Participants
Everyone in the record: the seven board members, the administrators present or named, the proposed lead teacher, and every citizens'-comment speaker with the ward each gave. Name spellings follow the official minutes; where the automatic transcript renders a name differently, the row says so. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Heather Whitney | Chair, Claremont School Board | Opened with "Calling a Claremont Special Claremont school board meeting for August 9th, 2023" (0:00:09). Set the order of business herself: comments after the presentation and the board's discussion, factual questions before debate — "before we start a discussion, everybody has all the information before we start. Everybody is working on a level playing field" (0:28:36). Delivered a consolidated summary of the facts before opening debate (0:55:54) which misstated how the paraprofessional posts would be paid for — see flag 2. Made the main motion, put the amendment, disclosed that she had asked the district's attorney for a legal opinion that had not arrived (1:43:13), raised the other non-compliant uses of the building herself, declined to widen the motion to cover them, and called the vote by raised hand. Voted yes per the minutes. Rendered Heather Whitman and, once, "over to heaven" elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Frank Sprague | Vice Chair; member, SRVRTC/alternative-programme subcommittee | The meeting's institutional memory: supplied the dates and the statutory origin of the earlier programmes — "Senate bill. 18 came in which raised the, the dropout aged 18. So that was what it was in response to" (0:05:05) — and corrected a citizen who confused two of them. Moved the amendment that carried, pulling the review date forward from the end of the 2023–24 year to January 31, 2024. Asked the only certification and state-approval questions of the night (0:54:05), and raised a colleague's potential conflict of interest in public seconds before the vote (1:59:43) — see flag 12. Said of the building, flatly, "We've been out of compliance since the building opened." Voted no per the minutes. Rendered Greg, Craig, Spriggs and "Frank. Strange." elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Bonnie Miles | Board member; realtor; chair, Capital Improvement subcommittee | Moved to extend citizens' comments from three minutes to five before any comment was taken (0:01:59) — the motion the minutes attribute to her, carried on a voice vote seconded by Arlene Hawkins. Asked how far the roll would grow, who the students would be and what "disruptive" meant, refusing the answer she was given: "the children are not disruptive or are are throwing a chair is not disruptive. That ruins property, but it's not disruptive" (1:04:50). Then read the governing statute into the record at 1:14:36, accurately and in the form then in force — see flag 11. Voted no per the minutes. She is named outright several times here; in most 2023 recordings she is reachable only by elimination. |
| Whitney Skillen | Board member; chair, Policy subcommittee | Asked the sharpest questions in the room and got the least satisfying answers. Separated eligibility from evidence — "Would you agree that the criteria you described was more eligibility criteria and not the profile of any students who have been identified?" (0:36:42) — established that the expected out-of-district return was two students, and pressed twice on whether a past non-compliant use would still cost the district renovation money after the programme left. Argued that compliance, not preference, should decide which programmes stay in the building (1:10:14). Offered a further amendment after the question was called (1:59:02) which was disposed of as an administrative directive without a vote — see flag 6. Voted yes per the minutes. The worst-rendered name in this corpus: Skilling, Gillen, Skillet, Scullin. |
| Jennifer Gallagher | Board member (elected March 14, 2023, one-year seat) | Seconded the main motion. Answered Candace Crawford's objection from the floor with the programme's own rationale — "there's less of a demand for them to conform to the expectations in a big social setting. If you have a smaller class size with more adult involvement, it's less hard" (0:36:42 onward) — and gave the only speech expressly in favour: "it's reasonable to house it here temporarily and then explore alternative options" (1:12:52). Asked whether citizens should be heard before the board debated; the chair kept them to the end. Voted yes per the minutes. |
| Arlene Hawkins | Board member (elected March 14, 2023); chair, SAU 6 Board | Asked the questions nobody else asked: what supports would actually be in the building day to day (0:46:55), how parents would be told, whether the targeted students had ever taken a career-and-technical course, and what moving the same children twice in two years would do to them (1:13:23). Asked to amend the motion to cover every possibly non-compliant programme in the building and was declined (1:11:46). Stepped out briefly and said so on the record. Seconded the comment-extension motion. Voted yes per the minutes, where her name is misspelled Alrene in the tally line. Rendered Hopkins, Harley, "early knocking" elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Candace Crawford | Board member (appointed July 19, 2023); Tech Center Visioning Committee | Her second meeting, and she used most of the questioning period. Pressed on what the programme actually was — "the primary is retention, right?" — and would not let the location argument rest on structure alone: "if you have six students and three teachers, just the construct of the program is what contributes to the success regardless of where their location is" (0:57:56 onward), a proposition Michael Koski answered with That's not true. Objected that placing students with disruptive histories in a building full of tools and machinery moved a problem rather than solving it, and questioned whether students routed into career-and-technical courses by a programme rather than by choice would succeed in them. Voted no per the minutes. Rendered "Is proffered", "And is Crawford", "No candy" elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Ben Nester | Director of Special Education, SAU 6; the board's de facto secretary | Called the roll, then gave the presentation and answered questions for nearly two hours — 160 of the file's 699 dialogue rows, more than any other speaker. Volunteered the funding risk before he was asked (0:08:47), disclosed that his information came from a single telephone call made that day at the superintendent's request, and told the board the district had "been out of compliance in this building for the last six years" (1:16:24). Estimated the out-of-district saving at 150 to 200 thousand dollars for two students. Told Frank Sprague the programme was not a special-education programme and would not need state approval (0:54:15) — accurate as to special-education approval, incomplete as to the state's published alternative-programme guidance, see flag 3. Rendered Mr. Nestor elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Michael Koski | Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, Innovation & Assessment | Priced the off-campus option on a day's notice: "about $2,000 a month for about 1500ft². But that is before any conversions would need to occur or inspections done" (0:27:59). Supplied the research proposition the majority relied on — "putting it in the same building does not succeed" (0:59:27) — which the Tech Center director then said he had been unable to find in any published form. Answered Rep. Gary Merchant directly: "the answer is in your question because we haven't done it for 2 or 3 years. We need to do it now" (1:49:47). Advised the chair that Skillen's late amendment could be taken as a directive rather than a motion. Rendered Mr. Kosky, "my Kosky" elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Lee Malloy (“Lee Mulloy” on the district's own nomination list a week later) | Proposed lead teacher; certified general special educator; formerly Impact Academy and Granite State Independent Living | Introduced by Nester as the person who would run the programme and asked to speak to it. Described the work-readiness curriculum in detail — mock interviews conducted by community members, personal finance with local banks, a physical-education arrangement already discussed with Justin Martin, extended learning opportunities already discussed with the Stevens coordinator. Returned late in the meeting to answer the citizens directly, and disclaimed any wish to disturb the host: "I would never want to jeopardize anything with the tech center ever, ever" (1:53:34). She had not yet been elected by the board on this night; the superintendent's nomination list reaches the board a week later, on August 16, 2023, where Exhibit A- Teacher Nominations for Claremont School Board records her as Lee Mulloy, SPED Teacher, building TBD. Rendered "Li", "Lily Malloy" here. |
| Michael C. Tempesta | Superintendent of Schools, SAU 6 | Absent. On the agenda's central-office roster. Told the board on August 2 that he would not be there. Asked Nester to telephone the state career-and-technical office the day of this meeting; separately quoted by Alex Herzog as having said in an administrative meeting that the Tech Center "is a privilege." Rendered Mr. Dempster, Mr. Pesto, "Mister Tuesday" elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Chris Pratt | Principal, Stevens High School | Absent — "in my conversation with Chris Pratt today, he couldn't be here" (0:25:56 onward). Named twice as decisive: his view that a room inside Stevens would be "a hard no", and his intention to supervise the programme — "Chris Pratt will be overseeing the program. That's his intention" (1:37:01). In 2023 Pratt is the high-school principal; he did not become interim superintendent until January 2024. |
| Jeff Small · Angela Vivian · Mary Henry | Director of Technology · Human Resource Director · Business Administrator | All three are printed on the agenda's and the minutes' central-office roster. None is heard on this recording and none is mentioned. No business administrator spoke to the cost of the programme at any point in the meeting. |
| Chelsea Weatherford | Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent | Recorded and submitted the minutes ("Respectfully submitted by Chelsea Weatherford"). Not addressed by name on this recording. |
| Alex Herzog, Ed.D. | Director, Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center — first speaker in citizens' comments | The host of the building, opposing the proposal on his own premises. Told the board he was "not opposed to an all tied [alt ed] program", then made four objections: he had looked for the research everyone was citing and could not find it (1:18:51); his introductory courses were already full for the fall, so the career-and-technical link was theoretical; the last such programme in the building produced complaints from the preschool teachers; and the rule is the rule — "I think it's the ethics of it. RSA is the RSA" (1:19:53). Also said he had learned of the proposal "accidentally" and that two sources told him "it was a done deal from the beginning" (1:21:33) — see flag 9. Rendered "Doctor Herzog" by the chair; a second, unrelated Herzog (Shawn, Title I at Maple) exists in this corpus and must never be merged with him. |
| John Lambert | Substitute teacher; former business owner — citizens' comments | "John Lambert I'm a substitute teacher here. I'm also a previous business owner and community born in Claremont. Live in Charlestown" (1:22:01). Asked how students would be identified and whether the charter school with on-site daycare would serve student-parents better. Argued career-and-technical exposure should be compulsory in the programme, not optional, and that an online curriculum alone would not work: "Learning an online program is not going to do it. You have to have some interaction with that student." Closed by asking the board to rename it. The district's minutes name him John Lambert, substitute teacher, resident of Charlestown. He is not the Joshua Lambert who sat on this board until late 2022; nothing in the record connects them. |
| Amalia "Mimi" Rhines | Ward 1; school counsellor, Stevens High School — citizens' comments | "Mimi Ryan's ward one. So I'm going into my eighth year at Stevens as a counselor" (1:26:50). The only speaker who had worked inside the last version of the programme at both sites, and she supported the proposal on that basis: "They did come back to the high school. They did try this at the high school and it went terribly… I am inclined to say, you know, test it out for a year and see what happens." Made the argument the majority adopted — that even a building formally part of the high school is "a clean slate in their minds." Rendered "Mimi Ryan's", "Meeting your eyes" elsewhere in this corpus. |
| David Putnam | Ward 2 — citizens' comments (spoke twice) | First to establish the charter-school alternative on the record: its licence has "slots for 30 students. They are there. Their internal capacity is 26" (1:28:24). Told the board a state guidance document existed that it did not have — "The Department of Ed publishes this, two pager on alternative programs in public schools. And if you don't have this, you should, it clearly defines all the regulations and expectations" (1:29:03). See flag 3. Asked for the specific reasons a high-school siting fails and for the success metrics, noting the state handout "doesn't give any rubrics." Returned at 1:50:57 to warn about the cost of repeated relocation. |
| Deb Lafrienere (spelled “Lafrienere” in these minutes; the February 8, 2023 minutes spell the surname “Lafreniere”) | Ward 3; former Stevens High School teacher — citizens' comments | Gave her ward but not her surname at the podium — "I'm Deb… Ward three" (1:31:41); the minutes supply it. Asked the four practical questions the presentation had not answered: whether the earlier downstairs programme at Stevens had worked (Sprague told her she was remembering a different one), whether these students would get a regular diploma, what kind of out-of-district student could realistically come back, and — the one that produced the clearest gap — who an adult in that room would call for help. "Is that Alex? Or do they call down and then see if Chris is available?" (1:36:37). Nester answered that he wished he and Herzog "had a more robust conversation before I respond." |
| Derek Ferland | Ward 3; member, Tech Center Visioning Committee — citizens' comments | "Derek from Ward three. Also a member of the Tech Center Visioning Committee" (1:37:35); the minutes supply the surname. Pinned down the numbers nobody had reconciled — 6–8, 10–12 and 12–16 had all been used — and established they were per session, per year and at capacity respectively. Supported the idea conditionally and said so as a formula: structure plus oversight plus career-and-technical linkage plus measurement "equals worth a try" (1:41:15). His caveat was the meeting's plainest statement of the risk: "I would be very reticent to support this if it jeopardized any of the renovation funding. And I'll tell you, we've asked that question, I think, no less than 900 times as part of the visioning Committee" (1:42:03). |
| Andy Lafrienere (surname from these minutes; the corpus also carries “Lafreniere”) | Ward 3; member, Tech Center Visioning Committee — citizens' comments | "Andy, your [I'm] Ward three" (1:44:16). Applauded the effort — "This is a no brainer. I mean, we have struggled with these problems for years" — and then set the condition the Visioning Committee cared about: the study of the building's future was about to begin, and if it concluded the best use included the second floor, "that the board remembers the fact that this is a priority for the community" (1:46:04). Named encroachment as the concern and funding as the risk. Not to be confused with Andy Bernier of the NH School Funding Fairness Project, a different person who appears once in this corpus on February 8, 2023. |
| Gary Merchant | Ward 2; New Hampshire State Representative for Claremont and Croydon — citizens' comments | "Gary Merchant. Ward two, in Claremont in Croydon. And a wonderful state house in Concord" (1:46:54). Made three asks and repeated all three: get the legal review first; do not wait until January to start looking for another location; and budget money now for the administration to do that searching. His framing question was the one the board never answered on the record — "I question why we have to have it today. We haven't had it for 2 or 3 years, so what's the hurry to do it now?" (1:47:25). Commended the administration for acting on the dropout problem in the same breath. |
| Scott Pope | Ward 2; retired Tech Center teacher — citizens' comments | "Scott Pope board [ward] to, one good to speak" (1:55:08) — called forward by Frank Sprague after the chair had moved to close. Had taught alongside the last programme in this building and said his fears were "alleviated" by an experienced teacher "rather than someone hired in a hurry." Objected to how the item had surfaced: "when you bring this up… a week ago at 830 in the in the evening" (1:55:57). Offered the only concrete model anyone named — the Great Bay charter school on the Seacoast School of Technology campus in Exeter — and suggested bringing an existing non-compliant use into compliance rather than adding another. |
| Student Representative | Seat printed on the agenda and the minutes | None seated. The agenda and the minutes both carry a "Student Representative" heading with no name beneath it. No student representative existed for 2023–24 at this date; the first two were seated on November 1, 2023. No student spoke about a programme designed for students. |
Agenda
From the posted agenda (CSB Agenda 8.9.23) — a single page listing four roman-numeral items with clock times against each — with dispositions from the minutes. Scheduled clock times are the agenda's and are printed plain; the "Taken up" times are deep links into the recording. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.
The posted agenda for August 9, 2023, item by item, with what the board actually did.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:09 |
I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance agenda: 6:30 PM |
Agenda: "I. 6:30 PM Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance." Minutes: "Chair Heather Whitney called the meeting to order at 6:30PM." On the recording the chair opens "Calling a Claremont Special Claremont school board meeting for August 9th, 2023. Please all rise for a pledge of allegiance" and leads the pledge herself. |
| 0:00:38 |
II. General Business — Secretary Roll Call of Attendance agenda: 6:35 PM |
Agenda: "Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members (Board Members who arrive after the meeting begins will be noted as 'present' at the point in the agenda at which they arrive)." There was no secretary — the district clerk's seat stood vacant through 2023 — so the chair asked the presenter to do it: "Not only are you going to present, but I have to ask you to do roll calls. Please." Ben Nester read the roll at 0:00:50. The members' one-word answers are pooled under "Unidentified" in the transcript; the minutes record all seven present: Whitney, Gallagher, Crawford, Hawkins, Sprague, Miles, Skillen. |
| 0:01:03 |
II.1 Consent Agenda — Amendments and Final Approval of board agenda agenda marks this "consent/vote required" |
Agenda: "Consent Agenda (consent/vote required) 1. Amendments and Final Approval of board agenda." The chair declared there was none — "We have no consent agenda to acknowledge tonight" — and then amended the agenda from the chair, moving citizens' comments from their scheduled slot to the end: "We can move to citizens comments, but there is only an agenda item. So what I'd like to do is have our discussion, our presentation. Once the board has the discussion before we vote on the topic. I'll open the floor to citizens comments. Three minutes per person." No motion, no second and no vote on the reordering, on an item the agenda itself marks "vote required". The minutes record it passively: "Citizens' comments will be moved to the end of the meeting after the presentation has been completed." See flag 5. |
| 0:01:59 |
II. Citizens Comments — time limit extended agenda: 6:35 PM |
Prompted from the floor at 0:01:36 — "The audience may wish to speak longer for three minutes only because of their position with the Visioning Committee and the CTE work that we're doing" — the chair invited a motion. Minutes: "Bonnie Miles makes a motion to extend the citizens comment time to 5 minutes instead of 3 minutes; seconded by Arlene Hawkins; no further discussion; all in favor via voice vote. Motion passes." On the recording the mover is not audibly identified; the seconder is — "I'll second" from Arlene Hawkins, acknowledged by the chair as "Second. Arlene". Carried unanimously by voice, no count. See flag 10. |
| 0:02:20 |
III.1 Discussion/Action Items — Alternative Programming: Presentation by Ben Nester, Director of Special Education agenda: 6:45 PM |
Agenda, in full: "III. 6:45 PM Discussion/Action Items — 1. Alternative Programming — Presentation by Ben Nester, Director of Special Education." That is the entire notice given for the item. What followed was a nine-screen presentation (0:04:07–0:27:59), roughly 37 minutes of board questions, a main motion, an amendment, a further amendment converted to a directive, just over forty minutes of citizens' comments, and a recorded 4–3 vote approving both the programme and its location. See flag 5. |
| 1:06:05 |
III.1 — main motion |
Chair, from the chair: "I'd like to make a motion to approve the further development and implementation of the Stephen [Stevens] High School Alternative program, to be temporarily housed at the Sugar Valley Technical Sugar River Valley Technical Center, to be reevaluated at the end of 2324 school year." Seconded by Jennifer Gallagher at 1:06:33 — "I'll second." Minutes: "Chair Heather Whitney makes a motion to approve the further development of the Stevens High School Alternative program at the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center for one year to be re-evaluated during the 2024-2025 school year; seconded by Jennifer Gallagher." |
| 1:06:42 |
III.1 — amendment (carried) |
Frank Sprague, giving his reason first: "we'll know more about the progress of the of the renovation grant. So we may want to start the discussion before the end of the of the year." Fixed the date at 1:07:20 — "End of January. January 31st." Minutes: "Frank Sprague makes a motion to amend the motion to review the development of the program in January 2024; seconded by Whitney Skillen; no further discussion on amending the motion; all in favor via voice vote." The seconder is not audibly identified on the recording; the chair says only "Is there a second for that motion to amend? Second. Okay." |
| 1:17:02 |
II. Citizens Comments, as relocated |
Ran from the chair's invitation at 1:17:02 to Scott Pope's close at 1:57:34 — just over forty minutes, and the ten speakers the minutes list, with David Putnam heard twice and nobody turned away. The minutes list every speaker with ward and affiliation. See flag 10. |
| 1:59:02 |
III.1 — further amendment, taken as a directive |
After the question had been called, Whitney Skillen moved again: "I'd like to amend the motion to include a. I don't even know how to ask that. The administration begin exploring an off site, another location, and that we make funds available for that from the budget based on the administration's recommendation." The chair asked "Do we need a motion or can we give you a directive in public on CCTV?" and Michael Koski answered "I think a directive side." No vote was taken. The minutes record neither the amendment nor its disposition, only the outcome as a future agenda item. See flag 6. |
| 2:00:05 |
III.1 — the vote: 4–3, carried |
Taken by raised hand, by leave and without objection: "I'd like to do this by raised hand vote. Is there any objection to raise hand vote? No" (1:58:27). The chair's announcement at 2:00:14 is transcribed "3 to 4 ayes have it. Motion passes." No names are on the recording — the minutes supply them: "All in favor of the motion: Heather Whitney, Jennifer Gallagher, Alrene Hawkins, Whitney Skillen All opposed: Bonnie Miles, Frank Sprague, Candace Crawford. Motion approved. Yes: 4 votes No: 3 votes." Alrene is the district's misspelling of Arlene Hawkins, in the operative tally line. The motion as the minutes record it: "to approve the development and implementation of the Alternative Program (name to potentially change) to be housed at the SRVRTC for one year, the program will be re-evaluated no later than January 31, 2024 due to possible construction that could take place at the Technical Center." |
| 2:00:53 |
IV. Adjournment agenda: 7:30 PM |
Agenda: "IV. 7:30 PM Adjournment." The board adjourned about an hour later, by consent and with no vote: "Is there any objection to adjourning meeting… No. No objection. Adjourned." Minutes: "No objection from any board member to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned." No adjournment time is recorded in the minutes. |
Discussion timeline
Chronological, from the dialogue transcript. Times are the start of the segment quoted and link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording. Quotations reproduce the automatic transcript as recorded; square brackets mark this page's correction of a transcription garble, with the garbled wording left visible wherever the correction changes the sense. Quotations from the agenda, the minutes, the presentation or a statute are attributed to that document. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.
What was discussed, in order, with links to the flags each item raises.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:00:09 | Gavel, pledge, roll | The chair opens a meeting she names on the record as a special one. She then hands the roll call to the presenter for want of a secretary. Nester reads it: "Bonnie. Miles. Whitney. Skilling [Skillen]" … "Jennifer Gallagher" … "Arlene Hawkins. And is Crawford [Candace Crawford] here?" The answers — Here, here, Here, Present — are pooled under "Unidentified". The minutes are the authority: all seven present. | |
| 0:01:03 | The order of business is rearranged from the chair | "We have no consent agenda to acknowledge tonight. We can move to citizens comments, but there is only an agenda item. So what I'd like to do is have our discussion, our presentation. Once the board has the discussion before we vote on the topic. I'll open the floor to citizens comments. Three minutes per person." So the sequence the chair announced at the outset was: presentation, board questions, board debate, then public comment, then the vote. No motion was taken on the change. A voice from the floor then asks for longer than three minutes for Visioning Committee members; the chair invites a motion; Bonnie Miles moves five minutes, Arlene Hawkins seconds, and it carries by voice at 0:02:07. | MEDIUM POSITIVE |
| 0:04:07 | Presentation opens: three failed predecessors | Nester: "my intention is to keep the presentation fairly short, because I believe there's going to be a lot of time needed for a robust conversation." He then walks the history with Frank Sprague filling in dates. Sprague at 0:05:05: "Senate bill. 18 came in which raised the, the dropout aged 18. So that was what it was in response to… the state offered funding. Offered an RFP for schools that wanted to come up with programing for that for those 16 to 18 year olds." The Ombudsman programme became Owls, which moved into this building and, at 0:06:15, "went very poorly. As you might imagine. There was some damage to the tech center." It survived "an additional two and a half years before its dissolution, and primarily due to the disruptive behaviors and also the staffing issues." Since 1819 there had been no alternative programme at all. | |
| 0:07:42 | Why now: the dropout rate, and a board goal to cut out-of-district placements by half | "Because we have a significant dropout rate. We want to you know, target that population of students. And then secondly, if the profiles of the students align, ideally we would identify one, maybe two students that are currently out of district placement." At 0:08:26 he names the driver: "the desire to bring students back from out of district is… just my way of responding to the school board's goals that were established at the summer retreat around, you know, the reduction of our district students by 50% over two years." The transcript reads "our district students"; from context the goal concerns out-of-district placements. The retreat referred to is the May 2023 board retreat, whose minutes the district filed under a 2020 date. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:08:47 | The funding risk, volunteered before anyone asked | Nester had telephoned the state that day at the superintendent's request — "Mr. Tempesta asked me to call Jeff today. I did it was my first interaction with him." What came back: "there's certainly concerns around encroachment… There's concerns around, you know, do we lose Perkins funds if there's non CTE programing here? And then I think what's of sort of the most important piece of my conversation with Jeff today is that when and if the district decides to renovate the tech center, if there is a non CTE program here, then the district will not fund the renovation." He corrects himself immediately at 0:09:15 — "The state will fund the state. Yes. Sorry, sorry. So what did I say. District. District. State." — so the sentence means the state will not fund the renovation. At 0:09:23: "A 75, 25% split. So the district would need to come up with 25% of the funds, the state roughly 75%." He closes: "it's wildly important to me that we don't displace any of our CTE programing." | HIGH OBSERVATION |
| 0:10:18 | Purpose and method | The presentation's own words: "The purpose of the program is to provide support to students that are unsuccessful in a traditional high school setting so that they may earn a high school diploma and receive work readiness training. The primary method of programming will be the utilization of a Youth Driven Personal Learning Plan designed to provide students alternative pathways to graduation and beyond." Nester, at the table: "That is our goal. That's our product as a school district, if you will." | |
| 0:11:19 | Staffing and how it would be paid for | The presentation: "1 fte General Special Educator(Lead Teacher) · 1 fte Paraprofessional 1 fte Paraprofessional(if needed) · -1 fte teacher position funded with local budgeted monies(reallocation of elem. level position) FY 24 · -1 or 2 fte paraprofessional positions funded with ESSER 3 · *1900 General Special Educator Credential." Nester at 0:11:39: "the teaching position that we would like to see use for this program is currently a budgeted position. It's a reallocation from an elementary level position. So it is funded for fiscal year 24. And then the the paraprofessional positions. We have SR [ESSER] monies that we would like to see fund those SR three [ESSER 3] monies in particular." So: one teacher moved from an elementary school, and one or two paraprofessionals on federal pandemic money. Nobody asked what happens when that money ends. | MEDIUM |
| 0:12:03 | Credential, curriculum, schedule | "we believe that a general special educator is the person most equipped to serve these students because the content that the students will be receiving is through Odyssey… imagine Odyssey where [Imagine Odysseyware] as it's now called, which is an online curriculum… we're looking for someone with the 1900 credential at at the state level." Schedule at 0:12:28: "There's an AMP [AM/PM] session. So there's two cohorts of students. One cohort attends in the morning, one a different cohort attends in the in the afternoon. We're looking for 6 to 8 students per session." Credit-bearing elements: Tech Center courses, online courses with a Stevens content teacher as teacher of record, Stevens courses, extended learning opportunities and VLACS. Non-credit: work readiness, interest inventory, self-advocacy, time management, perseverance. | |
| 0:15:03 | Lee Malloy describes the programme she would run | Introduced as having "worked for various state funded entities over the years Impact Academy, Granite State Independent Learning." She describes it from the student's side: "The personal learning plans that are youth driven is a real big, like, what are you thinking about your life? Not me. You what do you want to see for yourself?" Then the concrete parts, all of which she says are already arranged or discussed: mock interviews "by actual community members", personal finance "having banks come in", physical education through a family membership pass, health education with community members, an extended-learning-opportunity partnership already agreed with the Stevens coordinator. On her own history: "I was one of those kiddos, you know, I didn't fit in the mold. I didn't do well in high school." | |
| 0:24:14 | Who the programme is for — three options, not one | The presentation offers three target populations for the board to choose between: neurotypical students in district; neurotypical and neurodiverse (educationally disabled) students in district; and neurotypical students in district plus neurodiverse students currently out of district. General criteria, from the slide: "Struggling learners at risk of dropping out/pattern of course failures. Students that have the ability to earn a high school diploma but do not perform commensurate with their intellectual ability. No major aggressive behaviors directed at staff or students on record in the last 5 years." Nester at 0:25:28: "we would consider students that have low level disruptive behavior, students that may refuse to complete tasks in a typical classroom setting." The board never chose between the three. The motion it passed names none of them. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:25:56 | Three locations, and the price of two of them | Stevens itself: possible, but "in my conversation with Chris Pratt today, he couldn't be here[,] if we were to go with the high school as a location for this program, we would likely be looking at a delayed start." The Tech Center: available now. An off-campus lease: Michael Koski had checked that afternoon and reported at 0:27:59, "There's some situations that would fit about $2,000 a month for about 1500ft². But that is before any conversions would need to occur or inspections done." The practical effect, as the minutes put it: "The program is ready to start now if the Technical center is the location used for 1 year. If any other location is used the program would be delayed for about a year." | |
| 0:28:36 | The chair sets the rules of engagement | "Just start with like factual questions for Ben. So before we start a discussion, everybody has all the information before we start. Everybody is working on a level playing field." The board then goes round: Gallagher has "no specific questions at this time"; Crawford takes roughly twelve minutes; Miles, Skillen, Hawkins and Sprague follow. | |
| 0:29:10 | Crawford: what is this programme actually for? | "the kind of the profile of the student for the program. And I think it's confusing because there are so many needs that are trying to be addressed." She separates the two purposes the presentation runs together — bringing students back from out-of-district placement, and stopping students dropping out — and asks which is primary. Nester: "the focus is on dropout prevention is the way I would describe it," and at 0:32:13 "if feasible I'd like to kill two birds with one stone here." Crawford also puts the district's dropout problem on the record without contradiction: "We all know that dropout is horrible in the district." | |
| 0:35:42 | Sprague and Skillen narrow the profile | Sprague, cutting across Crawford's premise: "You're not describing accurately the kids that we're talking about… the kids in question are really school phobic kids, which is. And they're not a disruption. They're just invisible kids." Skillen then makes the distinction that survives the night at 0:36:42: "Would you agree that the criteria you described was more eligibility criteria and not the profile of any students who have been identified?" Nester: "Yeah, I think that's fair." | |
| 0:39:24 | Miles: capacity, and students who are already parents | Miles asks how big it would grow. Nester: "The best way to to cause a program to dissolve right away" is to start too large; "I would say that we target, you know, a total of 10 to 12, 12 students for a year." On why flexibility matters, Sprague at 0:41:20: "some of the target population are our students with with children, that require extra flexibility in their day… without a flexible schedule is enough to keep them from finishing." Koski adds students who "just have to work to provide some additional income for their family." Grade level, at 0:42:38: "we would target 10th or 11th graders," and "The list that we've generated is potential students for the program, which we've not communicated anything to families. We've not done anything formal without the board's blessing." | |
| 0:43:04 | Skillen: how many students actually come home? Two. | "Under the model that you're proposing, how many out of district kids do you expect to return to here?" The answer, twice: "Potentially two." She then asks the counterfactual nobody else asked — could Stevens be made ready with a year's lead time? Nester at 0:44:46: "Let me answer that with a maybe. Okay, right. I know that Chris Pratt, who's got years of experience, would say that's a hard no." Pressed on what he would recommend instead, he answers at 0:46:00: "I would say that we look hard at a location off campus" — a lease, like the Ombudsman storefront in the Goddard Block, "in close proximity to the high school." | |
| 0:46:55 | Hawkins: what support is actually in the room? | "It sounds like these are students who are not invested in their own learning. And we want to find a program, opportunities for them to become invested in order to be successful." Then the practical question. Nester: "the way the program is, is structured or funded now, there wouldn't be additional, support personnel on site every day… we do have a district wide mental health counselor that would that would serve those students. They would be on her caseload. And then we we currently have two social workers district wide. So they would be they would be available to support students, but it wouldn't be on a, on a day to day, you know, arrangement." Asked whether those staff are in this building anyway: "they would have to make the trip here just practically speaking." On telling parents, at 0:48:39: "we haven't taken any formal steps in that regard." | MEDIUM OBSERVATION |
| 0:49:18 | Sprague on services, stipends, certification — and the Bush Music Center | Warns against bringing out-of-district students back without the services they receive where they are — "if we try to bring them back without those services being readily available, that that[…]" — and establishes that the students in question are day, not residential, placements. Content teachers who serve as teacher of record "are compensated… There's a stipend that they receive," with no reduced teaching load. On certification at 0:51:18: "is Miss Malloy. Are you certified in special ed?" — she is. Then a location nobody had considered, arriving by email during the meeting from Stevens life-skills lead Kelly Fontaine: the Frank Bush Music Center building next to the parking lot. Nester lists others previously toured — the Diane Love Center, "the old, Juni[or high]" — and the district's earlier searches under two superintendents. | |
| 0:54:05 | "So, will this program require state approval. Is it a special ed program?" | Sprague's question, and the answer the board relied on. Nester: "It's not a special ed program. And so I, I believe that we can operate it the way we operate at owls… when you operate a special ed program, you have to seek approval from the state. They do a site visit… you submit a link the application and then you receive your approval letter. But with this… it wouldn't be necessary to seek approval." That is accurate as far as special-education programme approval goes. It is not the whole of what the state requires of an alternative programme — see flag 3. Sprague: "I think that's all I have." | MEDIUM |
| 0:54:50 | The only dollar figures of the night | Chair: "What would be the budget impact of returning 1 or 2 kids to the district?" Nester: "there's a differential in cost, but depending on the school they attend, you know, without providing too much information, I would estimate anywhere from 150 to $200,000 if we were able to, you know, reintegrate two students." On transport at 0:55:29: where the district cannot use its own garage and pays a private provider, "you're looking at a, you know, 20 to $50,000 bill annually just to just to get the student to school them back over the course of a year." None of these figures is in the posted presentation, and no business-office staff spoke at any point in the meeting. | MEDIUM |
| 0:55:54 | The chair's consolidated summary — and the sentence in it that is wrong | "Before we open for discussion. I just want to take a moment to kind of condense what we talked about here. So before we have our discussion all working with the same information. So I wrote some notes and everybody jump in if you if what I heard is something different." What follows is nine sentences of settled fact: the programme is ready now; a high-school or leased siting means a delayed start; the Tech Center environment is more conducive; there is an "established track record of… a program similar to this functioning well"; the focus is retention and dropout prevention; one or two neurodiverse students may come back; the target is 10th and 11th grade, "primarily 11th"; total 10 to 12 students. Then, at 0:57:18: "We have a certified special education teacher and two paraprofessionals that are in budget already that will cover the cost of the program." The paraprofessionals were not in budget. The posted presentation and Nester's own answer 45 minutes earlier put them on ESSER 3. Nobody corrected it, and the board debated and voted on that summary. | MEDIUM |
| 0:57:56 | Crawford v. Koski on the research | Crawford presses the point that if structure is what works, structure can be built anywhere: "if you have six students and three teachers, just the the construct construct of the program is what contributes to the success regardless of where their location is." Koski and the chair answer together — That's not true — and Koski gives the ground at 0:59:27: "Ben mentioned the research that shows placing these programs just as you described, as all the supports in place, but putting it in the same building does not succeed." No citation was given for that research at any point in the meeting, and the Tech Center director later told the board he had searched for it and could not find it. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:00:14 | Does a routed student succeed in a career-and-technical course? | Crawford: "my experience has been that kids are most successful in the CTE program w[hen]…" — the question being whether students placed here by a programme rather than by their own choice will take the courses at all. Nester: it "wouldn't be a requirement. It would be it would be an option." Then Hawkins at 1:03:28: "Have have the students who are deemed appropriate for this program, have they taken CTE classes in the past?" Nester: "almost certainly they have not taken a CTE course… it's the failures that are the the primary barrier to having these students take tech courses which they would thrive in." | |
| 1:04:50 | Miles will not accept the word "disruptive" | "The children are not disruptive or are are throwing a chair is not disruptive. That ruins property, but it's not disruptive… So how could I focus as a person when that's going on?" Nester concedes the point and then draws the distinction the criteria rest on: "It is disruptive wildly disruptive… we're not targeting property disruptive, disruptive, destructive students. We're not targeting aggressive students. We're targeting students with[…]" low-level disruption. | |
| 1:06:05 | The chair moves | "So, just so we can have a real discussion and then move forward so we can have public comment. I'm going to make a motion if that's acceptable." The motion: approve the further development and implementation of the Stevens High School Alternative programme, temporarily housed at the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center, to be reevaluated at the end of the 2023–24 school year. Gallagher seconds. Sprague immediately moves to pull the review forward to January 31, 2024 — "we'll know more about the progress of the of the renovation grant" — and the amendment carries by voice at 1:07:20: "All in favor of amending the motion? Say I, all those? None." | |
| 1:09:22 | The chair names the building's other non-compliant uses | "So would we be reevaluating other programs that are housed at the technical center currently that are non-compliant at this time?" Sprague: "Is that part of the motion?" Chair, at 1:09:34: "I just want to make sure that we're applying our, you know, our exclusions equally. So we have a preschool program here which is currently not compliant. Not that I, I love CCTV, but we now we house CCTV here." And: "neither one of these entities are now in compliance. So if we are concerned if that's going to be our rationale for approving or or not approving." The board is, by its chair's account, already housing at least two non-career-and-technical uses in the building. | HIGH |
| 1:10:14 | Skillen makes compliance the test — and asks for an answer the board does not have | "I think that all programs we consider, when we when we're considering the future of any program in the tech center, it should be based on it's, compliance… we've received confirmation from Ben that if we have this program in this building at the time… that we want to do a renovation, we will not receive funding." Then at 1:10:42: "I would also want to get confirmation if we have the preschool program or the CCTV program, or any other program that is not specifically a city program in this building. Are we at risk of losing funding for the renovation? And that answer will will be my deciding factor on whether or not those programs are on the chopping block." Sprague offers a counter-example at 1:11:17: "I don't think, Newport's renovation grant was impacted by the presence of NC TV in there." | HIGH |
| 1:11:46 | Hawkins asks to widen the motion; the chair declines | "I think Whitney's point is a really valid point to make that we before we move forward on any opportunity for a renovation, we look at all the programs that might be in noncompliance." She asks directly: "So could we amend that to include all possibly non-compliant programs?" The chair: "I wouldn't want to do that under this." Crawford: "It mixes it." Sprague: "I think it's an agenda item." Chair: "It's an agenda item." The minutes record the result: "The board discussed adding this as a future agenda item to discuss further." | HIGH |
| 1:12:52 | Gallagher speaks in favour; Hawkins asks about moving children twice | Gallagher: "I think that it's reasonable to house it here temporarily and then explore alternative options. We know that research says that programs that are for alternative students don't perform well, and they don't succeed when they're housed in the same location as peer students or high school students. So I think that since we don't have another option as of yet, it makes sense to utilize space in this building that's not currently being used." Hawkins at 1:13:23: "moving kids who are being moved from the high school now to here, and then in another year, moving them somewhere else if need be. What is the impact on those students?" Sprague answers from experience: "we moved it here and there was no impact at all… as long as the staff is the same, the kids will be fine." | |
| 1:14:36 | Miles reads RSA 188-E:3 into the record | "I understand what Ben's trying to do. And I get it, I really do. But I keep thinking of the, you know, New Hampshire Statute 188 E-3 that says upon completion, the constructed or renovated facility shall be become the property of the school district or public academy for use by Career and Technical Education Center exclusively." And at 1:15:04: "it's the exclusively word that really scares me because we're helping a lot of kids. If this goes through this renovation and that's that's what makes me nervous." Her quotation is accurate against the statute as it stood in August 2023. | HIGH POSITIVE |
| 1:15:51 | "we've been out of compliance in this building for the last six years" | Skillen's last question: "Can you confirm that any state funding that we would receive for a renovation would not be held up by the past presence of this program in the building? So if we wanted to start the renovation on, May 1st, 2025. But the last day the program was in this building was July 30th, 2024. Would that have an impact on the state remitting funds to us?" Nester, at 1:16:24: "Based on my one conversation with Mr. Beard today? No. And Lord, I hope no, because we've been out of compliance in this building for the last six years." Sprague, at 1:16:37: "We've been out of compliance since the building opened." Nester again at 1:16:40: "when there's a non CTA, CTA, CTE program here, it'll be a finding of noncompliance. But there's no sanctions listed in the in the statute. So it's a finding of noncompliance without clause[.]" | HIGH |
| 1:17:10 | Citizens' comments open: the Tech Center's own director objects | Alex Herzog: "I'm not opposed to an all tied [alt ed] program. I think it's got some merit. I think my five years experience in here, I think there's students that can really benefit from it." Then his objections. Prerequisites and capacity: a career-and-technical course needs 10th grade and prerequisites, and at 1:18:51 "right now, my intro classes are all full for the fall, so I don't see them being able to take the intro classes." History: when the programme last returned to this building "I got lots of complaints from the preschool teachers… the kids were spitting on the other students coming in." Safety, at 1:21:10: "we have a lot of dangerous equipment here, a lot of dangerous tools, knives and all that. And we really take safety seriously." | OBSERVATION |
| 1:18:25 | Herzog: nobody has produced the research, and the rule is the rule | "I spent some time looking for the research. I keep hearing research. Research. I see anecdotal evidence that says, yeah, probably makes sense that it's not in the school. But Mr. Tempesta said in an administrative meeting, once that's a privilege." At 1:18:51: "I looked online and I dug a little bit, I couldn't find any definitive research that said it needs to be away from the high school. But if we're here at the tech center, aren't we really the high school? 95% of my students come from Stevens High School." And the argument he leads with as his own: "I think it's the ethics of it. RSA is the RSA" (1:19:53), then "How can we go against what the rules are if we're here, standing here saying, hey, we want students to learn and be productive members of society, but we're going to work around these issues because even though that's a rule." | HIGH OBSERVATION |
| 1:21:33 | How the director heard about it | "I was a little shocked that it came up so quickly. And all of a sudden I heard about it accidentally. When I reached out to Ben, he reached back, you know, but this is a and I was told this is just a preliminary. We're talking about it. And I have two other sources that said, no, it was a done deal from the beginning. And I think with the vision committee here, we're really trying to make something different happen here. So we're we were just surprised and I shared that, hey, this is coming up. And that's why many of the members are here tonight." That last sentence explains the room: the Visioning Committee turned out because its members were told by the director, not by the district. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:22:01 | John Lambert: identification, the charter school, and compulsory career exposure | "How are the students identified? Do they have deficiency in reading and math primarily that prevents them from taking maybe, technical programs?" Nester: "we're not targeting students that are like very low academic… We're really looking at kids that could absolutely earn a diploma." Lambert then raises the charter school for student-parents — "they have daycare there so they can you know, and so it's a much better learning environment so they can have their child with them and still get a high school education" — and argues at 1:25:09 that career exposure should be required: "if there's a program in the school, you would you would have to require them to at least get some CTE exposure." On the online curriculum: "Learning an online program is not going to do it. You have to have some interaction with that student." He closes by asking the board to rename it, "the tech school often was considered to be a dumping ground just for the low performers." | |
| 1:26:50 | Mimi Rhines: the counsellor who saw it fail at the high school | "I'm going into my eighth year at Stevens as a counselor. So I've also kind of lived through the various versions." On the merger of Owls and the alternative behaviour programme: "They did come back to the high school. They did try this at the high school and it went terribly. They had them in a room just like you guys talked about with staff, kind of, you know, tucked away. And it didn't go well because they were they were in a building with their peers everywhere." Her recommendation, at 1:27:34: "I am inclined to say, you know, test it out for a year and see what happens." And the argument the majority took up: "even though this building is part of the high school, yes, it is a clean slate in their minds." | |
| 1:28:24 | Putnam names a state guidance document the board did not have | First the charter-school capacity: "their license currently for their charter school, part of their program has slots for 30 students. They are there. Their internal capacity is 26. Leaving for [four] slots open." Then, at 1:29:03: "The Department of Ed publishes this, two pager on alternative programs in public schools. And if you don't have this, you should, it clearly defines all the regulations and expectations." He asks for the specific reasons a high-school siting fails, and for measurement: "I know in this handout from the state, they have different expectations for how success is going to be reported, but it doesn't give any rubrics on what they expect with that success." Nothing in the record shows the board obtaining or reading that document before it voted. | MEDIUM |
| 1:31:41 | Deb Lafrienere: four questions, and one nobody could answer | "Many, many years ago, I actually was a teacher at Stevens High School. And at that time, the owls program was in the downstairs, level… I never even noticed that the program was there." Sprague corrects her — that was a different, individualised programme, and "the years I was there, a large graduating class from that setting w[as]…" small by comparison with Owls, which he puts at "as high as 20 to 25% of the graduating class." She establishes that students would earn "a high school diploma" and not an alternative one. Then, at 1:36:37: "Is that Alex? Or do they call down and then see if Chris is available? How does that how does how do we get an administrator to that room to help out if if help is needed?" Nester: "I wish Alex and I had a more robust conversation before I respond." She lets it go — "maybe that's just something you guys need to work out." | OBSERVATION |
| 1:37:01 | Who supervises the programme | "What we have discussed is Chris Pratt will be overseeing the program. That's his intention. And so if there's a something behavioral that needs to be addressed at some point, Chris would be the point person for that. I would imagine if there was a medical emergency or something like a child had a seizure. Alex, this being his building, would respond to a situation like that." So the day-to-day line of authority would run from a building the Stevens principal does not occupy to a director who had learned of the programme by accident. | MEDIUM |
| 1:37:35 | Derek Ferland reconciles the numbers, then sets his conditions | "Thanks for having a special meeting to discuss this single issue." He asks whether the students would be integrated into existing career-and-technical classes — Nester: "In in my mind, they would be integrated in… and perhaps boost our enrollment here" — including at Newport. Then, at 1:38:48, the numbers: "6 to 8, 12 to 16, 10 to 12 is it is that total students or is that per session?" — establishing 6–8 per session, 12–16 at capacity, 10–12 targeted for year one. Koski notes at 1:39:50 that Pratt has "instituted some other programs to address that larger group… it's an Excel program, but it's a way to accelerate credit accumulation." | |
| 1:41:15 | "That plus that plus that plus that equals worth a try" | Ferland: "if there's going to be a strong CTE component, I could really see some value for the district with the graduation rates for these individuals and their future success and for our community at large." His formula, at 1:41:40: structure, oversight, no repeat of past failures, "and there's measurement and verification, which again it's been referenced. What the metrics are will kind of wait and see. Then I think it's worth a try." Then the caveat, at 1:42:03: "I think it's got to be tied to CTE, and that may be easier said than done. I would be very reticent to support this if it jeopardized any of the renovation funding. And I'll tell you, we've asked that question, I think, no less than 900 times as part of the visioning Committee. And I think if you getting an answer like putting your thumb on Mercury." | MEDIUM |
| 1:43:13 | The chair discloses that the legal opinion has not arrived | "Just for the board and the community to know that I did reach out to Matt Upton, the district attorney, and asked him to give us an official legal opinion on what the impact of having non-compliant, programs are in this building. He was unable to expedite it in a fashion that would make it, in his opinion, a valid legal opinion for this meeting." And at 1:43:40: "But Ben and Mr. Davis and myself felt that it was in the best interest of the district to continue to have this discussion tonight knowing that that was coming. So just so everyone knows, he's been charged with digging around, getting the RSA, talking to the people that he needs to talk to to give us an official legal opinion." The board proceeded to a vote seventeen minutes later. "Mr. Davis" is not identifiable; no Davis appears anywhere else in this meeting's records and the transcript renders another sentence "Jen Davis, I have" where the chair is plainly saying Jen, do you have. This page does not guess who was meant. | MEDIUM |
| 1:44:16 | Andy Lafrienere: encroachment, and a study about to begin | "First of all, I want to applaud Ben and the district for this effort to meet the needs of these kids… This is a no brainer. I mean, we have struggled with these problems for years." Then the committee's position at 1:44:39: "The concern I think tonight for a lot of folks is potential for encroachment on CTE… the committee is doing the work of the community who has expressed its concern for a strong and robust facility best used." And the ask, at 1:46:04: "when this report is finished, and if it shows that the best use of the facility is X, and X includes utilization of the second floor, that the board remembers the fact that this is a priority for the community." He closes on "the potential for funding problems, if, you know, if something is truly out of compliance to the degree that we've talked about." | HIGH |
| 1:46:54 | Rep. Gary Merchant: why tonight? | "I would ask the board to consider before you do anything is why do we have to do it now? If I understand this correctly, we haven't had something in place for a period of time and all of a sudden we have this need at 11 our [the eleventh hour] on a school academic year." At 1:47:25: "I question why we have to have it today. We haven't had it for 2 or 3 years, so what's the hurry to do it now?" He commends the effort in the same breath, then makes three asks — don't wait until January to look for another site, budget money for the search now, and "be sure you get a legal review so we don't jeopardize long term of this facility" — and repeats all three at 1:49:32. Koski answers at 1:49:47: "the answer is in your question because we haven't done it for 2 or 3 years. We need to do it now." | MEDIUM |
| 1:50:57 | Putnam on the cost of moving twice | "no matter how you start this and where you move it to, eventually, each time you move, it's going to have a cost to it… The goals of the plan and and you enter the space and and and set up facilities so that when you do it right the first time and, and you live in it for two to 4 or 5 years and acclimate yourself to it so that you know it works." At 1:51:41: "if you keep doing that several times, moving the programs, there's a cost to it. There's an emotional cost, and there's a there's a financial cost. And then you don't know how well things work because you haven't been in one spot long enough." | |
| 1:52:03 | Lee Malloy answers the room | Comes back to the podium to respond to the citizens directly. On monitoring: "there's definitely not a free for all that would be there." On the profile: students who say "this is stupid" and walk out — "Those are the disruptions… that's a big piece of our profile that we're looking at… We will be identifying support plans in there." On the career-and-technical link, at 1:53:34: "so much of what I do is work readiness… Can this somehow be a program that's in there for those kids that are like, forget this, forget that, this work readiness that can still be in the building and it's preparing them where they're going out to those work studies… then they're ready to move on to taking those CTE courses when they're older." And the assurance: "I don't want to disrupt this school. That is not anything that I would ever want to happen… I would never want to jeopardize anything with the tech center ever, ever." | |
| 1:55:08 | Scott Pope, called forward after the chair moved to close | The chair asked "Is there any objection to closing discussion?"; Sprague intervened — "We got one more than[…] Spoken yet, Mr. Pope." Pope had taught alongside the last programme here: "Ben knows that I'm talking about chairs over the balcony in the whole bit, and that didn't work out so well… But the LS [Owls] program actually did work out well." His fears were "alleviated" by "experienced teacher person that's already done it rather than someone hired in a hurry" — but not his procedural objection: "when you bring this up… a week ago at 830 in the in the evening." He offers a working model, the Great Bay charter school on the Seacoast Technical Center campus in Exeter, and at 1:57:34 a constructive alternative: "some ideas have been brought up for at least one of those programs to be compliant. Might be a good way to make that one compliant and actually follow through with getting a new program in here." | HIGH MEDIUM |
| 1:57:51 | The last question: can these students actually get into a career-and-technical class? | Hawkins: "I think I heard, Alex say that the excuse me, the intro classes are already at Max. Will our students be able to take the CTE classes if the intro classes are already maxed out?" Nester: "I don't want to speak for me, me [Mimi] and Guidance or Alex, but I'm going to suggest that semester one know that we'd be we'd be targeting semester two, perhaps in terms of getting them enrolled in CTE courses." So on the evening the board approved siting the programme inside the career-and-technical centre for the sake of career-and-technical access, the answer on that access was maybe, next semester. | OBSERVATION |
| 1:58:27 | Question called; a late amendment becomes a directive; a conflict is disclosed | "Is there any objection from the board closing discussion and calling the question? No objection. I'd like to do this by raised hand vote. Is there any objection to raise hand vote? No. I'll read the motion one more time." Skillen then moves again at 1:59:02: "The administration begin exploring an off site, another location, and that we make funds available for that from the budget based on the administration's recommendation." The chair: "Do we need a motion or can we give you a directive in public on CCTV?" Koski: "I think a directive side." No vote. Then Sprague, at 1:59:43: "is it a conflict of interest for Bonnie to be involved with that since she is a realtor?" Miles: "If I did anything, I'm not getting paid. No, because I don't want a conflict or I would just recommend. Okay, I'll give you some names." | MEDIUM POSITIVE |
| 2:00:05 | The vote, 4–3 | "So we're going to call for vote. All in favor raise your hand." Then, at 2:00:14: "3 to 4 ayes have it. Motion passes." The transcript preserves nothing else — no names, no separate count of the noes. The minutes record the division: yes Whitney, Gallagher, Hawkins and Skillen; no Miles, Sprague and Crawford. The vice chair, the chair of Capital Improvement and the board's newest member, all three of whom had questioned the siting hardest, voted together against the chair. | HIGH |
| 2:00:19 | The directive, and adjournment | Hawkins, immediately: "Now, can we have that directive?" and then "also include the legal advice also with that, the budget, the legal advice and alternate location." The chair asks Nester to email her a date "so I can pre-populated the agenda… So everybody feels confident that's going to happen." Minutes: "Future agenda item to add the search for a new location for the program to be housed as well as legal counsel input." Adjourned by consent at 2:00:53; the chair's last words on the recording, at 2:01:00, are "Thank you everybody." | MEDIUM |
Items flagged for review
Flags are a reviewer's aid generated by comparing the meeting against the state and federal law in force on August 9, 2023. They are not findings of violation, and nothing here is legal advice. Each flag cites the rule it rests on and, where a provision has since been amended, says which text governed on the meeting's date — this meeting sits inside a cluster of 2023 amendments, and today's text of two of the provisions below is not the text the board was working under. Where no verified rule applies, the flag says so and is recorded as an observation. Twelve flags follow, ordered by severity.
HIGH The district's own officers stated that this career-and-technical facility has been out of compliance with RSA 188-E:3, II for years — and the board then voted 4–3 to put another non-career-and-technical programme in it
On the meeting's date RSA 188-E:3, II read, without qualification: "Upon completion, the constructed or renovated facility shall become the property of the school district or public academy, for use by the career and technical education center exclusively." Bonnie Miles read that sentence aloud from the floor at 1:14:36, substantially word for word, and told the board why it mattered: "it's the exclusively word that really scares me."
Three officers then put the district's position on the record, unprompted and without contradiction. The chair, at 1:09:34: "we have a preschool program here which is currently not compliant. Not that I, I love CCTV, but we now we house CCTV here" — and, at 1:09:57, "neither one of these entities are now in compliance." Ben Nester, at 1:16:24: "we've been out of compliance in this building for the last six years." Frank Sprague, immediately after: "We've been out of compliance since the building opened." Nester relayed the state's position from a telephone call made that day with the New Hampshire Department of Education's career-and-technical education office: "when there's a non CTA, CTA, CTE program here, it'll be a finding of noncompliance."
The board discussed curing the existing non-compliance and decided not to. Arlene Hawkins asked at 1:11:46, "could we amend that to include all possibly non-compliant programs?"; the chair answered "I wouldn't want to do that under this," and the board agreed to make it a future agenda item instead. Scott Pope offered the alternative from the floor at 1:57:34 — bring one existing use into compliance first — and it was not taken up. The programme was then approved into the building on a 4–3 raised-hand vote.
What weighs the other way, and it is substantial. Nester also reported, in the same breath, that "there's no sanctions listed in the in the statute" — and that is right: RSA 188-E:3, II states a condition of use but attaches no penalty, and nothing in chapter 188-E that this page has verified provides one. The exposure the board was actually weighing is prospective and financial: a future renovation grant, not a fine. The board time-boxed its decision to a January 31, 2024 review precisely because of that exposure, and it had already asked its lawyer for an opinion (flag 4). And one factual predicate is not established by this record: whether the space at issue was in fact built or renovated with a grant under this chapter, which is what makes paragraph II bite. Sprague's "since the building opened" and the whole renovation-grant discussion imply it; nobody stated it, and no document in the packet proves it. This flag records that the district's own officers described a years-long condition of non-compliance with a statute a member read correctly into the record, and that the board added to it — not that a violation has been adjudicated.
Vintage. The version of RSA 188-E:3, II that gc.nh.gov serves today carries a twenty-year repurposing exception that did not exist in August 2023: the 2023 source note ends "2021, 210:2, Pt. II, Sec. 2, eff. Oct. 9, 2021," and the exception arrived with a later amendment (source note now running to 2025, 190:1, eff. July 1, 2025). A reviewer reading the current text would credit this board with a flexibility it did not have, and would make Miles's quotation look incomplete when it was accurate.
Sources: RSA 188-E:3, II as codified in 2023 (facility becomes district property "for use by the career and technical education center exclusively"; source note ends 2021, 210:2 — no twenty-year exception); RSA 188-E:3 as it reads today, for comparison; RSA ch. 188-E (regional career and technical education — chapter index); Advance CTE, New Hampshire state director listing (Jeff Beard), for the identity of the state official Nester telephoned; the same question one week earlier, August 2, 2023.
MEDIUM The chair's pre-vote summary of the facts told the board the paraprofessionals were "in budget already" — the posted presentation put them on expiring federal pandemic money
At 0:55:54 the chair stopped the questioning to consolidate the record before debate: "I just want to take a moment to kind of condense what we talked about here. So before we have our discussion all working with the same information." Her ninth and last point, at 0:57:18, was the whole of what the board was told about cost: "We have a certified special education teacher and two paraprofessionals that are in budget already that will cover the cost of the program."
The posted presentation says otherwise, on its face: "-1 fte teacher position funded with local budgeted monies(reallocation of elem. level position) FY 24" and "-1 or 2 fte paraprofessional positions funded with ESSER 3." Nester had said the same thing at the table 45 minutes earlier (0:11:39): "the teaching position… is currently a budgeted position. It's a reallocation from an elementary level position… And then the the paraprofessional positions. We have SR [ESSER] monies that we would like to see fund those SR three [ESSER 3] monies in particular." Nobody corrected the summary, and the board debated and voted on it.
Why the difference matters here rather than in general. ESSER III is one-time money with a hard end. Federal formula funds remain available for obligation for one additional fiscal year under the Tydings amendment, 20 U.S.C. §1225(b), which is the mechanism that set the ARP ESSER obligation deadline at September 30, 2024 — thirteen months after this vote, and inside the very school year the programme was approved to run. Claremont's FY2025 budget was the district's first with no ESSER money at all. So the board approved one to two staff positions whose funding expires before the programme's second year, at a meeting where the business administrator did not speak and no written cost figure existed. The reallocated teaching post carries a second, quieter consequence the record does not examine: an elementary-level position was moved to a high-school programme, and no separate vote, line item or elementary-side impact statement appears anywhere in the packet or the minutes.
In fairness. The correct facts were stated once by the presenter and are printed in the document the district posted, so nothing was concealed; the error is in an oral summary offered in good faith, by a chair who had just told the room the point of the exercise was that "everybody is working on a level playing field." The distinction between a budgeted post and an ESSER post was simply not one anybody in the room picked up.
Sources: The Academy- Presentation ("Potential Staffing Structure and Funding"); 20 U.S.C. §1225(b) (GEPA / Tydings: federal education formula funds remain available for obligation one additional fiscal year); Congressional Research Service, Late Liquidation Period for Elementary and Secondary Education Funds Provided During COVID-19 (ARP ESSER obligation deadline of September 30, 2024 and the liquidation extensions that followed).
MEDIUM New Hampshire publishes guidance requiring a board-approved Alternative Program Plan and a submission to the Department before an alternative programme opens. A citizen told the board it existed. The record shows no plan and no submission.
Asked directly at 0:54:05 — "will this program require state approval. Is it a special ed program?" — Nester answered "It's not a special ed program," described the separate approval process that applies to special-education programmes (application, site visit, approval letter), and concluded: "it wouldn't be necessary to seek approval." That is accurate as to special-education programme approval. It is not the whole of what the state asks of an alternative programme.
The New Hampshire Department of Education's Alternative Programs in Public Schools guidance, published June 7, 2022 and in force on this meeting's date, provides that "An alternative program must be approved by the local school board in a plan that includes the following elements" — the goals of the programme; the curriculum to be provided; "the procedures for assessing and implementing the alternative program, consistent with RSA 193-C:3, III"; the schedule if it differs from the district's; "a demonstration of how the alternative program will enable participating students to achieve the same competencies outlined for all district students"; and an "explicit explanation of how extended learning opportunities (ELO's) will be incorporated as a learning option for all students." It further provides that "Prior to implementing an alternative program, the school administrative unit (SAU) shall submit to the Department the following items" — the local school board approval, the Alternative Program Plan, the location, and copies of fire, health and safety inspections if applicable. It rests that framework on Ed 306.21, which "gives local school districts the authority to operate alternative programs," and on Ed 306.28 for school approval and reporting. Those Ed numbers are the numbering in force in 2023; Part Ed 306 was renumbered in the revision effective December 13, 2024.
Measure the nine-screen presentation against that list. It states goals. It sketches a curriculum and a schedule and it does address extended learning opportunities. It contains no assessment procedures and no demonstration of competency equivalence — the two elements David Putnam and Derek Ferland both asked about, and did not get. Putnam named the document itself at 1:29:03: "The Department of Ed publishes this, two pager on alternative programs in public schools. And if you don't have this, you should, it clearly defines all the regulations and expectations." Nothing in the recording, the packet or the minutes shows the board obtaining it, and the submission to the Department was never mentioned by anyone.
Two related requirements in the same guidance go to points raised in the room and left open. "Participation in an alternative program is voluntary and shall require the written approval from the parent or guardian" — Arlene Hawkins asked what the plan for notifying parents was and was told at 0:48:39, "we haven't taken any formal steps in that regard." And "Students in alternative programs shall be provided equivalent services, including but not limited to: Food and Nutrition Services, Health Services, Guidance and Counseling Services" — against which Nester's answer at 0:46:55 stands out: "there wouldn't be additional, support personnel on site every day," with the district's one mental-health counsellor and two social workers serving the site by visit rather than "on a day to day" basis.
What this flag does not say. Guidance is not a rule, and this is a MEDIUM rather than a HIGH for that reason. The board's 4–3 vote may well be the "local school board approval" the guidance contemplates; the plan it approved is what falls short of the enumerated elements, and the pre-implementation submission is simply absent from the record. The motion also approved "further development," which leaves room to complete both before students arrive.
Sources: NHDOE, Alternative Programs in Public Schools (published June 7, 2022); RSA 193-C:3, III (statewide education improvement and assessment programme — the assessment provision the guidance's element (c) points to); N.H. Admin. Code Part Ed 306 (minimum standards for public school approval — cite the part page; the sections were renumbered effective December 13, 2024); The Academy- Presentation.
MEDIUM The board took the siting decision with the legal opinion it had itself commissioned still unwritten, after two speakers asked it to wait for that opinion
The chair disclosed it herself, at 1:43:13: "I did reach out to Matt Upton, the district attorney, and asked him to give us an official legal opinion on what the impact of having non-compliant, programs are in this building. He was unable to expedite it in a fashion that would make it, in his opinion, a valid legal opinion for this meeting." She explained the decision to proceed anyway: "Ben and Mr. Davis and myself felt that it was in the best interest of the district to continue to have this discussion tonight knowing that that was coming." Seventeen minutes later the board voted.
Two members of the public had asked, in terms, for the opposite sequence. Derek Ferland, at 1:42:03: "I would be very reticent to support this if it jeopardized any of the renovation funding. And I'll tell you, we've asked that question, I think, no less than 900 times as part of the visioning Committee." Rep. Gary Merchant said it twice — at 1:48:23, "I'd ask you to be sure you get a legal review so we don't jeopardize long term of this facility," and again as his closing words at 1:49:32: "Be sure you get a legal review." On the board, Whitney Skillen had said at 1:10:42 that confirmation on the funding question "will will be my deciding factor" — and then voted yes without it.
The information the board did have was thin and it was told so: a single telephone call, made the day of the meeting by a director who said "it was my first interaction with him," reported second hand, on a question the Visioning Committee had by its own account asked the state hundreds of times without a straight answer.
In fairness. A public body is entitled to act on incomplete advice, and this board did three things that materially limit the risk: it made the siting explicitly temporary, it pulled the review date forward from June to January 31, 2024 on Sprague's amendment, and it directed the administration to obtain the opinion and put it on a future agenda — Hawkins made sure of that at 2:00:24: "also include the legal advice also with that, the budget, the legal advice and alternate location." Against that, the countervailing pressure was real and was stated: the programme could open in September only at this site, and Michael Koski gave the reason for urgency at 1:49:47 — "we haven't done it for 2 or 3 years. We need to do it now."
Sources: RSA 188-E:3, II as codified in 2023 (the provision on which the opinion was sought); minutes of August 9, 2023 ("Chair Heather Whitney added that she had sent a request to the district attorney Matt Upton to get some legal advice on putting the program at the Tech Center and the compliance issues"; "Future agenda item to add the search for a new location for the program to be housed as well as legal counsel input").
MEDIUM Notice and agenda: the meeting was set in open session seven days ahead, but the posted agenda noticed a presentation and a 7:30 adjournment — and the board approved a programme, sited it, and sat an hour past
The notice half of this is largely favourable. RSA 91-A:2, II requires that "a notice of the time and place of each such meeting… shall be posted in 2 appropriate places one of which may be the public body's Internet website, if such exists, or shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation… at least 24 hours, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, prior to such meetings." This meeting was fixed on camera, in open session, at the end of the August 2 regular meeting — the board settled on Wednesday and on 6:30 p.m. between 2:35:50 and 2:36:13 of that recording, seven days ahead — and an agenda was posted to the district's Drive share. The twenty-four-hour interval is therefore satisfied on the face of the record by a wide margin. What cannot be verified from the district's public share is the posting itself: no notice document exists in the packet folder, and the agenda carries no posting date and does not say where notice was posted. The turnout is affirmative evidence the word travelled — but it travelled, on the Tech Center director's account, through him rather than through the district (flag 9).
The agenda half is the problem. The posted agenda is one page. Item III, headed "Discussion/Action Items," reads in its entirety: "1. Alternative Programming — Presentation by Ben Nester, Director of Special Education." A reader deciding whether to attend was told a presentation would be given. What in fact happened was a main motion, an amendment, a second amendment converted into a spending directive, and a recorded 4–3 vote approving both a programme and its placement inside a state-funded facility whose permitted use is the subject of a statute. The section heading does say Action, and RSA 91-A:2, II's notice requirement attaches to the meeting rather than to a final agenda, so this is not a notice violation — but the gap between "Presentation by Ben Nester" and a binding siting decision is the kind of gap that keeps people at home.
Two smaller mismatches sit alongside it. The agenda lists a "Consent Agenda (consent/vote required) 1. Amendments and Final Approval of board agenda"; the chair declared at 0:01:03 that "We have no consent agenda to acknowledge tonight" and then amended the agenda from the chair — moving citizens' comments to the end — with no motion, no second and no vote, on the one item the agenda itself marked "vote required." And the agenda scheduled adjournment for 7:30 p.m.; the board adjourned at 2:00:53 into a recording that began before a 6:30 p.m. gavel — about 8:31 p.m., roughly double the noticed length. Scott Pope's objection at 1:55:57 — "when you bring this up… a week ago at 830 in the in the evening" — is about the August 2 meeting, but it is the same complaint: the public learns late what the board is about to decide.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II as codified in 2023 (24-hour posted notice in 2 appropriate places; minutes to include names of members, persons appearing, a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions, and the names of members who made or seconded each motion); RSA 91-A:2 as it reads today; CSB Agenda 8.9.23; the August 2, 2023 meeting at which this one was scheduled.
MEDIUM An amendment was offered, converted into a spending directive and disposed of without a vote — and the minutes record neither the amendment nor the directive's terms
After the question had been called and before the vote was taken, Whitney Skillen moved again, at 1:59:02: "I'd like to amend the motion to include a. I don't even know how to ask that. The administration begin exploring an off site, another location, and that we make funds available for that from the budget based on the administration's recommendation. However, much funds would be needed based on bend [Ben's] recommendation to start exploring the next location for this program, knowing that it's not going to be the tech." The chair asked "Do we need a motion or can we give you a directive in public on CCTV?"; Michael Koski answered "I think a directive side"; the chair said "Cool." No vote was taken, and Skillen said she was satisfied.
The minutes carry one line about any of this: "Future agenda item to add the search for a new location for the program to be housed as well as legal counsel input." They do not record that an amendment was moved, who moved it, that the board chose to treat it as a directive rather than put it, or that the directive as given authorised the administration to draw funds from the budget for a property search. Arlene Hawkins broadened it further at 2:00:24 — "also include the legal advice also with that, the budget, the legal advice and alternate location" — and that too is absent.
RSA 91-A:2, II requires that minutes "include the names of members, persons appearing before the public bodies, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions," and that "the names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded." The mover-and-seconder requirement has been in force since 2018, 244:1, effective January 1, 2019, and applies to this meeting; the start-time, end-time and minutes-producer requirements added by 2025, 112:1 do not. On the motions the minutes do record, Claremont complies fully: mover, seconder and disposition are given for the comment extension, the main motion and Sprague's amendment, and the final vote is recorded by name on both sides. The gap is confined to what was disposed of without a vote.
Three smaller divergences belong in the same place. The minutes state the amended motion as approving the programme "for one year… due to possible construction that could take place at the Technical Center"; the chair's reading from the chair at 1:58:27 contains no such rationale, so the minutes have reconstructed the motion rather than transcribed it. Sprague's conflict-of-interest question and Bonnie Miles's answer (flag 12) — the last exchange before the vote — do not appear at all. And the agenda reordering is recorded in the passive voice, with no actor: "Citizens' comments will be moved to the end of the meeting."
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II as codified in 2023; minutes of August 9, 2023; the same minutes as filed in this meeting's own packet folder.
OBSERVATION The proposal's second and third target populations are students with disabilities, including students now placed out of district — which makes it an individual placement question, not only a programme-siting question
The presentation offers the board three "Target Population Options." The first is neurotypical students in district. The second adds "Neurodiverse(educationally disabled) students currently in district." The third is neurotypical students in district plus "Neurodiverse(educationally disabled) students currently out of district." Nester's stated driver, at 0:08:26, was "the school board's goals that were established at the summer retreat around… the reduction of our district students by 50% over two years," and he expected "potentially two" returns in year one. The board chose none of the three. The motion it passed names no target population at all.
Where a returning student has an IEP, three federal provisions apply to that student individually and none of them can be satisfied at the programme level. 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2) requires that "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities… are educated with children who are nondisabled," and that "special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 34 CFR 300.115 requires each public agency to ensure "a continuum of alternative placements is available." 34 CFR 300.116 requires that a placement decision be "made by a group of persons, including the parents," that it be "determined at least annually," that it be "based on the child's IEP," that it be "as close as possible to the child's home," and that "unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled."
Read together, those cut both ways here, and the page states both. Returning students from out-of-district placements to a district site is precisely what the continuum and the least-restrictive-environment preference favour, and it is one of the few unambiguously positive things about this proposal. But a programme housed in a different building from the school a student would otherwise attend, whose lead teacher is a general special educator, whose target group expressly includes educationally disabled students, and which the presenter described as "not a special ed program," raises questions that only an IEP team can answer child by child. The record does not show anyone at this meeting saying so.
Two answers in the record sharpen the point rather than settle it. Asked what support would be present, Nester said at 0:46:55 that "there wouldn't be additional, support personnel on site every day." Asked who would come if there was trouble in the room, he answered at 1:37:01 that Chris Pratt "will be overseeing the program. That's his intention" — the principal of a different building — and added, of the Tech Center director, "I wish Alex and I had a more robust conversation before I respond." Frank Sprague had flagged the same risk at 0:49:40: "if we try to bring them back without those services being readily available, that that[…]" would fail the student.
This is an observation, not a finding. Nothing in the record shows any individual placement being made or changed at this meeting, no student is identified, and the programme had not opened. The flag records that a governance decision was taken about where students with disabilities would be educated without the individual framework that governs that question being mentioned.
Sources: 34 CFR 300.114 (least restrictive environment); 34 CFR 300.115 (continuum of alternative placements); 34 CFR 300.116 (placements; group including the parents, annual determination, as close as possible to the child's home); 34 CFR 300.101 (free appropriate public education); The Academy- Presentation ("Target Population Options").
OBSERVATION The board was told the renovation split is "75, 25" — the statute in force, amended five weeks earlier, sets a band of not less than 50 nor more than 75 percent
The financial stake in the whole evening was a future renovation of this building. Nester described its funding at 0:09:23: "there's a roughly[…] A 75, 25% split. So the district would need to come up with 25% of the funds, the state roughly 75%." He framed it as his own understanding and invited correction — "the facts on the matter, as I understand it, and those that are more well versed, Mr. Pope and others can certainly weigh in."
RSA 188-E:10, the funding provision for renovation and expansion of a career-and-technical centre, provides that "the state shall fund not less than 50 percent nor more than 75 percent of the cost of a qualified project approved pursuant to this section." Seventy-five percent is the ceiling of a range, not the rate. On the low end of that range the district's share is 50 percent, not 25 — double the local exposure the board was working from, on a project the Visioning Committee was about to study. The section had been amended by 2023, 79:146, effective July 1, 2023, five weeks before this meeting, so it is also one of the provisions a reviewer must date carefully.
Nothing turned on the figure at this meeting: the board was not voting on a renovation, and nobody's stated position depended on 25 versus 50 percent. It is recorded because it was the only quantification of the risk the board discussed all night, because it was stated as a fact and went uncorrected, and because the same number is likely to recur when the Visioning Committee reports.
Sources: RSA 188-E:10 as codified in 2023 (funding for renovation and expansion; "not less than 50 percent nor more than 75 percent"; amended 2023, 79:146, eff. July 1, 2023); RSA 188-E:3, I as codified in 2023 (the commissioner "shall make grants available to designated regional centers for construction… or renovation, expansion, or replacement" — the paragraph states no percentage); RSA ch. 188-E (chapter index). The Perkins point Nester also raised — whether non-career-and-technical use in the building costs the district federal Perkins money — is reported on this page as his account of a telephone call and is not verified here.
OBSERVATION The director of the building learned of the proposal "accidentally"; the research everyone cited was never produced; and no success measure was set
Three threads in this meeting are about how the proposal reached the room, and all three were pulled by people outside the administration.
How the host found out. Alex Herzog, at 1:21:33: "I was a little shocked that it came up so quickly. And all of a sudden I heard about it accidentally. When I reached out to Ben, he reached back… and I was told this is just a preliminary. We're talking about it. And I have two other sources that said, no, it was a done deal from the beginning… So we're we were just surprised and I shared that, hey, this is coming up. And that's why many of the members are here tonight." The Visioning Committee's attendance was, on that account, arranged by the Tech Center director rather than by the district. One week earlier Nester had told the board, of the same proposal, "I apologize for not going through the visioning Committee first."
The research. The proposition that an alternative programme fails when housed in the same building as the mainstream school did the heaviest lifting of the night: it was the answer to Candace Crawford at 0:59:27 — "Ben mentioned the research that shows placing these programs just as you described, as all the supports in place, but putting it in the same building does not succeed" — and it was Jennifer Gallagher's stated reason for voting yes. No citation was ever given. Herzog, at 1:18:51: "I looked online and I dug a little bit, I couldn't find any definitive research that said it needs to be away from the high school." The strongest evidence actually put before the board was testimonial, from Mimi Rhines, who had worked in the earlier programme at both sites. This page takes no position on whether such research exists; it records that it was relied on and not produced.
The measure of success. David Putnam asked for it at 1:31:01: "they have different expectations for how success is going to be reported, but it doesn't give any rubrics on what they expect with that success." Derek Ferland made measurement one of the four terms of his conditional support and then noted at 1:41:40 that "What the metrics are will kind of wait and see." The motion sets a review date of January 31, 2024 and no criterion to review against. A closely related gap: the whole rationale for this site is career-and-technical access, and the last substantive answer of the meeting, to Arlene Hawkins at 1:58:09, was that with introductory courses full for the fall the district would "be targeting semester two, perhaps."
Sources: no verified rule requires a public body to produce the evidence it relies on, to consult the director of a facility it proposes to use, or to fix success criteria when approving a programme — this is recorded as an observation for that reason. Related: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d), under which "any legislative body, governing body, board, commission, committee, agency, or authority of any… school district… or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto" is a public body — so the Tech Center Visioning Committee carries Right-to-Know duties of its own, and its members appeared here in their own right; NHDOE, Alternative Programs in Public Schools (the reporting expectations Putnam referred to).
POSITIVE A special meeting called for one item, with the public-comment limit raised before a single comment was taken — and about 41 minutes of comment on an agenda scheduled to run an hour
The board could have taken this at its regular August 16 meeting. Instead it set aside an evening for one subject, and the people most affected noticed. Alex Herzog opened citizens' comments with "thank you for taking the time to meet tonight to talk about this issue"; Derek Ferland began "Thanks for having a special meeting to discuss this single issue."
Before any comment was heard, a voice from the floor asked at 0:01:36 whether Visioning Committee members might have longer than three minutes. The chair did not rule on it — she invited a motion, took it, and put it: Bonnie Miles moved five minutes per person, Arlene Hawkins seconded, and it carried unanimously by voice at 0:02:07. The limit was raised for everybody, not for the committee that asked.
What followed used it. Citizens' comments ran from 1:17:02 to 1:57:34 — just over forty minutes and the ten speakers the minutes list — David Putnam heard twice, and Lee Malloy returning to the podium after presenting earlier. Nobody timed out and nobody was turned away. When the chair moved to close, Frank Sprague stopped her because one more person had not spoken (1:55:01), and Scott Pope was heard. Administrators and the proposed teacher were sent back to the podium to answer citizens directly rather than the citizens' points being absorbed into board debate. RSA 189:74 requires a school board to provide the opportunity for public comment for "no less than 30 minutes"; this meeting cleared that floor comfortably, at a meeting whose posted agenda ran one hour.
Two qualifications, stated because the page is not a press release. The chair confined comment to the single agenda item — "there is only an agenda item" — where RSA 189:74 speaks of comment "on school district matters" generally; nobody tried to raise anything else, so nothing turns on it here. And the comment period was moved to after the board's own debate and the framing of the motion, which the chair explained as ensuring "if folks feel like their questions have been answered" the board could proceed. Jennifer Gallagher asked at 1:08:12 whether comments should come first and was told after. The public still spoke before the vote — but after the terms of the motion were fixed.
Sources: RSA 189:74 (school board public comment period, no less than 30 minutes; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022); minutes of August 9, 2023 (which name every citizen speaker with ward and affiliation).
POSITIVE A member read the governing statute into the public record, accurately and in the version then in force, and voted her own reading of it
At 1:14:36 Bonnie Miles said: "I understand what Ben's trying to do. And I get it, I really do. But I keep thinking of the, you know, New Hampshire Statute 188 E-3 that says upon completion, the constructed or renovated facility shall be become the property of the school district or public academy for use by Career and Technical Education Center exclusively."
Set against the statute as codified in 2023 — "Upon completion, the constructed or renovated facility shall become the property of the school district or public academy, for use by the career and technical education center exclusively" — that is the provision, correctly numbered and quoted, without an omission that changes its sense. It is also the right vintage: had she quoted the text gc.nh.gov serves today she would have had to read out a twenty-year repurposing exception that did not exist in August 2023 and that would have weakened her own argument. She then gave her reason in one sentence — "it's the exclusively word that really scares me" — and voted against the chair's motion.
This is worth a chip on its own terms. Across this corpus statutes are far more often paraphrased from memory, attributed to the wrong chapter, or reported at second hand as what an official said the law was; this meeting contains an example of each. Miles did the opposite, from the minority, on the record, in a building full of people who disagreed with her.
Sources: RSA 188-E:3, II as codified in 2023; RSA 188-E:3 as it reads today (for the twenty-year exception that post-dates this meeting).
POSITIVE A potential financial conflict was raised by a colleague and answered by the member, in open session, before the vote
The directive the board had just given the administration was to go and look for commercial property. One member of the board is a realtor. Frank Sprague said so out loud, at 1:59:43: "is it a conflict of interest for Bonnie to be involved with that since she is a realtor?" Bonnie Miles answered immediately: "If I did anything, I'm not getting paid. No, because I don't want a conflict or I would just recommend. Okay, I'll give you some names. That's what I will do."
Earlier in the evening the same possibility had surfaced sideways, when Nester suggested working "with a real estate agent. Bonnie, maybe" (0:46:10). Rep. Gary Merchant alluded to her professional knowledge in the same helpful spirit at 1:48:48: "I'm sure it's miss Miles will tell you it's not something that's out there readily." The exchange resolved it before either could become a problem — the member's role was reduced to referring names, with no compensation, and the whole thing is on the recording.
No statute is cited for this flag, deliberately. This page has not verified a New Hampshire provision that would have required either the question or the answer, and it does not assert one. The chip is for the practice: a potential conflict identified by a colleague rather than by a complaint, addressed by the member herself, in public, at the moment it arose. The one thing that would have improved it is a record — the exchange appears nowhere in the minutes (flag 6), so a resident who reads only the minutes will never know it happened.
Sources: the recording at 1:59:43; minutes of August 9, 2023 (in which the exchange does not appear).
Appendix — source files
Official and public sources
- Remote video: School Board Meeting 8/9/23 (Cablecast show 15240) — runs 2:01:01, from before the gavel to the consent to adjourn. There was no nonpublic session, so nothing is missing from the video record.
- Packet folder: 18. CSB 8.9.23 — 3 documents, the smallest Claremont School Board packet in this project's 2023 series. One of the three is this meeting's own minutes, produced afterwards, so two documents were before the board on the night: a one-page agenda and a nine-screen presentation. Two documents that were discussed do not exist in it — the legal opinion requested from the district's attorney, which had not been written (flag 4), and the state guidance a citizen named from the floor (flag 3). Neither does any cost estimate, any research citation, or any evaluation criterion; the dollar figures used in the debate were given orally.
- Minutes: 12. CSB meeting minutes 8.9.23 in the district's meeting-minutes share, and the identical document filed inside this meeting's own packet folder as draft CSB meeting minutes 8.9.23..docx.pdf the doubled full stop is the district's file name. "Respectfully submitted by Chelsea Weatherford." Four pages, written as the agenda with each item's disposition inserted beneath it. They record attendance, the movers and seconders of all three motions put, every citizen speaker with ward and affiliation, and the final vote by name on both sides — which the recording does not. They misspell Arlene Hawkins as "Alrene" in the tally line, and they omit the material recorded in flag 6. No adjournment time is given.
- Prior meeting in this project: Claremont School Board — August 2, 2023, at which this special meeting was scheduled from the floor and the same proposal first reached the board. That page's flag 2 covers the August 2 discussion. Correction owed to that page: it states that the board "declined a special meeting only after weighing one." The recording shows the opposite — the board weighed Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, settled on Wednesday against a competing city council meeting, and fixed 6:30 p.m. That is the meeting recorded here.
- Earlier meeting referred to on this page: Claremont School Board — July 19, 2023, at which Candace Crawford was appointed to the vacant seat 4–2.
- Not located: no posting notice for this special meeting exists in the packet folder or elsewhere in the district's public Drive shares (verified 2026-08-29); the agenda carries no posting date and does not say where notice was posted. The meeting was set in open session seven days ahead — see flag 5.
- Not located: no written legal opinion from Matt Upton on the use of the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center appears in this folder or in any later 2023 or 2024 Claremont folder in the district's public Drive (verified 2026-08-29).
Packet documents
Names are reproduced exactly as they appear in the district's Drive folder, including the doubled full stop in the minutes file name. The oddities are the district's, not this page's.
- CSB Agenda 8.9.23 — one page. Gives the location (Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center), the 6:30 p.m. start, the 7:30 p.m. scheduled adjournment, the CCTV channel 8 and channel 10 watch links, the board and central-office rosters, a "Student Representative" heading with no name, and the district's core value and mission statement. Four roman-numeral items. Item III is the whole of the notice given for the evening's business: "1. Alternative Programming — Presentation by Ben Nester, Director of Special Education." See flag 5.
- The Academy- Presentation — headed "SHS Alternative Programming -Considerations- Claremont School District 8.9.2023". Nine screens: Purpose; Potential Staffing Structure and Funding; Schedule; Youth Driven Personal Learning Plan (credit-bearing); Youth Driven Personal Learning Plan (soft skills); Target Population Options; Location Options. The Drive title is the only place in this meeting's records where the programme is called "The Academy" — the presentation itself never uses the name, the chair told the board at 1:58:27 that it "is going to be named something different pretty soon", and the minutes record the motion as approving "the Alternative Program (name to potentially change)". The name recurs as the Drive file Exhibit A-The Academy @ SHS (1).pdf in the January 17, 2024 packet (MAP.md § 39) — the first review after the January 31, 2024 deadline this meeting set. The document carries no cost figures, no research citation and no evaluation criteria; see flag 2, flag 3 and flag 9.
- draft CSB meeting minutes 8.9.23..docx.pdf — this meeting's own minutes, filed in this meeting's own folder, which is the practice the district adopted for Claremont board minutes in this period.
Documents from adjacent meetings cited on this page
- Exhibit A- Teacher Nominations for Claremont School Board (August 16, 2023 packet) — the superintendent's nomination list one week after this meeting. It records, in three columns, Lee Mulloy / SPED Teacher / TBD: the proposed lead teacher, nominated to the board for election a week after the board had voted on where her programme would be housed, with her building still unresolved on the list. Under RSA 189:39 "superintendents shall nominate and school boards elect all teachers," so the sequence is regular — the board approved a programme on August 9 and elected its teacher on August 16 — but the building recorded as TBD a week after the siting vote is worth a reader's notice.
- 17. CSB 8.2.23 (12 documents) — the packet for the regular meeting one week earlier, at which the proposal first reached the board and this special meeting was called.
Project files (relative links work when this page is opened from Output/HTML/)
Laws, rules and guidance cited on this page
- Career and technical education: RSA 188-E:3 as codified in 2023 — paragraph II, facility becomes district property "for use by the career and technical education center exclusively"; the source note ends "2021, 210:2, Pt. II, Sec. 2, eff. Oct. 9, 2021", and the twenty-year repurposing exception in the text gc.nh.gov serves today post-dates this meeting; RSA 188-E:10 as codified in 2023 (renovation funding, "not less than 50 percent nor more than 75 percent"; amended 2023, 79:146, eff. July 1, 2023); RSA ch. 188-E (chapter index)
- Right-to-Know: RSA 91-A:2 as codified in 2023 and as it reads today — 24-hour posted notice in 2 appropriate places; minutes to include names of members, persons appearing, a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions; "the names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes" (in force from 2018, 244:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019 — it applies to this meeting; the start-time, end-time and minutes-producer requirements added by 2025, 112:1 do not); minutes open to inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting. RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — the "public body" definition, whose operative clause reaches "any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto"
- Public comment: RSA 189:74 (school board public comment period, no less than 30 minutes; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022)
- Staffing: RSA 189:39 ("superintendents shall nominate and school boards elect all teachers")
- State rules and guidance: NHDOE, Alternative Programs in Public Schools, published June 7, 2022 — board-approved Alternative Program Plan with six enumerated elements; submission to the Department before implementation; voluntary participation with written parental approval; equivalent food, health and guidance services. N.H. Admin. Code Part Ed 306 — the guidance rests on Ed 306.21 (authority to operate alternative programmes), Ed 306.28 (school approval and reporting) and Ed 306.18 (staff); that is the numbering in force in 2023, before the renumbering effective December 13, 2024. RSA 193-C:3, III (statewide assessment programme, referred to by the guidance's assessment element)
- Federal — special education: 34 CFR 300.114 (least restrictive environment); 34 CFR 300.115 (continuum of alternative placements); 34 CFR 300.116 (placements; group including the parents, annual determination, as close as possible to the child's home); 34 CFR 300.101 (free appropriate public education)
- Federal — funds: 20 U.S.C. §1225(b) (GEPA / Tydings amendment — federal education formula funds remain available for obligation one additional fiscal year, the mechanism behind the ARP ESSER obligation deadline of September 30, 2024)
- Secondary sources, cited as reference rather than law: Congressional Research Service, Late Liquidation Period for Elementary and Secondary Education Funds Provided During COVID-19; Advance CTE, New Hampshire state director listing (identity of the state career-and-technical official named on the recording as "Jeff Beard")