SAU 6 Board — April 13, 2023

OBSERVATION Two of the changes the board asked for at first read are missing from the second-read documents — including a United Kingdom statute the board discussed striking

The March 30 minutes record four things the board wanted done to the exit-interview material before second read. The second-read documents carry two of them and not the other two.

Done. Chair Horsky "suggests adding a fifth column for 'neutral'" — and the second-read form has five rating columns, "Very Satisfied / Satisfied / Neutral / Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied," where the first-read form had four. Skillen "proposes adding the header to each page" — and the second-read form carries the ranking header twice, once above each block of categories, where the first-read form ran them as one continuous table. Not done. Skillen also asked for "the removal of" the instruction which reads, on the form, "*If you marked any of the categories as ‘Dissatisfied’ or ‘Very Dissatisfied,’ please write your explanation below" the form puts double quotation marks around the two ratings; they are shown here as single marks so the nesting reads — "as it is redundant," in the minutes' words. That sentence is still on the second-read form, and it is still redundant of the later "If you were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with any of the areas on the first page, please explain here." And: "Discussion amongst the board takes place about the removal of 'Also, to comply with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the LEA must have systems in place to monitor the ethnicity of employees who either leave or move to another employer' on the personnel exit form" — that sentence is still in policy GCQB-R at second read, word for word.

What that sentence is. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: "An Act to extend further the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to the police and other public authorities." It imposes duties on specified British public authorities. LEA is the British term Local Education Authority. Neither the Act nor the office it names has any application to a New Hampshire school administrative unit. The superintendent gave the likely explanation on the recording — "if I remember, this was adopted from the care Sarge [Kearsarge] one" (0:55:41) — a policy borrowed from another district, which had presumably borrowed the template from further away still.

This is labelled an observation, not a violation: no statute or rule requires a school board to carry every first-read amendment into the second-read draft, and the March 30 minutes record discussion of removing the Race Relations sentence rather than a vote to remove it — Sprague's motion moved GCQB-R "as amended" without listing the amendments. The reviewer's point is narrower and practical: the board is now on its third reading of a document whose public text still contains a foreign statute nobody at the table thought belonged there, and the minutes are the only record of what "as amended" meant.

Sources: Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (UK), long title and contents (verified 2026-08-29); draft minutes 3.30.23 (the four requested changes); first read — Proposed policy GCQB-R and Proposed Exit interview Form for Policy GCQB; second read — Proposed policy GCQB-R for 2nd read 041323 (1).pdf and Proposed Exit interview for Policy GCQB modified for 2nd read 041323 (2).pdf.

OBSERVATION Two clock references inside the recording cannot be reconciled with the 6:00 p.m. start printed on the agenda and in the minutes

The agenda and the draft minutes both give 6:00 p.m., with the nonpublic session at 6:05 and general business at 6:30. The recording opens on room chatter at 0:00:09 and the chair calls the meeting to order at 0:00:43, so the recording begins essentially at the start of the meeting. Two independent references inside it point elsewhere. At 0:17:37, 17 minutes 37 seconds in, the chair says "I would like to note that Heather Whitney has arrived at 730" — and the minutes agree, recording "Heather Whitney (Arrival at 7:30 PM)". At 1:06:19, 1 hour 6 minutes 19 seconds in, reaching the agenda's 8:00 p.m. Future Dates item, he says "we're only 20 minutes behind." Each reference, worked backwards, puts the call to order at about 7:10–7:12 p.m. They agree with each other; neither agrees with 6:00 p.m. On a 6:00 p.m. start, Whitney would have arrived at 6:18 and the board would have reached the 8:00 p.m. item at 7:06 — nearly an hour ahead of schedule, not behind. The whole meeting occupies 1:10:57 of recording.

The record does not resolve it, and this page does not try to. The two readings are: the meeting began about seventy minutes after the noticed time and both agenda and minutes carry the scheduled time rather than the actual one; or the chair misspoke 7:30, the minutes copied his misstatement, and "20 minutes behind" was loose talk. The first explains both references with one fact; the second needs two errors. Note also that the chair's own next utterance after the call to order, at 0:00:51, is rendered "I am 245" — unrecovered speech in exactly the slot where a chair states the time.

No rule is cited against this. RSA 91-A:2, II's requirement that minutes record the meeting's start and end times was added by 2025, 112:1 and did not apply in 2023, so the minutes' silence on the actual start breaks nothing. The statute's 24-hour notice requirement attaches to notice of the meeting, and no argument is made here that notice was defective. This is recorded because a member of the public who arrived at the noticed hour would want to know, and because the discrepancy shapes every clock time on the page.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II the start-time and end-time clause is a 2025 addition (2025, 112:1) and is not applied to this 2023 meeting; SAU 6 School Board Agenda 4.13.23 ; draft minutes 4.13.23; the recording itself.

OBSERVATION Four places where the minutes and the recording tell different stories — including a member listed as both present and absent

Heather Whitney is in both lists. The minutes' attendance line reads "Present: Steven Horsky, Rocco Ruggeri, Frank Sprague, Bonnie Miles, Whitney Skillen, Arlene Hawkins, Kelly Simpson, Jennifer Gallagher (arrival at 6:07 PM) ,Heather Whitney (Arrival at 7:30 PM)" and then "Absent: Marjorie Erickson, Heather Whitney, Atonya Hart, Shannon Popescu." She cannot be both. The rest of the minutes resolve it against the absence entry — she moves the CBI amendment, seconds the GCQB-R motion and speaks under the calendar item — and so does the recording, which has the chair announcing her arrival at 0:17:37 and 53 attributed rows from her afterwards. This page treats her as present from that moment and reports the contradiction rather than quietly correcting it.

The merit pool is $36,190.41 on the recording and $35,000 in the minutes. The minutes read "Chair Horsky mentioned that he wanted to see the merit pay in the amount of $35,000 to be returned to taxpayers." On the recording the chair reads the figure off the page as "that 30 36,190 and 41, for the merit pool" (0:25:24), says "Group 36,000" when Hawkins checks it (0:25:59), and repeats "The $36,000" at 0:28:16; Hawkins echoes "36. Thousand and return it to the taxpayers" (0:26:01). Five references on the recording, all to 36; one in the minutes, to 35.

The surplus is 180 in one voice and 118 in another. The superintendent, presenting: "it looks like it will be up about 180,000" (0:20:06). The chair, minutes later: "when I see 119,100" (0:26:05) and "if I see 118, I'm not too concerned about giving back 36" (0:28:46). The minutes record "an anticipated surplus that is currently at $118,000.00." Nobody reconciles the numbers on the recording, and the underlying budget summary is not in the packet, so this page cannot say which is right — only that the meeting's own account of its surplus varies by roughly $62,000.

Two items recorded as happening that did not. "Citizens Comments- no citizen comments" — but the chair addressed a member of the public who was in the room and declined to speak: "I do see one gentleman out there. Is this is your time? Nothing to say" (0:08:25). And "Student Representative Report- Hannah Petrin" appears as an agenda line with no note that, in the same breath, "Hannah is not here this evening to give us a rundown."

No flag of violation attaches to any of these: RSA 91-A:2, II requires "a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions," not a transcript, and none of the four affects a decision. They are recorded because this project's pages are read alongside the minutes, and a reader comparing the two should know where they diverge.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (content of minutes); draft minutes 4.13.23; the dialogue transcript.

OBSERVATION The treasurer's election was closed without the affirmative ever being called, and three amendments to the board calendar were never moved, seconded or voted

The treasurer. After Hawkins accepted the nomination the chair went straight to the negative: "I any opposition and any abstentions?" (0:19:02), then "Seeing none. Arlene. Thank you" (0:19:09). There is no all those in favor call on the recording. The minutes record "all in favor via voice vote." Contrast the same chair on the previous item minutes earlier, where he put both halves — "All those in favor?… All those opposed? Any abstentions? Passes unanimously" (0:08:03, 0:08:16).

The calendar. Three changes were made to the annual calendar — Heather Whitney's annual-review line, Ruggeri's board-discretion note, and posting the document to the SAU website — and the record contains no motion for any of them. The chair asked "Should we amend it to that" (0:43:20), took Sprague's Yeah (0:43:23), and moved on. The minutes describe only Ruggeri's as an "amendment"; the other two appear as things members "would like." A fourth suggestion, Hawkins' proposal to retitle the document "timeline" rather than "Pre-populated Agenda" (0:42:00), appears nowhere in the minutes at all.

No rule is broken. RSA 91-A does not prescribe how a chair puts a question, and RSA 194-C:8 makes weighted voting on SAU officer elections available only "upon the demand of a majority of the members of any board present and voting," so an uncounted voice vote in an officer election is expressly contemplated. What the record loses is the ability to say afterwards what was adopted and by whom — which is exactly what RSA 91-A:2, II's mover-and-seconder requirement exists to preserve, and it cannot operate on a motion that was never made.

Sources: RSA 194-C:8 (weighted voting on SAU affairs including the selection of officers, on the demand of a majority present and voting); RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes to record movers and seconders); draft minutes 4.13.23.

OBSERVATION RSA 194-C:5, I names three SAU offices — chairperson, secretary, treasurer — and gives an April 1 to June 1 window. The record shows a chair and vice chair chosen on March 30, a treasurer on April 13, and no secretary

RSA 194-C:5, I provides: "The school board of each school administrative unit shall meet between April 1 and June 1 in each year, at a time and place fixed by the chairpersons of the several boards, and shall organize by choosing a chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer." Three facts sit against it.

The date. Steven Horsky was elected chair, and Rocco Ruggeri vice chair, at the meeting of March 30, 2023 — two days before the statutory window opens. The March 30 minutes record it: the superintendent called that meeting to order, Ruggeri nominated Marjorie Erickson and Heather Whitney nominated Horsky, Sprague requested a paper vote, and "Ben Nester collects the voting slips and totals the counts. Steven Horsky 6 votes and Marjorie Erickson 5 votes." The offices. "Vice chair" is not one of the three the statute names, and the board elected one; "secretary" is one of the three, and nothing in either meeting's record shows the board choosing a board secretary. The minutes are taken by Chelsea Weatherford, a staff recording secretary, and the roll calls at this meeting were read by the assistant superintendent — not by a board officer. The board's own calendar agrees with the statute's timing and not with what happened. The document adopted at this meeting puts, under April: "1st meeting: Elect SAU 6 Board officers — Chair, Vice chair." April is right; the election had already happened in March. And the list of offices to elect names the chair and the vice chair, omitting the secretary and the treasurer the statute actually requires — even though this very meeting had to elect a treasurer, as an item the calendar does not contain.

Labelled an observation. Whether a March 30 officer election is effective, or is cured by the board's continuing to act under those officers through the April window, is a legal question this page does not answer; and RSA 194-C:5 does not say what follows from a missing secretary. The point for a reviewer is that the board's governing calendar, adopted this night, does not describe the organisation the statute prescribes.

Sources: RSA 194-C:5, I (annual organisation between April 1 and June 1; chairperson, secretary and treasurer; source 1996, 298:3 — unamended since); SAU 6 School Board Agenda Proposed Recurring items Final (1).pdf; draft minutes 3.30.23.

OBSERVATION Two policies at second read on the same night, finished at different read counts — and both second-read texts reached the public folder at 11:18 a.m. that morning

Policy CBI was adopted at its second reading (0:59:22). Policy GCQB-R was sent to a third (0:57:30). Both had their first reading at the same meeting, March 30. The difference was not a rule but the shape of the discussion: Sprague opened GCQB-R by moving to "skip third grade [read] and straight to adoption" (0:44:38) and withdrew it when the board's access to exit-interview data turned out to be unsettled; Heather Whitney closed CBI by folding a typographical correction and adoption into one motion (0:58:44, 0:59:08). Sprague named the trade-off himself: "we're going to to third read instead of approval to get more chance to sort of what's going on" (0:57:21). No SAU 6 policy governing the number of readings appears in either district share, so nothing here can be measured against the board's own rule — there is no located rule to measure it against.

Timing of the packet. Google Drive records the four second-read documents — GCQB-R, the exit-interview form, the CBI redline and the annual calendar — as created in the public packet folder at 15:18 UTC on April 13, 2023, that is 11:18 a.m. Eastern on the day of the meeting. The agenda and the March 30 draft minutes had gone up the previous morning. RSA 91-A:2, II's 24-hour requirement attaches to notice of the meeting, not to the packet, and no violation is asserted: a district is not obliged to post its packet at all. The observation is about practical access — a member of the public wanting to read a policy before the board voted on it had about seven hours, and the exit-interview form runs to two pages of ranking grids.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (24-hour notice of the meeting; the statute does not require packet posting); Drive file metadata for the seven items in 6. SAU SB 4.13.23, read 2026-08-29.

OBSERVATION "Return it to the taxpayers" — an SAU surplus reaches taxpayers only through the two districts' assessments, and RSA 194-C:9 says nothing about surplus

The chair proposed returning the unused merit pool directly: "I think what I would like to do is, is possibly have a motion to return that money right out of the gate… To the taxpayer" (0:25:24), and later "I just think it's fair to to give it back when it's not going for its intended purpose" (0:28:16). SAU 6 has no taxpayers of its own. RSA 194-C:9 provides that the SAU board adopts its budget at a meeting held before January 1 and apportions the expense among the constituent districts — "the apportionment shall be based 1/2 on the average membership in attendance for the previous school year and 1/2 on the most recently available equalized valuation of each district" — and RSA 194-C:5, I gives the same board the power to fix SAU salaries and apportion the expense. The section contains no provision for surplus, unexpended balances, or returning money. Anything given back necessarily runs through the Claremont and Unity district budgets and reaches taxpayers, if at all, as a smaller assessment in a later year.

This is not a criticism of the instinct, which two members plainly shared — Hawkins asked the mechanical question ("when you say return that money to you, saying take what was allocated in that merit pool", 0:25:52) and Skillen proposed the alternative of holding it against the ESSER cliff ("I'm wondering if we should consider some of that $36,000 as money that would end up paying those salaries once the Esser money runs out", 0:27:36). No motion was made and no money moved: "We can think on it" (0:28:46). It is recorded so that a reader does not take "return it to the taxpayers" as describing a mechanism the statute provides.

Sources: RSA 194-C:9 (SAU budget adopted before January 1; apportionment half on average membership, half on equalized valuation; no surplus provision — text read 2026-08-29, source note 1996, 298:3; 2003, 279:1; 2024, 329:1, the last of which post-dates this meeting); RSA 194-C:5, I (SAU board fixes salaries and apportions the expense among the districts).