| 0:00:43 | The superintendent, not a chair, opens the meeting | There is no chair to call this meeting to order: the SAU board's officers expire and are re-chosen at the annual organizational meeting, and this is it. Superintendent Tempesta says "Just stand for the Pledge of Allegiance," leads it, and then presides over the election. He hands the gavel over six and a half minutes later. This is the same shape the Claremont board's own reorganization takes a week later. | HIGH |
| 0:01:13 | Two nominations for chair, and a request for a paper vote | "I'd like to move to the first order of business, which is the election of the board officers. And at this time I would take a motion for the chair of SA six. I'd like to nominate Marjorie Erickson for chair, please." The dialogue file puts that whole passage in the presider's cluster; the draft minutes assign the nomination to Rocco Ruggeri, seconded by Whitney Skillen. Heather Whitney then: "I'd like to nominate Steve for chairman." (0:01:36) The presider: "Okay. We have two nominations. Frank. Seconds. Second. Okay… I'd like to request a paper vote. Okay. Great. I think I can do. I think I can do that. I think. I don't see why not. We just gotta find some paper." The minutes render that last as "Frank Sprague requests a paper vote." | MEDIUM |
| 0:02:57 | The case for each candidate is made on the record — and it is a district argument | For the incumbent, an unidentified voice: "I think, Marjorie has been the chair for the last year, demonstrated great leadership and guidance skills, kept the saw [SAU] on track and forward progress. I'd like to see your kind of follow through and finish the, the evaluation process." Heather Whitney, for the challenger: "The reason why I nominated Steve is because he's been I feel we have a lack of saw of a Claremont School Board representation at the SA[U]. He's been very engaged and assertive about the needs of the Claremont School Board and the administration as a whole." (0:03:25) Then a second unidentified voice, for Erickson: "I think having Marge, as you know, the chair allows unity to have some representation with the with the essay. You. I think Claremont does get a lot of focus and attention with the resources that they require being, you know, the bigger district… So I think having, you know, my, my opinion is just having Marge as the chair balances that out just a little bit." (0:03:54) | |
| 0:06:16 | "Steve has got six." — the ballot is counted 6–5, and it did not split on district lines | Ballots are collected while a voice tests the microphone (0:05:38). Then the count, from two unidentified voices: "Steve has got six." / "Marge has five." The presider confirms the arithmetic — "There's six. 606. Five. We did. Everyone voted yes. Yeah." and "It's 11." (0:06:23) — and the teller announces "Vote is six five." The arithmetic is worth pausing on: with Hart absent, seven Claremont members and four Unity members cast eleven ballots. A vote on district lines would have been 7–4. It was 6–5, so at least one member voted against their own district's candidate. The paper ballot means no public record can say who. | MEDIUM |
| 0:06:51 | Vice chair by voice vote, in fourteen seconds | "Congratulations. Yes. Like to nominate Rocco for vice chair. I'll second that nomination. Okay. Discussion." — nomination, second and call for discussion arrive in one transcript row, all inside the presider's cluster; the minutes assign the nomination to Frank Sprague and the second to Steven Horsky. Then "Voice vote. All in favor for Rocco Ruggieri? For vice chair of Sussex" and "Unanimous. All right, so we have our chair and our vice chair." Those are the only two offices filled. RSA 194-C:5, I names a chairperson, a secretary and a treasurer, and does not mention a vice chair. | HIGH |
| 0:07:56 | The gavel changes hands, and a member reads the roll | The outgoing presider: "It's your meeting. All right, guys." The new chair: "To remind everybody to turn off their cell phones. And can I get call, please." The agenda's line is "Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members," but the board has no secretary, so Frank Sprague reads it: "Marjorie Erickson here. Shannon popescu. Yes. Kelly Simpson here." (0:08:10) Ruggeri's answer comes through as "Gary. Here." and Hart's name as "Tommy Hart" with no answer. Heather Whitney answers "Present." at 0:08:32. | HIGH |
| 0:08:47 | The agenda names the wrong policy, and is corrected before it is adopted | "Under policies. It says GCA… The personal exit interview. And I believe the policy that we actually will have before us. Is GC." The chair, reading the packet: "Printed here. It's GC qb. Go b r." (0:09:13) Then: "GCQBR. I just wanted to clarify that it's not GCA." The transcript's voice for all of this is Heather Whitney; the minutes credit the correction to Marjorie Erickson. Either way the board caught a document error in its own agenda and fixed it on the floor before adopting it. | MEDIUM POSITIVE |
| 0:09:51 | Three sets of minutes, 42 to 119 days old, approved in two and a half minutes | "So we have some minutes from December 17th, 2022 and January 17th, 2023 and February 16th, 2023." There was no December 17 meeting; the chair corrects it to "Correction to December 1st, 2022" (0:10:30) and the final minutes carry the right date. The February 16 set drew one substantive correction: "It says Superintendent Tempesta discusses some of the implantation of." — the transcript clips there; the draft minutes give the fix in full, changing the sentence to read "some of the implantation implications of the Lupini report that have already taken place." All three passed on voice votes with no count. | MEDIUM |
| 0:12:35 | Citizens' comments, opened and closed in one sentence | "I continue. So I'd like to open the floor to citizens. Comments. Seeing none, we will be moving on to the superintendent's report." No member of the public is in the room; nobody is turned away. RSA 189:74 sets a floor of thirty minutes for the public comment period at a school board meeting, and what that floor measures — the opportunity or the elapsed time — is not settled by the statute's text. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:13:09 | The business administrator's retirement letter, read verbatim — effective in fifteen days | "I also have, a letter of retirement that I would like to read to everyone. From Richard Seaman. It reads addressed to myself, dear Mike, as I am soon to reach age 65. I will be retiring from my position effective April 14th, working with the team as truly been a pleasure." The letter's own account of the tenure: "We successfully negotiated several contracts to tax past weaknesses and employee salaries, passed for budgets, strengthened financial management, and provided surpluses each year back to taxpayers, and completed the restoration of the Dow building. In addition to rebuilding financial integrity caused by a multitude of troublesome legacy issues we have now… strong employees and processes in place to ensure that finance, operations and HR run smoothly in the future." (0:13:39) And the offer: "I realize there are still important projects to be completed, however, and accordingly, I can be available to the A oh six [SAU 6] on a contract basis to assist my replacement." (0:14:09) The board asked no question about it. | |
| 0:14:39 | A consultant starts Monday; the auditor is offered a role in the gap | "So we have a commitment from David Jack that in who we will be here Monday to start transitioning with Richard. And obviously in the entire team for, for the week. I have spoken to Michael Campo who is the… Director at our auditors, and he also can provide any assistance with the audit report." (0:14:59) On the consultant: "David, Jack is a specialist who has worked in the region, most recently at Fall Mountain, helping them last year when they didn't have a BA," with "35, 40 years experience, just a really respected BA." And on the market: "There are several, business administrator openings in the region… So we're going to we're going to aggressively go after that." (0:15:24) Monday was April 3, 2023 — eleven days before the retirement took effect. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:16:42 | Girl Scout troop 3261 sold 15,000 boxes of cookies and gave the district ten iPads | "17 girls in troop 3261 led by troop leader who reached out to me… And the heroes that the girls wanted to honor this year were the the teachers in the region. And this troop has students from unity. Leinster [Lempster], Newport, Claremont. And it's just a tremendous effort. They they raised they sold 17 girls, sold 15,000 boxes of cookies for each thousand student would get an iPad." Ten iPads followed (0:17:23). The Superintendent Report 3.30.23.pdf slide deck carries the photographs. A donation of this size to a district touches RSA 198:20-b, which required a prior public hearing for unanticipated funds of $5,000 or more on this date; ten iPads is very unlikely to reach that, and nothing on the record suggests the board treated it as a gift acceptance. | |
| 0:19:50 | ConVal: the superintendent and the business administrator were both deposed, and the trial dates fall on board nights | "We were all deposed as Claremont joined that lawsuit. Richard Seaman and I were deposed right around Halloween, and we I just went to, a training with or or a focus group training ramp up with our attorney at Wadleigh and Star. Last Friday." On the substance: "this is for the appropriate, constitutionally adequate education amount. Historically, it's been just around $4,000, 3800, not nearly enough. And, and it's more like particularly in the, in the Baker study was around… $9,900 plus the cost of transportation." (0:20:21) Erickson asks "is that the equitable funding case that's been ongoing?" and gets the history: "Started started with the actually people in the room. You've lived it in Claremont in the 80s and 90s… And now, Con Valley's [ConVal's] leading it. They they are, footing the bill for 51% of the share." (0:21:15) The packet's superintendent report includes a page from the transcript of his own October 27, 2022 deposition in Contoocook Valley School District et al. v. State of New Hampshire, No. 213-2019-CV-00069, together with the scheduled April and May 2023 bench-trial dates. The $9,900 figure is the superintendent's characterization of the plaintiffs' expert work, not a court finding; no ruling had issued on this date. | |
| 0:23:10 | Curriculum: a four-year frameworks cycle, and a coaching grant across nearly every school | Koski, from the packet deck: "we've established that, curriculum cycle… Ela is in process this year and making good strides there. Math is cued up for next year." The written cycle runs ELA in development, math SY 2023-24, science and social studies SY 2024-25, full implementation SY 2025-26, review cycle continuing SY 2026-27. On the Teach United grant: "If you look at the little graphic there, you'll notice almost all of our schools are part of that grant. We're really the only nearly full or complete district that's participating in that." (0:24:31) Administrators were seven weeks into "Leading for Impact"; educator coaching was scheduled for SY 2023-2025. | |
| 0:26:39 | The tier data, and a presenter correcting her own figure on the record | Koski: "It's been really a very short implementation time, but we're happy to see that there's some traction and things are getting better. So we, Steph, you can help me with numbers. The red zone should be, what, 4% or like the bottom triangle?" Heather Whitney pins it down: "from what I heard Stephanie say is that the red zone should be no more than 20 to 25% of total students. But I see that at the mid-year we have 18%. So are we doing. I mean, is this saying we're doing well." (0:29:53) Hurst corrects herself: "I guess I misspoke. Actually, the red zone should probably be the 5%, 20% at the yellow, and then the green would be… 80 to 73." (0:31:04) The packet deck's own numbers: 774 of 808 students assessed for K–5 literacy, 754 of 808 for math at beginning of year, 769 of 808 at middle of year. | |
| 0:33:31 | "The resources required to address an 80% below grade level student population" | Whitney Skillen: "if normal under a an ideal triangle would have 20 to 25% combined red and yellow. It does seem like our middle of the year triangle is a little bit upside down because we're 20% in the green. What does that mean in terms of the resources required to address an 80% below grade level student population as compared to the resources that would be required to address a 20% below grade level population?" Hurst's answer names the diagnosis: "in analyzing this data that shows us we have a tier one problem. So while tier two, tier three special education still needs to continue, we have to focus on what's happening in that firs[t]" (0:34:06). Earlier in the same exchange the board establishes that "23% of our students are identified" (0:32:31). No dollar figure was put to the question, and none was asked for. | |
| 0:35:42 | Balanced literacy out, structured literacy in — a twenty-year turn | Hurst: "Teachers are working very hard in the classroom to recover gains from Covid. Okay. And we also have had a shift in reading instruction. So we're moving away from balanced literacy. You may have heard that term into structured literacy, which is how most of us were probably taught to read. We were taught with phonics and phonemic awareness and and how to decode words." And on the pace: "We haven't been doing that for about 20 years. So we're trying to make that shift… even today we were in, letters [LETRS] training for adm[inistrators]" (0:36:05). Heather Whitney frames the gap for the new members: "our district really hasn't for newer members to really hasn't had a curriculum… we've had a gap in professional development, a gap in curriculum, and it's not so much resources as it is structures and procedures in place" (0:36:46). | |
| 0:40:16 | A Science of Reading award finalist, and a target for next year | Koski: "Stephanie got a warded or got nominated to be a finalist by one of our principles as a Science of Reading Star Award… she's a finalist for that." Then the chair asks what recovery looks like, and gets a straight answer: "I'm afraid to say there will be some students will be several years… we're dealing with behavior issues that haven't been seen before, which impacts instruction and learning." (0:41:17) And a number to be held to: "I would expect we're in the 30 to 40% for on grade level for both math and literacy… I would expect that to continue to grow until we're in like the 6,070% range for that green layer." (0:42:28) Frank Sprague asks for the data disaggregated by school; Hurst commits: "We have that data by school and by grade level for you very soon." (0:45:42) | POSITIVE |
| 0:45:52 | Social promotion, raised by a member and answered without a policy | Heather Whitney: "what is the strategy to how to how to deal with social promotion? I just I don't think I'm the only one that's concerned about promoting kids that aren't meeting proficiency levels… how we're going to prevent those progressive losses when a kid moves forward and they haven't gotten it, and then they keep moving forward and they're just getting less and less and less because they have nothing to build on." Koski: "I'm not aware of any, any educational research that says the student benefits by being held back. However, it almost always shows a negative educational results for the for the student, particularly the higher you get… currently our policy says that's allowed." (0:46:26) Tempesta adds that summer school had been made a condition in earlier years. Koski's closing word: "It is it is a sticky problem." (0:48:06) No action, no policy referral. | |
| 0:50:27 | The technology department went from seven people to two | Tempesta: "we moved from an employee who had the primary responsibility for that when Jeff was in the department, before he took over the department, there were seven people identified in the technology department." Then: "And now we have three… the amount of, the teaching stations that we have now are second to none in terms of displays, integration, peripherals, using Google Network… And this is in unity as well as throughout Claremont. And basically that happened with, with two people and now soon to be three." (0:51:03) Jeff Small, on his colleague: "And going from seven people to two with the amount of stuff we have would not be possible without him." (0:55:10) Small also asks the board for direction on the website: "just let me know what you kind of like the looks of and we can discuss. We can do a mock" (0:53:57). | |
| 0:55:19 | Open positions, an integration specialist, and a proposal to grow one | Hawkins: "Can you talk about your new hire and open positions that you're looking to fill?" Small describes the best tech-support candidate he has interviewed, still finishing a bachelor's, plus a second open post, and then the gap the Lupini report identified: "I think in the Luchini [Lupini] report, one thing that we are, th[at]" — integration specialists who "bridge the gap between us and curriculum and help with rostering" (0:56:50). Hawkins: "considering. How dependent we all have become on technology, it's almost ludicrous to think that two people could do it… we're not using textbooks anymore. Everything is software driven." (0:57:25) Tempesta floats stipends instead of posts, noting "stipends also have the benefit of you're not paying additional benefits" (0:58:17). The chair proposes growing the skill in-house through the technical centre: "it seems like a no brainer for this building is to have a technology integration program… then we could literally farm it in our own house." (0:59:06) | |
| 1:00:51 | The SAU's Facebook page has no owner | Jeff Small, unprompted: "the s o [SAU] does have a Facebook page. It went from Josh to Mike, and now that Mike's not here, we would need somebody to, to take that over. So, just let me know, and we can do that." The chair defers it: "So work on that here. I think. Yeah, yeah, we'll get there." No one was assigned. An official social-media account is a governmental record channel; leaving it unowned is a records-custody loose end rather than a rule breach, and nothing on this record says what became of it. | |
| 1:01:40 | Accounts payable: a portal "about 20 grand more," and a committee that has never met | Tempesta: "the accounts payable, committee, basically what this is a came out of kind of a listening tour in a visit to a couple of other places to see how they set up their payables and the staffing." On the software: "Richard have been investigating the visions portal, where an online it's a little it's more pricey than what we pay now. Probably about 20 grand more. But the capacity of this and the training of this and the access of this, it is a just an amazing portal where an employee would actually go in and do updates." (1:02:09) Frank Sprague, bluntly: "I'm lost. Me. What are we talking about here? Is this a program or is this a person." (1:02:58) Koski adds the operational case: "it would allow for building based processing. Currently, the system we're using requires us to input all the information" (1:06:59). | OBSERVATION |
| 1:03:11 | Why the Lupini report singled out accounts payable | Erickson: "That was one of the Luchini [Lupini] report recommendations was that we need and you said it best standard operating procedures for every function at the SA and accounts payable is one of the biggest ones that doesn't have one. And yet everybody in the district who buys anything needs to go through accounts payable to get it paid for. And Kim is overwhelmed because she might get, you know, 2 or 3 pieces of information from one place, and then she has to go research a whole bunch of things because the order is incomplete." And the diagnosis: "it was very uneven information. And because there was no procedure that anybody was ever trained in." (1:03:45) Later, on the SAU's own showing in the report: "My we got pinged in the report." (1:08:06) Tempesta names a key-person risk in the same breath: "We had a brilliant, great employee, Charlie Gessner, the schedule for everyone for years, and we're trying to put the responsibility of that in the training and ramping up to his level." (1:10:27) | OBSERVATION |
| 1:04:43 | The district's auditors, described as adviser and auditor at once | Tempesta: "It can be it can be improved in talking to Mike Campo as well. Mike Campo again from Nick [Plodzik & Sanderson]. He also said that they provide a service that I want to see what it is to do something like a report for accounting offices and payroll offices to see what, because of the volume that we have for everything. He he he seemed to think we might need a couple other positions." And on the firm's position in the market: "Nick, it's probably the consultant and the exact auditor for 80% of the district's in New Hampshire. So they're a great place. They and and also work closely with our consultant will be there on Monday with David Jackson [Jack]." (1:05:34) No engagement was proposed or voted on — this is a superintendent saying he wants to find out what the service is. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:05:54 | The new chair describes the treasurer's duties — which he has been doing himself | "So I'm going to ask a question because I've gotten to where the the treasurer hat, which means I'm signing off on these checks. I that have go out. So that's a payable. So with that said, I've noticed that when I've played the treasurer role, typically when I asked for information, they've been able to get it for me within half a second because I do spot check things that I'm questioning before I sign my happy little name on a voucher." He then says what he wants next: "that was one thing as a treasurer that I was going to bring up the next time I was there signing stuff was that I'd like to see where we're at based off the budget and what line item is into unaffected" (1:08:35) — the transcript garbles the end of that sentence, and the same passage goes on to name the Claremont district treasurer, "Jane Hunter." No treasurer was elected at this organizational meeting, and the minutes record no treasurer at all. The duties he describes are the ones RSA 197:23-a assigns a district treasurer. | HIGH |
| 1:09:14 | "This is all new coming to me right now" — a new member asks when training will actually happen | Hawkins: "so I'm just really listening to this because this is all new coming to me right now." Then, twice, the practical question: whether administrative assistants generating purchase orders would be trained, and "how will that training occur." Tempesta: "During the PD days? We pay them to to be a part of that. The folks from visions come out" (1:09:45). Hawkins presses: "So when is the next PD day? We are the administrative assistance will have the opportunity to be trained in the purchase orders and accounts payable." (1:10:59) The answer is an estimate, not a date: "I don't know when the next one is… I would say within the next couple of months." (1:11:09) | |
| 1:11:57 | "Does this mean that there are vendors who have not yet been paid?" | Hawkins: "I heard you say that there's a backlog with the accounts payable. Does this mean that there are vendors who have not yet been paid?" The answer, in full: "No, I don't know that for sure. So there are delays in some of the things getting paid. There's also some peculiar there's a couple of vendors that that that bill way more frequently than they need to that are very persistent and persnickety, shall we say. And are I would there's a lot of vendors out there. I wouldn't use them." The question was not returned to, and no figure for unpaid or delayed invoices was given at any point in the meeting. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:12:34 | A $30,000 city bill, raised and withdrawn inside forty seconds | An unidentified Claremont-side member: "Going to ask this question. The city has a bill out for $30,000 to the school department. I just learned. And has that been paid? Do you know?" Tempesta: "I don't know what, Bill, I think I know what you're talking… So we've had we've had meetings. We've had meetings on that. That's a yeah, we met with them. We met with them directly." (1:12:58) Then the member withdraws it: "Oh that's right. It's climb on [Claremont] issue. I should be talking about that. Yeah okay. We'll talk about that." (1:13:05) Correctly withdrawn — a Claremont district liability is not SAU 6 business — but the item then leaves the public record entirely, and no Claremont board page in this corpus picks it up. | |
| 1:13:12 | The committee has never met, and ESSER money is floated to pay for the software | Heather Whitney: "I just had a question about who who is on the committee. This accounts payable and, standard operating operating procedures committee. And, my assumption is that this will be presented to us… We're going to buy a new software." Tempesta: "We started with the tech department. Nancy. It's not active. They haven't met yet. We're trying to cost it out. Oh, okay. And use actually esser money as well with that." (1:13:42) Whitney's reason for asking: "I just had the feeling that this was something that was actively in process. And you know, when I heard Arlene asking when people can get trained on this, I." (1:14:00) She closes: "I just was trying to clarify because it sounded like this was something that was in, in play in versus, you know, in a planning stage." (1:14:36) | OBSERVATION |
| 1:14:46 | The board calendar: a document written to make an unstructured board predictable | Erickson: "I guess Chelsea sent it out. I'm a proposed pre-populated calendar. And I just wanted your thoughts… Claremont Unity and the essay. You all are looking to be a little more organized in our agendas for each meeting so that members, board members can be prepared." She walks the year month by month and names the gap: "We do have some standing committees. We have other committees that we should have, such as a policy committee that we do not have at the moment. The only standing committee that I believe the say you currently has is the Superintendent Evaluation Committee." (1:16:59) The document itself is headed "Meetings 3rd Thursday of each month" and places "Elect SAU 6 Board officers — Chair, Vice chair" in April, not March. | HIGH MEDIUM |
| 1:21:15 | The December constraint on the SAU budget, stated plainly | Erickson: "The big thing I think that we should all keep in mind is that our budget hearing for the essay needs to be in December. So we have to set a budget calendar that ensures that we have a final budget before the end of December, because the budget has to be done prior to completion of either the Unity or Claremont Budgets." And on why it is fresh: "the budget one was right fresh in my mind because we got pinged on that one this year." (1:26:48) This is the FY24 budget that the same board had in fact adopted on January 17, 2023 — the subject of the HIGH flag on the February 16, 2023 page. RSA 194-C:9, I requires adoption "at a meeting held before January 1." Frank Sprague turns it into a standing ask: "that would be the detailed the budgeted as an actual and then what's left." (1:28:52) | |
| 1:23:17 | The SAU's own policies are not on its website, and there is no complete set | Erickson: "Rocco has been our policy champion. He put together a spreadsheet that has every policy on it with a link to the policy on the website." Ruggeri: "But the website" — and Erickson finishes it: "But the website is not updated… we have policies that have been approved that aren't reflected on the website." (1:23:41) Then the larger gap: "I don't think we have a complete set of policies I don't think.." (1:30:17), and Heather Whitney: "No we don't. Because I've checked in I'm like." (1:30:25) Erickson again: "the say policies are not up to date and the New Hampshire School Board Association, does have all of that on their website." (1:30:41) Frank Sprague could not find them at all: "So where did our current saw policies live? Where are those?" (1:29:57), and Jeff Small has to walk him through the site menu live on air to reach them (1:32:41). | OBSERVATION |
| 1:29:54 | "Someone else got elected. Chair." | The new chair asks the outgoing chair to keep maintaining the calendar — "you'd be the person that would volunteer graciously to, to just to make those little changes" — and gets the driest line of the night back: "Someone else got elected. Chair." She then does the work anyway: "Okay. Well, I will update the calendar for the next meeting, and I will show the things that I have under January, February, March." (1:31:50) The chair's reply: "I appreciate the work that you put into this, Marjorie, and I appreciate you helping by editing it." (1:32:14) | POSITIVE |
| 1:31:02 | A policy subcommittee is created — and nobody volunteers for it | The chair: "Willing to entertain a motion to set up a policy subcommittee, if anybody would like to make." Erickson: "I would love to make a motion to set up a policy subcommittee to look at, say, policies." Ruggeri seconds; the chair says "Marjorie and Rocco," and Erickson corrects him: "That doesn't make us the policy committee does." (1:31:20) Carried on a voice vote with no count. The chair's own summary: "All opposed? All right. I figured there'd be crickets on that one. So we're going to set up a policy subcommittee. Think about it, because it sounds like it's going to be a little bit of a time investment. We'll put that on the future agenda item to get the policy committee in place as to who wants to do it." (1:31:30) A public body was created with no members. | MEDIUM |
| 1:33:28 | GCQB-R: a better policy, borrowed from Kearsarge | The chair: "We're gonna move on to policies and we'll start with g, c a that was edited. To g c QB dash. Exit interview." Erickson explains the swap: "we had a first read of a policy last month, but then Heather was kind enough to go to the website. Was it Heather? And then I forget who sent it to me. But, there was a much better policy than the one I had… And so I've sent out this policy, which again, I got from Sarge [Kearsarge], and I like it much better." (1:34:00) Skillen raises the process point — "Do we have to do another first read because it's a different" — and Erickson agrees it is "substantially different than the one we did a first read on before." (1:34:37) Skillen's two form changes, as the draft minutes put them, are "adding the header to each page" and "the removal of" the redundant italic instruction. On the recording she gives the second herself: the italic line is — "if you marked any of the categories as dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please write your explanation below… So I think we can delete the italicized." (1:35:06) | POSITIVE |
| 1:35:37 | A brand-new member finds a United Kingdom statute inside an SAU policy | Jennifer Gallagher, at her first SAU 6 meeting: "I have a question about the actual policy. Under the introduction and I did not know what the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 was, so I googled it. And what I came up with was a UK statute law from the United Kingdom. Is there is there one for us or did I not Google the correct thing?" Erickson: "No, I, I want to say that I googled that and came up with one that was at least American." Gallagher holds: "Okay, well, I tried and I couldn't find one, so I just probably didn't Google it." (1:36:11) The chair states the general rule he wants applied: "If it's a U.S. code, or. A law or state, federal, state, wherever it resides, I'd like to see… the code chapter. Where. It's located next to it, typically for compliance… usually when you're copying or trying to comply with a statute, label such statute." (1:36:29) Erickson: "I'll do that. I'll try to include the RSA that goes. With it." (1:37:02) Then Tempesta, on the tell in the drafting: "UK everywhere." (1:37:06) Erickson: "Okay. Well we'll we'll blame Kearsarge there." (1:37:08) and then resolves it: "I think we could actually just remove that sentence completely." (1:37:29) | POSITIVE |
| 1:37:44 | A fifth column for "neutral," and a debate about skipping a reading | The chair: "one thing that I saw is you have very satisfied. Satisfied? Dissatisfied. Very dissatisfied. I have a six speed card. There's a thing called neutral. And, you know, you might not be satis[fied]". Heather Whitney checks the rules for going faster: "I'm looking through the policy primer from the New Hampshire School Board. Association doesn't say that we have to wait to a next meeting." (1:38:11) The chair declines to shortcut it: "you technically could make the motion to move it a second read. However, there was a lot of a lot of change to it compared to the." (1:38:49) Erickson agrees: "Mind looking at it one more time and doing a second and final." (1:38:53) | POSITIVE |
| 1:38:33 | The next meeting moves from April 20 to April 13 | Erickson: "It's supposed to be April 20th, but Mike is not here on the 20th due to the." Tempesta offers the alternative and names the cost: "You could also move that to the 13th. I don't think we have a conflict." (1:38:56) and "Wednesday, then Thursday on the s a you or it's Tuesday Thursday with unity. I like not the third but I don't know back to back nights." (1:39:09) Erickson: "You can do the 13th." (1:39:23) April 13, 2023 was a Thursday — the second Thursday of the month. The superintendent's stated conflict on the 20th is the ConVal trial: he had said at 0:20:48 that "mine is the day of our next meeting on that, whenever that is the 20th or so." | |
| 1:39:51 | GCQB-R to second read | Frank Sprague: "I'd like to make a motion to move policy GCQB dash r x. Your procedures as amended to second reading." The chair: "Second motion made by Frank, seconded by Whitney. All those in favor?" (1:40:02) and "All those opposed being none. That moves to second read." No count taken. The minutes agree in full: "Frank Sprague makes a motion to move policy GCQB-R as amended to second read; seconded by Whitney Skillen; all in favor via voice vote." | |
| 1:40:17 | CBI: the superintendent evaluation calendar is made specific on the floor | Erickson sets the history: "at the last meeting, we approved on the excuse me, the evaluation superintendent evaluation procedure, conditioned on having a policy in place." Her rewrite, read into the record: the calendar "will coincide with the academic calendar… Will be set before the end of August of each year. Informal reviews and status updates with the intended evaluation committee will will be held in November and January of each year." (1:42:33) Plus a new sentence: "The superintendent evaluation subcommittee will meet with the superintendent following the collection of all input information, to review and discuss the results of the formal evaluation, the superintendent shall receive a summative copy of the evaluation following this meeting." (1:43:47) Skillen splits the long opening sentence live: "Take out the comma after calendar. Make that a period take out with capitalized joint." (1:41:44) and, on the drafting: "Apparently Faulkner was wordy." (1:42:03) | POSITIVE |
| 1:44:39 | "Does it need to say that those meetings are held in executive session or not?" | Gallagher's question opens the only sustained Right-to-Know discussion of the night. Tempesta: "Unless requested. Unless I. Requested the meeting… Public option. I think that's a statute." (1:44:50) — a correct reference to the affected person's right to require an open meeting under RSA 91-A:3, II(a). Frank Sprague: "It depends on how you which are you going to go into RSA." (1:44:59) and "if you're warning one it can be public and the other it's not publicly." (1:45:11) | POSITIVE |
| 1:45:34 | "Since we're a group of 12… we could have five members without it being an official meeting" | Frank Sprague, reading the draft policy's "subcommittee of 3 to 5 members" clause: "And since we're a group of 12, it's a quorum is a majority. So I think we could have five members without it being an official meeting." That is the proposition RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) does not support: a subcommittee is a public body whatever its size. Two members push back immediately — "All subcommittees have to be open to the public except if warned otherwise" (1:47:10), Erickson's "But you can't vote on anything that's not on the agenda and warned" (1:48:12), and "You have to warn it anyway" (1:48:43). Erickson also states the practice: "Oh, well, we have minutes. From all of them." (1:45:57) Sprague closes it the right way: "A question for the school board association." (1:48:48) | MEDIUM |
| 1:46:10 | "Less than a quorum" — and Josh Lambert's departure, on the record | The chair proposes the drafting fix that carried: "It might be wise to just put a the board will elect a subcommittee of less than a quorum to take place because if the, if somebody drops off the board now your quorum size changes." His worked example names the vacancy that had sat on the Claremont board all year: "Like when we had Josh leave, that technically brought us down to a six person board, thus." (1:46:33) Skillen backs it on durability grounds: "it makes the policy have more longevity. We're not going to have to go back and update it." (1:46:52) Erickson lands the wording — "So less than a quorum of the say you board." (1:47:09) — and Gallagher suggests the cleaner phrasing: "Can the wording be an I again new at this not to represent a quorum." (1:49:21) The outcome is sound whatever the reasoning: a subcommittee below quorum cannot become an unnoticed meeting of the full board. The reasoning offered for it is not. | MEDIUM |
| 1:50:03 | CBI to second read | Whitney Skillen: "I'd like to make a motion to move the CBA, this policy, whatever it is. CB I say you superintendent evaluation and goal setting to first read with Marjorie's amendments that she's going to make tonight. It will be oh second read with the amendments Marjorie is going to make tonight and share via email" — a self-correction from first to second read inside one sentence. The chair: "Can I get a second?" and the answering voice, diarized as Frank Sprague, says "Second name?" (1:50:24). The minutes credit Jennifer Gallagher with the second. Passed on a voice vote with no count and no announced tally (1:50:27). The policy was left at second read, not adopted. | MEDIUM |
| 1:50:39 | The superintendent evaluation committee, reconstituted by a show of hands | Erickson: "I know that we should be moving on, but I desperately need a superintendent evaluation committee before we leave this meeting because we need to meet." Then: "Do we meet with the old one? Because now we have new board members." (1:50:54) Skillen proposes the method: "I wonder if there would be if there's anyone who would just volunteer now, by a show of hands, of who would want to be on the superintendent evaluation committee to make this a very quick process." Erickson names the sitting membership — "so far it's Whitney, Heather, Shannon and myself" (1:51:13) — Heather Whitney steps off ("Heather said she's out," 1:51:31), Sprague steps on, and the chair reads it back: "We have four members. Shannon, Whitney, Frank, forever." (1:51:41) The minutes record the result and nothing else: "Superintendent Evaluation Committee: Whitney Skillen, Frank Sprague, Shannon Popescu & Marjorie Erickson." No motion, no second, no vote, no chair. Erickson's parting instruction: "before we leave tonight, we need to agree on a meeting date. So don't leave without getting together to agree on." (1:51:52) | MEDIUM |
| 1:52:09 | Eight minutes to find a retreat date | Skillen opens with "I would like to propose Sunday, August 13th, because that's one of the few Sundays I'll actually be in town in the month of August." Erickson is away the 12th to the 20th; the 27th fails on Ruggeri — "Rocco's not available on the 27th" (1:53:55); the 26th fails on the chair, who works Saturdays: "I will be at work that day. Oh, I work Saturday, sadly. But I, I trust Rocco." (1:54:11) Erickson: "no, I'd like you to be there since you're the chair." Weeknights win because the superintendent drives his son back and forth — "That's more time driving back and forth than the meeting" (1:55:38) — and the chair lands it: "That is a Wednesday work. That's typically a guaranteed evening for me." (1:55:40) Settled at "5 to 7 on the 23rd of August," at Erickson's house, "Potluck without a pig roast." (1:56:47) | |
| 1:58:11 | The board-member handbook, and who has one | Erickson: "one thing I wanted to bring up is New Hampshire School Board. Association does not support this anymore. This is from the National School Board Association… these are the best they are. They tell you everything that a board member needs to do. And mine is dog eared." (1:58:34) Skillen: "Mike, you have copies of this in your office, right?" (1:58:51) Tempesta: "We do. Well, we have one. We have one left for new ones. But she is ordered a dozen more. So if you if you don't have one, we can get one for everyone." Three of twelve members were sitting for the first or second time, and there was one handbook in the building. Two virtual NHSBA new-member orientations, on April 10 and May 2, are on the agenda's future-dates list; Hawkins had taken the first round and reported "It was helpful." | |
| 2:00:01 | Meetings move to the second Thursday — which the minutes record as Tuesday | Tempesta explains the standing conflict: "In the future. We have the third Thursdays. There's no other conflicts" and "it's particularly tough for for Claremont right to be in the same room redux two days in a row" (1:59:52). Erickson: "I like the second Thursday as opposed to the." (1:59:48) The chair puts it: "That's is it the pleasure of the board to schedule future meetings on the second Thursday of the month?" Skillen: "Yes. So April 13th would be our next meeting." (2:00:13) The chair confirms: "The second Thursday going forward, unless a holiday in Chelsea will be awesome and send us all invites." The draft minutes record this as "the second Tuesday of each month." | MEDIUM |
| 2:00:39 | No other business; adjourned two hours in | "Seeing none, we will move on to other business. Any other business?" then "Seeing none." Skillen moves to adjourn, the chair records "Seconded by Shannon. All those in favor?" (2:00:54) and the recording's last words are Ruggeri's at 2:01:01. The agenda had scheduled closing activities for 8:15 p.m.; the meeting ran about two hours from a 6:30 p.m. start, roughly fifteen minutes past its own plan. | |