. Those positions are budgeted. It's there are not filled. Is that correct? Mr.. Mr.. They're not a budget, largely. Yes. Right." Then the point: "So it isn't that we don't have the money to step up, and we just we have the money. We just don't have the people, the staff." Budgeted, unfilled positions are exactly the category the default-budget statute excludes from "eliminated positions" — nobody in the room connects the two. | HIGH HIGH |
| 0:56:32 | "Held hostage" | "there have already been two cuts to the budget from what the administration proposed. I feel the second cut of $1 million was done in a questionable manner. I also feel somewhat held hostage that if I vote for the amendment, that means I'm voting against the new contract for teachers, and that Is not the case." The framing recurs three times during the debate and is never contradicted from the table. | |
| 0:58:16 | Why was a million dollars only findable in January? | "I've been told the night that this was planned and that this wasn't a off the cuff cut, but if so, then I'm curious as to why, after however long the Budget Committee spent coming up with the budget, why was this $1 million not found to be removed from the budget earlier? Why did this come in at the last minute?" And the consequence: "if we're cutting it from reducing staff, then we're essentially negating the the salary increase… we're giving them increasing workload." | OBSERVATION |
| 1:00:16 | The angriest two minutes | "We're already asking the teachers to do so much, and they're already being paid nothing currently compared to the other towns around… They can't handle what they've got now, and that is no fault of them. They just don't have time. The discipline, these schools are horrible. The middle school is a pretty mess. People aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing there. There's investigations left and right and they just bluffs [brush it] under the rug… This restructuring is the dumbest idea of ever. We're going to take 12 year old kids, and we're going to put them in with 18, 19 year olds who thought that was a good idea. We already cannot handle the sexual harassment and the bullying and things like that in the schools currently… you have all these different IEPs that are supposed to be one on one. There's very few one on ones in this in any of these schools districts." | HIGH |
| 1:02:21 | The arithmetic nobody answered: $600,000 of the cut is grant money | A voter reads the administration's own slide back to it: "let me talk about the millions of dollars that I saw when I looked at the slide… Shifting two teachers to the local budget to grant budgets is 20%. Title two has nothing to do with restructuring behavior assistance to academic support specialists. Esser [ESSER] grants has nothing to do with spectrum [restructuring] at 60% of the million dollars at $600,000. If you take the $400 [$400,000] that is in the budget that we're holding on to for next year, there's $1 million most. And we don't have to do any restructuring to get the million dollars.… We can give the teachers of salary with the lower amount of money and still meet the $1 million cut without having to go through restructuring." No one from the table responds. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:04:05 | The people who already left | "A large number of. Staff who I. Am very close with have done. The same thing. Loved our school. Loved our kids. Loved our administration. Had to get out. For financial purposes." Then the research argument: "in order for academic growth to happen, you need to have teachers who are familiar with curriculum… and are not spending their time learning the new, atmosphere". And the request that recurs all evening: "I have asked repeatedly, along with other people, for the data, the research, the evidence that supports such a change. I can provide the evidence, the data, the research that shows that having consistent educators will help student growth. I have not been provided with that data to show that restructuring does the same thing." | |
| 1:06:22 | What the teachers said by email | "After emailing with some of our teachers… They are spending 30 to 50% of their time, they feel managing behaviors. These teachers get a pair [para] for one hour in their classroom if they're lucky, because that pair is not being pulled to sub for another classroom. Our sub is two people, two people. So I'm putting the money back in because that's where our teachers are going to get their support… so they can actually eat a lunch, do planning and make an emergency phone call to schedule a doctor's appointment if they need to during the day, during business hours." | HIGH |
| 1:09:09 | "We can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul" | "If we move these children around as planned, we are setting them up for failure. It would be a whole new social, emotional world that they have not mentally or physically been prepared for… we already have teachers stretched to thin, having to do jobs that are not paid for, even actually trained to do. We're looking at the budget versus jobs posted on the website. Are these honestly, honestly considered in the actual budget? We can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, keep the money in the budget and figure it out." On the January 17 vote: "The answer was to where that money was coming from was a no brainer. I knew it would be immediately from at least staffing." And the closing plea: "stop worrying about money… Worry about the real crisis at hand?" | |
| 1:12:01 | "I think it's disingenuous" | The sharpest challenge to the vice chair's account: "I think it's disingenuous. To. Contradict the. Statement made by. The vice. Chair of the school board that this had been their plan." The evidence offered is the sequence of votes at the January 17 hearing: "It was only in fact, three hits poured in it. Two wanted more money to fund the tech ed and only one opposed it. So the majority wanted at least the amount that was proposing and not more. And then when they didn't get that, they just went, okay, let's go with the million dollar cut." And the causal claim: the restructuring "only became part of the plan for next school year when they cut million dollars, because now it was we have to cut $1 million. And so we need to do this for structuring [restructuring]." | OBSERVATION |
| 1:13:22 | Title I, and what minimum standards signal to a job applicant | "what I'm looking up on the screen and seeing that we're essentially going to be gutting it, elementary and secondary school staffing that were going to be taking away title type one [Title I] teachers. When I knew from this year, I heard from title one teachers that they don't have enough title one teachers." Then the recruitment argument: "if we're going to be going trying to say minimum standards in a state that under funds that the state with the lowest state contribution to education, New Hampshire's minimum standards, I don't know that teachers don't want to come here. Even if we're paying the same, they'll go to where they feel supported as well." The claim that Title I teachers are being taken away runs directly against the administration's account, which is that two teachers move onto Title I; neither is reconciled here or at the February 1 meeting. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:15:06 | Only the board can vote the restructuring | "the body that has the wealth [power] to put the restructuring in place is the school board, and they have not made that long [vote] yet… It was only presented at our last board meeting as a presentation, as a way to justify the the proposed budget. I think that the budget should be passed whether or not it has $1 million added to it. Just to preserve the teachers contract, that's paramount… The only body that will vote on the restructuring is the school board." A correct statement of who decides, offered to a room that had spent an hour voting on a budget as a proxy for a reconfiguration. | |
| 1:17:02 | A last correction from the floor | "this budget has nothing to do with the number of parents [paras] that are in the schools. Nothing at all. They're not cutting that. You're not getting any of that? Yes. No, I just want to make that clear because it keeps on coming up." Asserted from the floor, not from the table, and not confirmed by anyone from the administration — and it sits uneasily beside the superintendent's own answer at 0:55:08 and the packet's description of a reduced PRIDE programme. | HIGH |
| 1:17:37 | The question is moved | "That a [Madam] moderator. I'd like to move the question." — "Second." Per the minutes it was the board chair who asked: "Michael Petrin asks that the moderator move the question to vote. All in favor via voice vote." The moderator states the effect first: "You have a motion and a second to move the question, which means we will be voting on the amendment with no further discussion", then takes it by voice at 1:18:48. Debate ran forty-eight minutes and roughly twenty speakers before it was cut off; nobody objected. | MEDIUM |
| 1:19:03 | The secret ballot | "We'll move forward to the secret ballot." Counters are posted, the registered-voter section identified — "we'll have two counters. One at the spindle [middle] section, which is registered voters" — and the question stated plainly at 1:21:00: "We're going on the amendment. A a yes vote would be to add the million dollars back over to the budget." Voting proceeds row by row. | POSITIVE |
| 1:23:12 | Twenty minutes of balloting and counting | From here the transcript carries only scattered crosstalk — "I don't even have a checking account like we should put them back in", "That's an expensive mic. I wouldn't, I just couldn't see it" — the last of it at 1:35:11. Between 1:35:11 and 1:43:19 the project's dialogue file is empty, and the moderator's announcement of the result is not in it. The tally on this page — 41 in favour, 27 opposed, the amendment carried — comes from the approved minutes, not from the recording. A reader wanting to hear it announced should watch the recording across that gap. | MEDIUM |
| 1:43:19 | Reconsideration restricted | "Reconsideration of word [warrant] articles one and two a second." — "We have a motion and a second reconsideration of board. Act [Articles] of one and two. What this means is that… Strict [to restrict] reconsideration of award [the warrant] as the intent of Otis [is that it is] not be allowed to go back to further discuss and amend these animals [articles], we'll have a voice vote on this, although they fight by saying I'm [all those in favor say aye,] opposed. Day [nay,] the eyes having [the ayes have it]." Per the minutes, moved by Frank Sprague and seconded by Steven Horsky. It is the last act of the meeting, and it locks both articles in the form they will take to the March 14 ballot. | POSITIVE |
| 1:44:44 | One more question, after the meeting was declared concluded | "Candace Crawford, talk to [Ward two]. I'm wondering, with a new but a number of. Well, article two, will the default budget be altered?" The moderator's reply is itself a finding: "I think the attorney has entered [answered] that question about the default budgets earlier, but I have to repeat myself." She then hands it back to the finance officer. | MEDIUM |
| 1:45:12 | "Revising the default budget so that the difference between the two helps preserve the vote" | "So normally what happens is, after the operating budget has been amended, the school board would convene and discuss their intentions… if they intend to reinstate positions that were cut in the prior budget, they have the ability to add those same positions into the default budget. The default budget at this time was was lowered because of positions that were eliminated during the discussion process, so they would have the opportunity to reestablish those positions… the board can amend or change the it's not really a amendment, but they can change or alter the default legend [budget] up until the printing of the ballot." Then the request, at 1:46:53: "Because now this amendment amount has even created a bigger difference between. What those budget… And I. Would. Really ask the board to consider revising the default budget so that the difference between the two helps preserve the vote. To to maintain this contract… To get folks to support. The budget." | MEDIUM HIGH |
| 1:48:00 | The meeting closes — twice | A voice from the floor asks "Do you need. To have a. Motion to close the meeting? No." — "I'm trying to do that right now." Then: "On behalf of myself and the school district, I want to thank you for your time tonight and remind you that the ballot session is Tuesday, March 14th, 2023 at the second night [session]. And now the meeting is over. I have two people, the ladies, I just stepped forward and Andy Bernier asked me just for a moment, in front of you as first." Under the packet's rules the moderator may allow a non-voter to speak with permission; she gives it, on the record, after the close. | MEDIUM |
| 1:48:46 | The state-funding argument, in the city that gave the cases their name | "there is a long standing disparity in funding and resources between school districts in New Hampshire. Because of this, all around New Hampshire, scenarios like tonight's play out difficult decisions with no cancers [good answers]. The disparity is a violation of the constitutional mandate that the state is responsible to provide an adequate, equitable education for all New Hampshire students and to fund the state. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Agreed, and decided so in the landmark Claremont one and Claremont two." Then the 2019 commission: "in 2020, that committee delivered a report $500,000 in the making… That report currently sits in Concord, with many legislators either unaware of its existence or unwilling to discuss its findings in a meaningful way." He asks the room to "Review the information provided by the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project." | OBSERVATION |
| 1:51:15 | Croydon, as a warning about turnout | "I hope Damon [I'm Hope Damon], I'm a resident of Croydon. I'm one of your five state reps and I'm on the education committee of the House… Last spring we had a 53% cut in our school budget by six votes at a poorly attended meetings. We rallied… And in our little town of less than 800 people, we restored that budget by a vote of 377 to 2." Then the point aimed squarely at March 14: "it is very clear that the audience in this room is pro education, pro teachers, pro what's good for kids. But you might not represent all the people who will come to the polls in Claremont to vote for the budget on March 14th… 18 year olds can register to vote. They might be seniors in high school… Just really trying to get out the vote is probably what's going to make the difference in whether you get the funding that you want to have." The recording ends here; the room's own answer came on March 14, when the amended operating budget carried at the ballot — this project's corpus notes give the result as 519–262, a figure not verified against a primary source for this page. | OBSERVATION |
Items flagged for review
Flags are a reviewer's aid generated by comparing this meeting against the state and federal law in force on February 8, 2023. They are not findings of violation, and nothing here is legal advice. Each flag cites the rule it rests on and links the primary source; where no verified rule applies, the item is recorded as an observation or as a speaker's characterization. Several provisions quoted below have been amended since — each such flag says so. Eleven flags follow, ordered by severity.
HIGH The default budget was explained to the voters two ways in the same session, and neither explanation is the method the statute prescribes
The default budget is what governs the district if the operating budget fails at the ballot. On this night it was $36,342,948 against a proposed $37,345,312, and voters asked about it twice.
Explanation one, at 0:24:00. In the budget presentation: "The default budget, which we've spoken about briefly. The only difference between the proposed budget, the default budget is the Sri [SREA] negotiated teacher contract for the $1,002,364 because that is, in effect, not a contract. Until the budget is approved, it needs to be taken out in calculating the default budget. So the default budget is lower by that $1,002,364." The arithmetic is exact: $37,345,312 − $36,342,948 = $1,002,364, and $1,002,364 is, to the dollar, the warrant's own Note A figure for the first year of the SREA agreement.
Explanation two, at 0:52:08, in answer to a voter who had put the same question to the school board seven days earlier: "The reason why the default budget was reduced after the million dollars was taken out of the budget was because there were positions that were eliminated that were not going to be part of the proposed budget that's required by law." Repeated at 1:45:12: "The default budget at this time was was lowered because of positions that were eliminated during the discussion process."
The two cannot both describe this pair of figures. If the whole difference is the contract, no reduction for eliminated positions is in it. If eliminated positions reduced the default, the difference should exceed the contract's cost — unless those positions carried no salary or benefits at all. Nobody at the table put the two answers side by side, and the voter who came closest was told "I explain that at that on the Warren [warrant] article."
What the statute actually requires. RSA 40:13, IX(b) defines the default budget as "the amount of the same appropriations as contained in the operating budget authorized for the previous year, reduced and increased, as the case may be, by debt service, contracts, and other obligations previously incurred or mandated by law, and reduced by one-time expenditures contained in the operating budget and by salaries and benefits of positions that have been eliminated in the proposed budget." Three features of that text bear directly on what was said. First, the calculation starts from the previous year's authorized operating budget — $38,139,852 per the packet's worksheet — not from the proposed budget; the same paragraph closes by saying so in terms: "In calculating the default budget amount, the governing body shall follow the statutory formula which may result in a higher or lower amount than the proposed operating budget." Second, the paragraph limits what counts: "eliminated positions shall not include vacant positions under recruitment or positions redefined in the proposed operating budget." Third, nothing in it permits removing a cost item simply because it is contingent on the ballot; contracts are handled by the "obligations previously incurred or mandated by law" clause, which cuts both ways and is a matter of construction, not of subtraction from the proposed budget.
Why the exclusions matter here specifically. This district's own account of the $1,000,000 is that most of it is not elimination at all. The superintendent's four-part split at 0:27:04 puts about 60 percent into moving people onto Title I, Title II and ESSER and converting behaviour assistants to academic support specialists — positions redefined or refinanced, not removed. At 0:28:55 he expected "minimal loss of actual jobs… 4 to 7 positions", and said on February 1 that the reduction was "not necessarily the elimination of those positions". And at 0:55:54 a board member told the room that the special-education positions at issue "are budgeted. It's there are not filled" — the vacant-position category the statute expressly excludes. On this record the quantum of qualifying eliminated positions is unknown, and it is what the second explanation depends on.
In fairness. The number may still be right. A default budget properly computed from $38,139,852 could land at $36,342,948 by a route nobody described, and the exact coincidence with the contract figure could be exactly that — a coincidence. The finance officer was also right about the adjustment power: RSA 40:13, XI(b) provides that the default budget amount "shall not be amended by the legislative body. However, this amount may be adjusted by the governing body… acting on relevant new information at any time before the ballots are printed, provided the governing body… completes an amended default budget form." That is a correct statement of law, and a more careful one than the answer given at the February 1 board meeting, where the same official said that once the default budget is set "it stays set at that number" (see the February 1 page, flag 2). The document that would settle all of this is the DRA default budget form, which RSA 40:13, XI(a) requires the governing body to complete and to disclose "at the first budget hearing held pursuant to RSA 32:5 or RSA 197:6", with line-item detail "available for inspection by voters" and a specific line for "Reductions for eliminated positions and benefit expenditures". That hearing was January 17, 2023, which this recording does not cover. The form is not in this meeting's packet folder, and it was not in the February 1 packet either.
Sources: RSA 40:13, IX(b) (definition of "default budget"; exclusion of vacant and redefined positions; "the governing body shall follow the statutory formula") and XI(a)–(b) (default budget form and disclosure at the first budget hearing; "shall not be amended by the legislative body"; adjustment by the governing body before ballots are printed); RSA 40:13 (codified text, cross-checked) — the section's last amendment was 2019, 192:2, so this text governed on February 8, 2023; New Hampshire Municipal Association, "The Default Budget in SB2 Towns" (Stephen C. Buckley, 2017) — the default budget is built from the previous year's approved budget and rests with the governing body, not the meeting; School District Warrant 2.8.23 (the two figures and Note A); Claremont Budget Worksheets (FY23 $38,139,852 / FY24 $37,345,312 and the "(1,000,000)… School Board Motion" line).
HIGH Asked whether the district has enough paraprofessionals to meet IEP and least-restrictive-environment requirements, the superintendent answered that "compliance Is an Issue in Claremont" — and nobody followed up
The question, at 0:53:18, was put by a voter who had heard it go unanswered at the February 1 board meeting: "do you even have enough special Ed Perez [paras] to meet the legal requirements, at least restrictive environment. And if it requires a one on one para, are we adequately staffed? And from what I remember, I can be corrected was that we don't have a sufficient support staff to support that… So I'm wondering if we continue to reduce our special ed support services, how are we still in compliance with our data [IDEA] and with the legislation?"
The answer, at 0:55:08, came from the superintendent: "So, compliance. Is an. Issue in Claremont. It certainly doesn't make us feel any better. As a school. District, but I know of no other district that is in. Compliance. This year, in particular. In the state. Due to the nationwide staffing shortages that have been, you know, widely discussed in the news, etc.. I think that answers your question here again." (The transcript breaks that sentence across nine one-line segments; it is quoted with those breaks rather than smoothed.)
That is an acknowledgement, by the district's chief executive, on a public record, that the district is not meeting a binding federal obligation — and the reason offered, a staffing shortage, is not one the rules recognise. Under the IDEA Part B regulations a free appropriate public education "must be available to all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive" — Part 300 being the part that governs children with disabilities. The services in a child's IEP are what that obligation consists of in practice: the public agency must ensure that "As soon as possible following development of the IEP, special education and related services are made available to the child in accordance with the child's IEP." And least restrictive environment requires that "To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities… are educated with children who are nondisabled", with removal from the regular class only where education there "with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily" — and a one-to-one paraprofessional is a supplementary aid. None of these provisions contains a staffing-shortage exception, and none is suspended by the fact that other districts are in the same position.
Two things sharpen it rather than soften it. The board had already been asked, at the February 1 meeting, "if we are, every para that is required, state mandated in a child's e, I p [IEP] is fully staffed within our school district" — and the special-education director, who was in the room both nights, answered neither time. And a floor speaker at 1:00:16 described the same gap from the outside: "you have all these different IEPs that are supposed to be one on one. There's very few one on ones in this in any of these schools districts."
In fairness, three points. A board member immediately supplied a material fact at 0:55:54: "Those positions are budgeted. It's there are not filled… we have the money. We just don't have the people, the staff" — which locates the problem in the labour market rather than in the appropriation, and answers the voter's actual worry that the budget cut would make it worse. Another speaker asserted at 1:17:02 that "this budget has nothing to do with the number of parents [paras] that are in the schools. Nothing at all", though no one from the administration confirmed it. And the superintendent's statement is a general characterization made from the floor of a budget meeting, not a compliance determination: this page has no visibility into the district's actual IEP service records, and nothing here establishes that any individual child went without services. What it does establish is that the question was asked in public, the answer given was that compliance is a problem, and in the fifty-eight minutes of meeting that remained, no one — not a board member, not the moderator, not another voter — asked a single follow-up.
Sources: 34 CFR 300.101(a) (FAPE "must be available to all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive"; last amended 71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, so this text governed on the meeting date); 34 CFR 300.323(c)(2) (services made available in accordance with the child's IEP as soon as possible following its development); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2) (least restrictive environment).
MEDIUM The district's finance officer publicly asked the board to revise the default budget so the gap "helps preserve the vote"
At 1:46:53, minutes after the amendment carried and after the moderator had declared the meeting concluded, the business administrator made a request of the board in open session: "Because now this amendment amount has even created a bigger difference between. What those budget… And I. Would. Really ask the board to consider revising the default budget so that the difference between the two helps preserve the vote. To to maintain this contract… To get folks to support. The budget."
The concern is the stated purpose. Under RSA 40:13, IX(b) the default budget is the output of a formula — the previous year's appropriations, adjusted for debt service, contracts and obligations, one-time expenditures and the salaries and benefits of eliminated positions — and the same paragraph directs that "the governing body shall follow the statutory formula which may result in a higher or lower amount than the proposed operating budget." It is not a number the governing body sets to a level it finds strategically useful. The adjustment power in XI(b) is expressly conditioned: the amount "may be adjusted by the governing body… acting on relevant new information at any time before the ballots are printed, provided the governing body… completes an amended default budget form."
There is a lawful version of what he asked for, and he had already described it. Earlier in the same answer he tied any revision to substance: if the board "intend[s] to reinstate positions that were cut in the prior budget, they have the ability to add those same positions into the default budget." Restoring positions the board decides to reinstate is relevant new information, and running it through the formula would raise the default budget as a consequence, not as an objective. The phrase that draws the flag is the objective — narrowing the gap so that the difference "helps preserve the vote… To get folks to support. The budget." A default budget shaped to make the proposed budget more attractive is a campaigning instrument; a default budget computed under the formula is a disclosure. On this record the same act is being urged for both reasons at once.
The context makes it consequential rather than academic. The gap between the two figures had been used as an argument all evening — at 0:37:18 a speaker opposed the amendment precisely because it "expands the difference between a proposed budget and a department [default] to a place that a lot of people might not support" — and the amendment had just widened it from about $1.0 million to about $2.0 million. What the board actually did with the default budget after this meeting is not in this record; the next board meeting was February 15, 2023, and any amended default budget form would be the document to check.
Sources: RSA 40:13, IX(b) and XI(b) (statutory formula; adjustment by the governing body "acting on relevant new information" before ballots are printed, on an amended default budget form); New Hampshire Municipal Association, "The Default Budget in SB2 Towns".
MEDIUM Four people who addressed the meeting are missing from the minutes, along with the whole nine minutes of business that followed the close
The minutes of this session are unusually good in one respect — they name eighteen floor speakers with their wards, which is how most of the people on this page can be named at all. They are incomplete in another. Four people who spoke are not in them: Frank Sprague, the board member who added a fact to the special-education exchange at 0:55:54 (he appears only as the mover of the reconsideration motion); Candace Crawford, who asked about the default budget at 1:44:44; Andy Bernier, recognised by name by the moderator at 1:48:00; and State Representative Hope Damon, who spoke from 1:51:15 to the end of the recording. Also absent: the finance officer's answer to Crawford and his request that the board revise the default budget (flag 3), which is the last substantive statement of the night.
RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes that include the "names of members, persons appearing before the public bodies, a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions", promptly recorded and open to inspection within five business days. A deliberative session is covered: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) defines "public body" to include "Any legislative body, governing body, board, commission, committee, agency, or authority of any county, town, municipal corporation, school district, school administrative unit, chartered public school, or other political subdivision", and the first session of an SB 2 annual meeting is the school district's legislative body transacting business.
The mitigation is real and it is in the record. All four appearances came after the moderator had begun closing — she said "that concludes tonight's meeting" at 1:43:41 — and Bernier and Damon spoke after she had said "now the meeting is over". A body is entitled to take the view that what follows adjournment is not the meeting's business. That view has a cost, though: on this record the only public account of the last nine and a half minutes is the video, and one of the things said in them was a request to the school board to change the number that will appear on the March ballot beside the operating budget. Sprague's omission has no such explanation — he spoke during debate. Vintage note, because it is easy to get backwards: RSA 91-A:2, II also requires that "The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes." That sentence was added by 2018, 244:1, effective January 1, 2019 — four years before this meeting — so it bound these minutes. It is not a product of the 2023 amendment: the 2017 codification lacks the sentence and the 2019 codification carries it. The minutes satisfy it for the three substantive motions, naming both the mover and the seconder of each. They do not satisfy it for the fourth motion put to a vote — the motion to move the question, which the moderator confirmed aloud had a second and for which the minutes record none; see flag 12. What genuinely post-dates this meeting are the start-time, end-time and minutes-producer requirements added by 2025, 112:1, eff. August 22, 2025, which are not applied here.
One more gap belongs here because it is the reason this page cannot verify its own headline number. The project's dialogue file records nothing between 1:35:11 and 1:43:19 — the balloting and count — so the moderator's announcement of the result is not in the transcript. "41 in favor and 27 opposed. The amendment passes" is quoted from the approved minutes throughout this page, and a reader who wants it from the primary source should watch the recording across that span.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (contents of minutes; five business days); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) ("public body" includes any legislative body of a school district); Approved deliberative session minutes 2.8.23.
MEDIUM The amended figure that went to the ballot was never stated correctly on the record, and the written amendment is not in the packet
RSA 40:13, IV governs what happens to an amended article: "Warrant articles may be amended at the first session, subject to the following limitations: (a) Warrant articles whose wording is prescribed by law shall not be amended. (b) Warrant articles that are amended shall be placed on the official ballot for a final vote on the main motion, as amended. (c) No warrant article shall be amended to eliminate the subject matter of the article." The packet's own Rules of Procedure say the same thing to voters: "Amendments, if carried, will be placed on the ballot in lieu of the original Warrant Article." The precise wording of the amendment is therefore the wording Claremont voted on four weeks later.
What the public record contains is three different renderings and no document. The recording, at 0:29:47, has the mover reading "change the proposed budget, some [sum] to be raised and appropriated from $37,345,812. Do you propose some $38,345,812?" — both figures ending 812 where the warrant says 312, which on the face of it is a transcription artifact but is what the audio record yields. The minutes record no figure at all, only the operation: "makes a motion to increase the proposed operating budget by extending the budget by 1 million dollars." And the amendment itself — which the moderator required in writing and signed by both mover and seconder, and which she was holding while she read it — is not among the seven documents in the Drive packet folder for this meeting, nor in the district's Meeting Minutes share.
Nothing here suggests the ballot was wrong: $37,345,312 plus $1,000,000 is $38,345,312, the figure this project's records give for the March ballot, and the minutes' "1 million dollars" is unambiguous as to amount. The flag is about traceability. A voter auditing the chain from warrant to ballot has, for the single most consequential act of the meeting, a garbled number in the transcript, a described operation in the minutes, and no primary document. Retaining and posting the signed amendment would close that gap at no cost, and the moderator's own rule — that amendments be in writing and signed — already produces the document.
Sources: RSA 40:13, IV (amendment at the first session; amended articles go to the official ballot "on the main motion, as amended"); Deliberative Session Rules of Procedure (written amendments; amendments placed on the ballot in lieu of the original article); Approved minutes 2.8.23; Drive packet folder "5. CSB Deliberative Session 2.8.23" (7 documents; verified 2026-08-28).
MEDIUM The district had no clerk, and no clerk pro tempore was chosen — the minutes of a district meeting were taken by an SAU employee
At 0:02:33 the moderator disclosed the arrangement in a single clause: "Like to know that in the absence of a board district clerk, Chelsea will also became [take the] minutes for tonight's meeting." Both sets of minutes close "Respectfully submitted by Chelsea Weatherford" — the administrative assistant to the superintendent at SAU 6, an employee of the administrative unit rather than an officer of the district.
The clerk is a statutory officer of the school district meeting with a defined job: "The clerk shall keep a true record of all the doings of each meeting; shall make an attested copy of any record of the district for any person upon request… shall act as moderator of any meeting until a moderator pro tempore shall be chosen, if the moderator is absent or the office has become vacant; and shall have the same power to administer oaths which the moderator has. If the clerk is absent at any meeting a clerk pro tempore shall be chosen." The statute's remedy for an absent clerk is an election by the meeting, and no such motion appears anywhere in this record — not on the recording, not in the agenda, not in either set of minutes. The office was vacant, not merely unattended: Article 1 of the warrant put "a Moderator, District Clerk, and District Treasurer, each for a one (1) year term" on the March 14 ballot, and no candidate filed for the clerk's seat, which stayed empty through 2023.
The consequences are visible on this very page. The record of the meeting rests on a document prepared by someone with no statutory duty to keep it and no power to attest a copy of it — and it is the sole source for the vote tally, the mover and seconder of the amendment, the wards of eighteen speakers, and the fact that the secret-ballot signers were present. Nothing here criticises the person who did the work. The minutes she produced are more complete than most in this corpus, and the arrangement was disclosed openly rather than concealed. The gap is procedural, and it is a small motion away from being closed. The same day's minutes show the derivative defect: their summary of Article 1 lists five offices and omits the District Clerk that the warrant includes.
Sources: RSA 197:20 (Clerk — "shall keep a true record of all the doings of each meeting"; "If the clerk is absent at any meeting a clerk pro tempore shall be chosen"); RSA 197:19 (the district moderator has "all the statutory duties, powers and authority granted to town moderators"); School District Warrant 2.8.23, Article 1.
MEDIUM The motion that cut off debate on the budget was made and seconded on the floor, and the minutes record no seconder for it
After roughly forty-eight minutes of debate on the $1,000,000 amendment, a voter moved the previous question at 1:17:37 — "That a [Madam] moderator. I'd like to move the question." A second came from the floor immediately: "Second." The moderator then stated the position on the record at 1:18:05 — "You have a motion and a second to move the question, which means we will be voting on the amendment with no further discussion" — and put it to a voice vote at 1:18:48.
The minutes record that whole transaction in one sentence: "Michael Petrin asks that the moderator move the question to vote. All in favor via voice vote." No seconder is named. RSA 91-A:2, II has required since 2018, 244:1, eff. January 1, 2019 that "The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes," so what is missing is a mandatory element of the minutes rather than a stylistic nicety. It matters more than the one-line entry suggests: this was the motion that ended debate on the only contested article of the evening, and a reader of the minutes alone cannot tell that a second was required, offered and accepted.
The mover is unresolved too, and this page does not choose between the two accounts. The minutes name the school board chair. On the recording the words are spoken by a voice the project's dialogue file leaves Unidentified and labels a voter from the floor — a diarizer cluster that carries none of the chair's identified speech anywhere in the file — and the seconding voice is a different unidentified cluster again. Both accounts are reported here and neither is adopted.
Graded on the mitigated limb of the severity rule rather than the unmitigated one. The broadcast is public and preserves both the motion and the moderator's express confirmation that a second was made, so the missing name is recoverable rather than lost; the motion was procedural rather than a disposition of the article; and the substantive vote it triggered was taken by counted secret ballot whose tally the minutes do record — the minutes read "41 in favor and 27 opposed." Nothing here suggests the second did not happen; only that the minutes do not say who gave it.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II ("The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes"); 2017 codification (sentence absent) and 2019 codification (sentence present; source note ending 2018, 244:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019) — the clause was in force on February 8, 2023; Approved Deliberative Session meeting minutes 2.8.23; the dialogue CSV (the motion, the second and the moderator's confirmation).
OBSERVATION A voter showed that 60 percent of the $1,000,000 needs no restructuring at all — and got no answer
At 1:02:21 a Ward 2 voter took the administration's own slide apart: "Shifting two teachers to the local budget to grant budgets is 20%. Title two has nothing to do with restructuring behavior assistance to academic support specialists. Esser [ESSER] grants has nothing to do with spectrum [restructuring] at 60% of the million dollars at $600,000. If you take the $400 [$400,000] that is in the budget that we're holding on to for next year, there's $1 million most. And we don't have to do any restructuring to get the million dollars."
The premise is the superintendent's own, given thirty-five minutes earlier at 0:27:04: about 15 percent elementary, 25 percent secondary, a share for "a couple of teachers into grants… out of the local budget", and behaviour assistants converted to academic support specialists on grant money. If 60 percent of the reduction is refinancing rather than reduction — the figure the same administration used on February 1 — then the grade reconfiguration, which is what the room was actually angry about, delivers only the remaining 40 percent. Nobody at the table responded, then or later.
A second, sharper contradiction sits beside it and was likewise left standing. At 1:13:22 a speaker reported the opposite of the administration's account: "we're essentially going to be gutting it, elementary and secondary school staffing that were going to be taking away title type one [Title I] teachers. When I knew from this year, I heard from title one teachers that they don't have enough title one teachers." The administration's position is that two teachers move onto Title I; a resident had reported the same contradiction at the February 1 meeting ("Maple is also losing, I think, a title one teacher"). Both cannot be right, and neither night reconciled them.
No rule is cited and none is broken. Moving a position onto Title I or ESSER is lawful in itself; the federal questions it raises — Title I's supplement-not-supplant methodology test, and building a permanent local reduction on money with a fixed end date — were examined on the February 1 page and are not re-litigated here, because no new evidence about either was put on this record. This is recorded because a specific, checkable, quantitative claim about the meeting's central question was made from the floor and drew no response from anyone with the figures.
Sources: recording as cited; February 1, 2023 page, flags 3 and 4 (the ESSER-cliff and Title I analysis, with citations to 20 U.S.C. §6321(b) and 20 U.S.C. §1225(b)).
OBSERVATION The state-funding case that bears this district's name was argued in this district's own meeting, after the meeting had closed
At 1:48:46, speaking with the moderator's permission after the session had been declared over, Andy Bernier put the evening in a wider frame: "there is a long standing disparity in funding and resources between school districts in New Hampshire. Because of this, all around New Hampshire, scenarios like tonight's play out difficult decisions with no cancers [good answers]. The disparity is a violation of the constitutional mandate that the state is responsible to provide an adequate, equitable education for all New Hampshire students and to fund the state. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Agreed, and decided so in the landmark Claremont one and Claremont two."
He is describing real decisions, and they are this district's. In Claremont School District v. Governor (Claremont I) the New Hampshire Supreme Court held in 1993 that the State has a constitutional duty under Part II, Article 83 to provide a constitutionally adequate education and to guarantee adequate funding. In the 1997 decision known as Claremont II the court held that "the present system of financing elementary and secondary public education in New Hampshire is unconstitutional", because the property tax raised for schools was a state tax administered at disproportionate and unreasonable rates across districts.
The mechanism he is talking about had been described from the table an hour and a half earlier without anybody naming it as such. At 0:21:25 the business administrator explained why the adequacy grant fell by roughly $700,000: "statewide property tax is done against the equalized valuation. It's not done against the valuation that we use in calculating our own taxes… equalized valuation is up close to $1 billion. We value our properties to 747 million… So we're going to pay more on the statewide education property tax. And that money, in effect, we're paying to ourselves. And it reduces the amount that the state has to pay to us on the adequate education plan." A $420,000 swing driven by an equalisation ratio, absorbed by a district cutting $1,000,000 from its own budget.
This is recorded as an observation, not as a flag against anybody in the room. No rule binds a school district to a constitutional-litigation outcome directed at the State; the cases are named here because a speaker invoked them by name in the city that brought them, and because a reader trying to understand why a district cutting its budget still faced a rising local tax rate will not find the answer in anything the board did. Representative Hope Damon's remarks that followed, at 1:51:15, are the practical corollary and her account of Croydon's 2022 reversal — a 53 percent cut restored "by a vote of 377 to 2" — matches contemporaneous reporting.
Sources: Claremont School District v. Governor (Claremont II), decided December 17, 1997 — "the present system of financing elementary and secondary public education in New Hampshire is unconstitutional"; reported at 142 N.H. 462, 703 A.2d 1353; Claremont School District v. Governor (Claremont I), 138 N.H. 183, 635 A.2d 1375 (1993) — the State's duty to provide and fund a constitutionally adequate education; that citation is recited in the 1997 opinion as reported by FindLaw, and the 1993 opinion itself was not retrieved for this page; Eagle Times, "'We Believe in Public Education': Croydon Decisively Overturns Proposed Budget 377-2" and NHPR, "Croydon voters restore school budget in a landslide" (May 8, 2022) — reporting, cited to corroborate a speaker's account, not as law.
OBSERVATION Two incompatible accounts of how the $1,000,000 cut was decided were given in public, and the meeting ended without either being tested
The whole debate turned on a question of fact about a meeting three weeks earlier. The board's account, from the vice chair at 0:33:37: "It's a misperception that no conversations had occurred. It is in this perception that the board was unaware of the numbers… We've had extensive discussions about the proposal for reconfiguration. We have talked about the pros and cons of such a reconfiguration in public… what you seem to think was just a hasty, off the cuff vote was most likely not that."
The movers' account, from the amendment at 0:29:47: "they did not have any discussion between the members. They didn't ask the administration what impact such a cut would entail before the board just took vote passed." And at 1:12:01, with a sequence attached: "I think it's disingenuous. To. Contradict the. Statement made by. The vice. Chair of the school board that this had been their plan… It was only in fact, three hits poured in it. Two wanted more money to fund the tech ed and only one opposed it. So the majority wanted at least the amount that was proposing and not more. And then when they didn't get that, they just went, okay, let's go with the million dollar cut." A member of the district's own restructuring committees added a third data point at 0:40:17: "this restructuring proposal was never discussed in any of those meetings."
Two documents in the packet lean, without settling it. The Claremont Budget Worksheets carry the reduction as a single undifferentiated line — "(1,000,000) As of 1.18.23… School Board Motion" — and the finance officer described it the same way at 0:19:33: "the $1 million reduction, which was at the 117 [1/17] Claremont School Board is put in as a lump sum number here." A lump sum entered without an allocation is consistent with a vote taken before a plan existed; it is also consistent with a board deferring the allocation to its administration, which is what happened on February 1. The member who moved the cut defended the substance at 0:35:06 without addressing the process at all.
No rule is engaged and none is cited. A school board may vote a budget reduction without a spending plan, and voters may object to its doing so; that is what a deliberative session is for. It is recorded because a disputed question of fact about how public money was cut was argued between named participants, in public, and the record of the January 17 hearing that would resolve it — the minutes are in the February 1 packet, not this one — was never consulted by anyone in the room. The February 1 page covers the same dispute one week earlier and reaches the same result: unresolved.
Sources: recording as cited; Claremont Budget Worksheets (the "(1,000,000)… School Board Motion" line and the separate "Additional Budget Reduction - Claremont School Board 1.17.23" heading); Budget Reduction Emergency Action from 1.17.23 CSB Budget Hearing (in the February 1 packet).
POSITIVE The secret ballot was demanded, verified and conducted exactly as the statute provides — in public, and on the record
RSA 40:4-a, I(a) provides that "At any meeting of a town with a population of more than 500, 5 voters who are present may make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote or division vote that the vote be taken by secret written ballot. Upon receiving such a request, the moderator shall conduct the vote by secret 'yes-no' ballot." A school district moderator has the same powers: RSA 197:19 gives the office "the like power and duty as a moderator of a town meeting to conduct the business and to preserve order, and in the conduct of a school district meeting, all the statutory duties, powers and authority granted to town moderators."
Every element of that was satisfied visibly. The request was in writing — the moderator held it: "I've been given a kitchen [petition] for a secret ballot to act [Article] two main budget." It was made prior to the vote, and prior even to debate: she disclosed it at 0:04:34 while reciting the rules, twenty-five minutes before the amendment was moved. And she verified presence by roll, in open session, at 0:12:38: "When I read your name, please confirm that you were present and you signed the request", reading the names aloud one at a time. The minutes record the outcome of the check: "All citizens that requested a secret ballot are present."
The conduct of the ballot was equally deliberate: counters posted at the box and at the registered-voter section, voter cards marked, voting row by row, the ballot box carried to the stage, and the question stated in plain terms before anyone marked a paper — "A a yes vote would be to add the million dollars back over to the budget" at 1:21:00. Two footnotes for completeness. RSA 40:4-a, I(b) gives five present voters an immediate recount as of right where "the vote margin is not more than 10 percent of the total vote cast"; at 41 to 27 the margin was about 21 percent of the 68 votes cast, so no recount right arose and none was sought. And the packet's Rules of Procedure preserve the ordinary safeguard for the evening's voice votes: "any voter who doubts the accuracy of any non-counted vote may require the Moderator to determine a vote by a counted show of hands or counted standing vote." Nobody invoked it, on any of the four voice votes.
Sources: RSA 40:4-a, I (secret ballot on the written request of 5 voters present; recount as of right within a 10 percent margin); RSA 197:19 (school district moderator has all the statutory powers of a town moderator); Deliberative Session Rules of Procedure; Approved minutes 2.8.23.
POSITIVE Date, notice, snow date and the closing motion all track the statutes — with one loose end in the paperwork
Four separate requirements were met, and each is checkable from the packet.
The date. RSA 40:13, III requires the first session to be "held between the first and second Saturdays following the last Monday in January, inclusive of those Saturdays" for a district whose second session falls on the second Tuesday in March. The last Monday in January 2023 was the 30th; the window ran from Saturday February 4 to Saturday February 11. The session was held Wednesday, February 8, inside it. The second session — March 14, 2023 — was the second Tuesday in March.
The warrant. RSA 40:13, II requires that "The warrant for any annual meeting shall prescribe the place, day and hour for each of 2 separate sessions of the meeting." Claremont's does, for both sessions, and adds the polling place for each of the three wards. It was signed by all six sitting board members and dated "this the 23rd day of January 2023", two members initialling the following days.
The snow date. RSA 40:4, II(a) lets a moderator postpone a deliberative session for a National Weather Service warning, and provides that "in towns or districts that have adopted RSA 40:13, the postponement shall not delay the deliberative session more than 72 hours." The warrant pre-committed to exactly that limit: "Snow date for the first session is Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 6:30 PM… as determined by the Moderator scheduled within 72 hours of the original date." Publishing the alternative date and the statutory limit in advance is better practice than the statute demands.
Restricting reconsideration. The night's last motion has a statute behind it that is easy to miss: RSA 40:10, I — "A town may, at any time during a meeting, and without notice in the warrant, vote to restrict reconsideration of any one or more votes previously taken at that meeting, or warrant articles previously considered at that meeting" — and RSA 40:10, V says the section "shall apply to town meetings, village district meetings under RSA 52, cooperative school district meetings under RSA 195, and school district meetings under RSA 197." The moderator explained the effect before putting it, which is the part that matters to a voter in the room.
The loose end. The two documents that told voters where to go — the warrant and the posted public notice, itself headed "Public Notice 1.18.23", three weeks ahead — both say the Stevens High School Auditorium, 175 Broad Street. The agenda and both sets of minutes head the meeting "Stevens High School Gymnasium". The moderator's own description of the balloting refers to "the front of the auditorium". Nothing turns on it for this meeting; it is noted because the location is a warrant term under RSA 40:13, II and because the official record of where a district meeting was held should not have two answers.
Sources: RSA 40:13, II and III (warrant prescribes place, day and hour for both sessions; the first-session date windows); RSA 40:4, II(a) (weather postponement; 72-hour limit where RSA 40:13 is adopted); RSA 40:10, I and V (restriction on reconsideration; applies to school district meetings under RSA 197); School District Warrant 2.8.23; Public Notice 2.8.23.
Appendix — source files
Official and public sources
- Cablecast show 14892, "Claremont School Board Deliberative Session 2/8/23" — Claremont Community TV, CLAREMONT SCHOOLS gallery. Runs 1:53:11. Every timestamp on this page links into this recording.
- Drive packet folder "5. CSB Deliberative Session 2.8.23" — 7 documents, all seven listed below by their exact Drive names.
Agenda 2.8.23 — one page, four items. Gives the 6:30 PM start and heads the meeting "Stevens High School Gymnasium".School District Warrant Article 2.8.23.pdf — the operative document: both sessions with place, day and hour; the three ward polling places; Article 1 (moderator, district clerk, district treasurer, three board seats) and Article 2 with $37,345,312, the $36,342,948 default and Note A; the snow-date term; and the six board signatures dated January 23, 2023. Locates the first session in the Stevens High School Auditorium.Rules of Procedure — headed "Deliberative Session Rules of Procedure Tracy Pope, Moderator". The source for the moderator's name, the SB 2 explanation, the written-amendment requirement, the rule that amended articles go to the ballot "in lieu of the original Warrant Article", the non-voter permission rule, and the right to demand a counted vote.Public Notice 2.8.23 — the posted notice, itself headed "Public Notice 1.18.23"; gives the auditorium and the February 9 snow date.Claremont Budget Worksheets.pdf — the full FY24 proposed budget, by school and by account line, with FY18–FY23 history. The summary page carries the two totals quoted on this page ($38,139,852 and $37,345,312), the "Additional Budget Reduction - Claremont School Board 1.17.23" heading and the single "(1,000,000) As of 1.18.23… School Board Motion" line.draft 11.3.22 Special District Minutes — the minutes approved at this meeting. Independently confirm Tracy Pope as moderator in November 2022, place Joshua Lambert on the school board at that date, and record the extraordinary-need-grant amendment moved by David Putnam and seconded by Gary Merchant.draft Deliberative Session meeting minutes 2.8.23.docx.pdf — the draft. Differs from the approved version in three places: it gives Arlene Hawkins as Ward 2 (corrected to Ward 3), renders Sprague's motion as "moves to strict reconsider" (corrected to "moves to restrict reconsideration"), and differs only in list indentation elsewhere.- Minutes:
2. Approved Deliberative Session meeting minutes 2.8.23.pdf — approved, in the district's shared Meeting Minutes folder. Submitted by Chelsea Weatherford. The sole source on this page for the 41–27 tally, the mover and seconder of the amendment, and the wards of eighteen floor speakers.
- Not in any district share, verified 2026-08-28: (1) the written amendment that the moderator required to be signed by mover and seconder and read from at 0:29:47 — the primary document for what actually went to the March 14 ballot (flag 5); (2) the DRA default budget form that RSA 40:13, XI(a) requires the governing body to complete and disclose, with its line for "Reductions for eliminated positions" — absent from this packet and from the February 1 packet, and the document that would settle flag 1; (3) the superintendent's slide deck and the FAQ he refers to at 0:15:06 — "we tried to put out an epic view [an FAQ] and get that out to everyone" — neither of which is in the folder; and (4) the secret-ballot request itself, with its signatures.
- Related meeting, one week earlier: Claremont School Board — February 1, 2023, where the board explained how it proposed to find the $1,000,000 and where the default-budget question was first put. The story on this page continues there in both directions.
Project files
Relative links work when this page is opened from Output/HTML/.
Laws and rules cited on this page
- New Hampshire statutes — the official-ballot (SB 2) procedure. RSA 40:13: II (the warrant prescribes place, day and hour for both sessions), III (the first-session date windows), IV (amendment at the first session; an amended article goes to the ballot "on the main motion, as amended"), IX(b) (definition of "default budget"; exclusion of "vacant positions under recruitment or positions redefined"; "the governing body shall follow the statutory formula"), XI(a) (the DRA default budget form; disclosure at the first budget hearing; line-item detail available to voters) and XI(b) ("This amount shall not be amended by the legislative body"; adjustment by the governing body "acting on relevant new information" before ballots are printed). The section's most recent amendment is 2019, 192:2, so this text was in force on February 8, 2023; the codified text was cross-checked against it.
- New Hampshire statutes — the conduct of the meeting. RSA 40:4-a, I — secret ballot on the written request of 5 voters present made before the vote; recount as of right where the margin is within 10 percent. RSA 40:4, II(a) — weather postponement, limited to 72 hours where RSA 40:13 has been adopted. RSA 40:10, I and V — restriction on reconsideration, expressly applicable to school district meetings under RSA 197. RSA 197:19 — the district moderator holds "all the statutory duties, powers and authority granted to town moderators". RSA 197:20 — the clerk keeps "a true record of all the doings of each meeting"; "If the clerk is absent at any meeting a clerk pro tempore shall be chosen."
- New Hampshire statutes — right to know. RSA 91-A:2, II — minutes must include the "names of members, persons appearing before the public bodies, a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions", recorded promptly and open within five business days. RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — "public body" includes any legislative body of a school district. Vintage: the clause requiring minutes to record the names of the members who made or seconded each motion was added by 2018, 244:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019 — in force at this meeting, and applied on this page (see flag 12). The start-time, end-time and minutes-producer clauses added by 2025, 112:1, eff. Aug. 22, 2025 do post-date this meeting and are not applied to it.
- Federal — special education. 34 CFR 300.101(a) — FAPE "must be available to all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive" (Part 300 governs children with disabilities). 34 CFR 300.323(c)(2) — services made available in accordance with the IEP as soon as possible after it is developed. 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2) — least restrictive environment.
- Federal — education programs (cited only by cross-reference to the February 1 page). 20 U.S.C. §6321(b) — Title I supplement not supplant and the allocation-methodology test. 20 U.S.C. §1225(b) — GEPA §421, the Tydings amendment, behind the ESSER obligation deadlines.
- Case law. Claremont School District v. Governor, 138 N.H. 183, 635 A.2d 1375 (1993) (Claremont I) — citation taken from the 1997 opinion as reported by FindLaw, which recites it; the 1993 opinion was not separately retrieved — and the December 17, 1997 decision (Claremont II), 142 N.H. 462, 703 A.2d 1353.
- Secondary sources, cited as guidance or reporting and not as law. New Hampshire Municipal Association, "The Default Budget in SB2 Towns". Eagle Times on the Croydon 377–2 revote and NHPR, May 8, 2022, corroborating Representative Damon's account.