Claremont School Board — August 16, 2023

MEDIUM The official minutes misstate the record in four places — one absent member, one mover, one seconder and a sentence that stops mid-clause

The Right-to-Know Law requires minutes to include "the names of members" present, "a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions," and — since 2018, 244:1, effective 1 January 2019, so throughout this corpus — "the names of the members who made or seconded each motion." These minutes do name a mover and a seconder for every motion, which is more than many in this corpus do. The problem is accuracy, not absence.

1. A member appears in neither list. "Present: Heather Whitney, Arlene Hawkins, Bonnie Miles, Jennifer Gallagher Absent: Frank Sprague, Candace Crawford." That is six names for a seven-member board. Whitney Skillen is in neither list, although the chair reports her absence on the recording — "Miss Gillen is not with us this evening" (1:00:58) — and Ben Nester names her without answer in all three roll calls. A reader of the minutes alone cannot tell whether the board had four members or five, which is the difference between a bare quorum and a comfortable one.

2. The nonpublic-session motion is attributed to the wrong member. The minutes: "Arlene Hawkins makes a motion to move into a non-public session RSA 91-A:3 II (c)… ; seconded by Jennier Gallagher." On the recording the chair stops immediately after the roll call to fix that very point for the record, and says: "It was made… by Bonnie" (1:06:58). She then turns to the second — "And the motion. You. Second. Second." — Gallagher answers "I can't remember," and both the chair and the business administrator tell her You did. The seconder in the minutes is therefore right; the mover contradicts the chair's own contemporaneous correction. Stated fairly: the diarization of this recording merges Arlene Hawkins's and Bonnie Miles's voices into one cluster, so the recording cannot by itself separate them. The chair's sentence can, and it names Bonnie.

3. A seconder who did not speak. On the budget-dates motion the minutes read "seconded by Jennifer Gallagher." The single word Second at 0:31:34 comes from the Hawkins/Miles voice cluster, not from Jennifer Gallagher's, which is separately and cleanly identified throughout this recording. Whoever seconded, it was not the member the minutes name. The same minutes name Bonnie Miles as seconding the handbook motion and the nominations motion where the recording has Arlene Hawkins say "I'd like to second that" and "I'll make the second"; those two are not counted as errors here, because the merged cluster cannot distinguish the two members.

4. A sentence that stops mid-clause. Under the handbook item the minutes read, in full: "The Claremont School Board would like to have SHS and CMS handbooks be". The thought is not finished, and the direction the board gave — align the two handbooks from grade six through twelve — is lost from the permanent record. ("Jennier" for Jennifer, in the nonpublic entry, is the district's typo.)

None of the four changes what happened in the room, and a reader who watches seventy-four minutes can reconstruct all of it. But the minutes are the permanent record and are what a resident who cannot watch will read. This is graded MEDIUM rather than HIGH because the record exists, was produced promptly, names movers and seconders throughout, and is internally checkable against a complete public recording.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes: names of members, persons appearing, subject matter and final decisions, and the names of the members who made or seconded each motion — the mover/seconder clause in force from 2018, 244:1, eff. 1 Jan. 2019; the start-time, end-time and minutes-producer requirements added by 2025, 112:1 do not apply to this meeting); 13. CSB Meeting Minutes 8.16.23.

MEDIUM A board member found that the district's own bullying policy makes protecting a pupil during an investigation optional — and the point left the room with no referral on the record

Reading the elementary handbook at 0:54:49, Jennifer Gallagher read the clause aloud: "The building principal and or his designee may take interim remedial measures to reduce the risk of further bullying, cyber bullying, retaliation, and or to provide assistance to the alleged victim while the investigation is pending." She then set it against its neighbours — "a lot of the other letter points say shall like the privacy rights of all parties shall be maintained and the building principal or designation shall keep a written record" — and drew the conclusion: "while an investigation is ongoing and students may be at risk of further harm or retaliation, remediation shall take place, not May."

Principal Melissa Lewis answered correctly and immediately: the wording is not the handbook's, it is the board's own adopted policy, and "unfortunately, I can't change the language of an approved upon board policy" (0:55:40). She offered the right route — "we can recommend it to folks on the policy committee" — and Gallagher accepted it.

Then nothing happened. No motion was made, no referral to the policy subcommittee was voted or minuted, and the acting policy-subcommittee chair was in the room. The minutes reduce the whole exchange to "Jennifer Gallagher brings up a few changes that she feels should be updated in the Elementary handbook." Four minutes later the board approved all three handbooks with the clause unchanged, and the policy behind it remains as it was. Arlene Hawkins came close to catching it back at 1:05:17 under a different item — "there may be policy implications. We had talked about looking at the bullying policy" — but that too was left as a remark.

Why the verb matters. RSA ch. 193-F, the Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention Act, requires every school district to adopt a written pupil safety and violence prevention policy containing specified elements, among them a strategy for protecting pupils from retaliation. A local policy that makes interim protection of an alleged victim discretionary rather than required is at least in tension with that scheme, and it is the kind of question a policy committee exists to answer. Vintage note: the enumerated list of required policy elements in RSA 193-F:4 was amended by 2025, 57:1, effective 1 August 2025. This card therefore cites the chapter and its purpose rather than quoting a subparagraph list that has since changed, and states the concern as a tension to be resolved by the board's counsel, not as a violation.

Sources: RSA ch. 193-F, Pupil Safety and Violence Prevention (districts shall adopt a written policy with the elements the chapter specifies); Exhibit E 2023-2024 DRAFT elementary student handbook (2).pdf; minutes of August 16, 2023.

MEDIUM The head-lice policy adopted "as written" is a different document from the one first-read two weeks earlier — and nothing in the public record shows it changed

Policy JLCC Head Lice / Pediculosis was adopted in the same thirty-three-second motion as JLCB, on a motion to accept "both policies as written". Jennifer Gallagher's one comment on it was warm and, on the merits, deserved: "I just want to say it's a fantastic rewrite of the head lice policy, and I feel really good about this one" (1:02:56). It is a rewrite. That is the problem with adopting it at second read as written.

What the board first-read on August 2 was two pages headed "Claremont School Board Sample Policy JLCC", marked "Category: Recommended" and footed "© 2020 NHSBA" — the association's model, unedited. What it adopted on August 16 is three pages headed "Claremont School Board Policy JLCC", with the sample marking and the copyright line removed, a new opening "Community Education" section containing a full model letter to families, the management steps renumbered 1 to 6, and a Legal References block added citing RSA 189:15, RSA 200:32, RSA 200:38 and RSA 200:39.

And the operative rule is reversed. The model said: "Students known to have head lice will remain in class provided the student is comfortable." The adopted policy says: "Students known to have head lice will not remain in class," adds "The student will be sent home with the parent to begin treatment," adds that "Chronic cases will result in dismissal from school until treatment has begun and/or a referral to the child's primary care provider," and defines chronic as "continued attendance of the child in school with an active infestation." The nurse's discretion is tightened the same way throughout — may check becomes "will check a student's head in the health office", and may recheck becomes a required recheck "prior to the student returning to class" and again "on day ten after the second treatment on day nine".

The reversal is lawful, and it was drafted with care. RSA 200:39 provides that "Whenever any student exhibits symptoms of contagion or is a hazard to himself or others, he shall be excluded from the classroom and his parents or guardians shall be notified as soon as possible," and RSA 200:38 puts communicable-disease control among the school nurse's duties. Exclusion is a choice the board may make. The drafter also saw the internal contradiction it created and narrowed the recital to match — the model's "students with nits and/or head lice or nits should not be excluded from school" becomes, in the adopted text, "students with nits should not be excluded from school." What survives is softer but still awkward: the same sentence continues to recite, on the authority of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Nurses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that "head lice or nit infestation poses little risk to others and does not result in additional health problems" — immediately above a management section that excludes for exactly that.

What the public record does not show. The packet exhibit is still named "Exhibit I- JLCC Head Lice Pediculosis 7.31.23 - Google Docs.pdf" — the same date as the file first-read on August 2 — and its own history block still reads "First reading: 8/2/2023" with the second-read field blank. The companion immunization exhibit was renamed to 8.08.23. A resident comparing the two packets by file name would conclude the head-lice policy had not been touched. Nothing was read aloud, no summary of changes was tabled, and the minutes record only the motion. The district's public policy index does carry the finished article — JLCC Head Lice, dated 8/16/2023, word for word this exhibit with "Second reading/adopted: 8/16/2023" filled in — so the rewrite is the operative policy; what no public document shows is that it was a rewrite at all. On the August 2 recording Arlene Hawkins had fixed the next step for this policy as "First read at the next meeting"; the August 16 agenda instead lists it as "2nd Read/ Adoption", and that is how it was taken. See the August 2 page, flag 6, for why the record of where JLCC stood was already unclear.

Sources: RSA 200:39 (exclusion from school where a student exhibits symptoms of contagion or is a hazard to himself or others); RSA 200:38 (control and prevention of communicable diseases; duties of school nurse); Exhibit I- JLCC Head Lice Pediculosis 7.31.23 - Google Docs.pdf (the version adopted); Exhibit J- JLCC Head Lice Pediculosis 7.31.23.pdf (the version first-read on August 2).

MEDIUM The board was given two different free-and-reduced break-even figures twenty minutes apart, 105 pupils apart, and a $1.13 million difference rides on which is right

At 0:05:17 the business administrator gave the board her number: "Again, we have hold harmless grant, but even so, about 880 kids is our break even point per my calculations." She sourced it at 0:05:48: "Based on the spreadsheet that I have from Mark Manganiello, who's at the state who gives us all our adequacy aid information."

At 0:15:09 the state representatives put a slide on the screen giving a different one. Their deck states: "The break even point where the Hold Harmless Aid reaches zero (for FRL) is ~775 FRL," and "Each FRL above the B/E in school year 2023-24 adds an additional $10,800 to the district from the state funding in SFY 2024-25," and concludes: "SFY 2025 – 884 FRL could mean up to an additional $1,177,200 in additional state aid."

The arithmetic shows which figure the projection uses. 884 minus 775 is 109; 109 multiplied by $10,800 is $1,177,200 — the deck's headline number, to the dollar. Substitute the business administrator's 880 and the same method yields 884 minus 880, four pupils, $43,200. The two figures are not variants of one estimate; they produce answers that differ by about $1.13 million, and the whole case for the campaign — and for the $4,000 the representatives asked the board to spend — rests on the larger one. Gary Merchant used the deck's version aloud at 0:17:17: "So if you look at fiscal year 25 and beyond, what happens is we get above 884. They means an additional million dollars if we get there. I'm not saying we will, but that's the target and it's only estimates."

Nobody put the two side by side. The business administrator sat through the presentation that contradicted her figure and did not return to it; no board member asked; the minutes record neither number. Both parties label their figures estimates — the deck twice prints "Numbers are only estimates" — and that is the honest caveat it appears to be. But an estimate the board will use to decide whether to spend money, and to judge whether the campaign succeeded, needs one value, and this meeting produced two without noticing.

The underlying rates, as they stood on this date. The $2,300 the business administrator quoted at 0:05:17 — "It's $2,300 a kid currently and an additional $8,500 a kid" — is exactly the differentiated aid in RSA 198:40-a, II(b) as enacted by 2023, 79:150, effective 1 July 2023, six weeks before this meeting: $4,100 base per pupil, plus $2,300 for each pupil eligible for a free or reduced-price meal, plus $2,100 for special education and $800 for an English learner. The $8,500 is the extraordinary need grant under RSA 198:40-f, which keys the grant to a municipality's equalized valuation per free-or-reduced-price-meal pupil. Vintage note: RSA 198:40-f has been amended since — the figures the section carries today, including $11,500 at the grant floor, reflect later session laws and must not be read back onto fiscal year 2024. Rep. Hope Damon's statement that "the extraordinary needs amount goes up from 8500 to 11 five" in later years is reported here as her characterisation, and the deck's own $8,500 is used for the current-year figure.

Sources: RSA 198:40-a, II ($4,100 base; $2,300 free/reduced-price meal; $2,100 special education; $800 English learner — 2023, 79:150, eff. July 1, 2023, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2023); RSA 198:40-f (extraordinary need grants; dollar figures amended since 2023); NH State Representatives- Free and Reduced Lunch Program Presentation.pdf.

MEDIUM Three state representatives asked the board for $4,000 and for approval of a project; the record contains no answer of any kind

The presentation's second-to-last slide is headed "WHAT IS NEEDED FROM THE BOARD" and asks for two things: "Board Approval and Support of this Project" and "Board Funding for" five itemised costs — "Postcard Printing - $500", "Posters for Back-to-School Festival exhibit - $350", "Incentives to complete applications - $2,000", "Ad in local newspaper -$650" and "Miscellaneous for things such as markers, Wi-Fi Hotspot, food, supplies - $500" — under the line "Total financial ask - $4,000." Rep. Merchant put it to the board in the same terms at 0:21:57: "what we're looking for from the board, and this is really up to the board at this point in time, we made the presentation, is to try to help as much as we can," and at 0:22:57, "It's about $4,000."

No motion was made. No vote was taken. Nothing was referred anywhere. The chair thanked them — "Thank you very much for taking the time as being the energy into this. It's greatly appreciated by the board and the community and I'm sure the administration as well" (0:23:32) — and moved to the next item. The minutes record the item in a single line: "The NH State Representatives present to the Claremont School Board regarding community outreach to capture Free and Reduced lunch application completion." A resident reading the minutes cannot tell that money was requested, still less what became of the request.

The sequence, without inference. The item had been on the agenda since August 2 as IV.1. At 0:03:21 the chair moved from the chair to insert, ahead of it, "a brief presentation by Miss Henry regarding the administration's current plan to address maximizing free and reduced lunch application completion and submission." That presentation ran four minutes and closed with the administration asking the board to leave the work where it was: "honestly, this this belongs with the school district to do. Because unfortunately the laws don't allow us to have the flexibility of other people getting applications for us. We really need to be the ones to promote it… I really would like us to have an opportunity this year to be able to prove that we can get this done as well. We are a new administration and I think we have the ability to do it. So I would like that opportunity" (0:07:23). The representatives then presented and asked for $4,000, and the board decided nothing. Those are the facts in the order they occurred; this page draws no conclusion about why.

Both accounts of federal law, for the reader's benefit. The administration said "that federal law" prevents others from taking applications; Rep. Damon addressed the same point directly at 0:20:11: "It's not against federal law. To help people fill out an application, the application has to be confidential once it is submitted. But if that parent or guardian would appreciate a trusted person's help in filling out the application, it is entirely at their discretion to choose who might be helpful to them." Neither position was tested at the table, and this page verifies neither.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes shall record a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions); NH State Representatives- Free and Reduced Lunch Program Presentation.pdf; minutes of August 16, 2023.

MEDIUM The nonpublic minutes were sealed for ten years with no statutory determination stated, and the public record contains no time, no duration and no withheld-minutes list

On return to public session the chair said "now we need to, have a motion to seal nonpublic minutes" (1:08:12). Jennifer Gallagher moved: "I'll make a motion to seal the minutes for ten years." Arlene Hawkins seconded, a roll call was taken, and the chair announced "Motion. Pass. This will be sealed." All four members present voted yes, which satisfies the two-thirds the statute requires.

What the statute asks for beyond the vote. RSA 91-A:3, III requires nonpublic minutes to be disclosed within 72 hours "unless, by recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present taken in public session, it is determined that divulgence of the information likely would affect adversely the reputation of any person other than a member of the public body itself, or render the proposed action ineffective, or pertain to terrorism." The vote is the mechanism; the determination is what the vote is on. No determination was stated here — the motion was to seal, full stop — and the minutes reproduce it the same way. On this board's own August 2 record the same gap appears, so it is a pattern rather than an oversight in one meeting.

Nor is the required list evident. The same paragraph provides that "a list of such minutes or decisions shall be kept and this list shall be made available as soon as practicable for public disclosure," and that the list "shall identify the public body and include the date and time of the meeting in nonpublic session, the specific exemption under paragraph II on its face which is relied upon as foundation for the nonpublic session, the date of the decision to withhold the minutes or decisions from public disclosure," and the date of any later decision to release them. The minutes give no time for the nonpublic session at all — no entry, no exit, no duration — and no such list was located in this meeting's packet folder or in the district's Meeting Minutes share (verified 2026-08-29; the search was limited to those two public Drive shares).

The recording cannot fill the gap either. Video time runs continuously from the roll call that entered nonpublic session at 1:06:45 to the roll call that returned to public session at 1:07:57, with about half a minute of silence between — consistent with the recording having been stopped for the session and restarted afterwards, which is what a public body should do. The consequence is that no public source establishes how long the board was out or what it was doing.

On the ten years. Ten years has no statutory basis on this date; the board appears to have chosen it. The ten-year review requirement now in RSA 91-A:3, IV was added by 2023, 189:1, effective 3 October 2023 — seven weeks after this meeting — so it did not govern this vote and is not applied here. On 16 August 2023 a seal ran until a majority of the body determined the circumstances no longer applied. Choosing a finite term ahead of a statute that would shortly require one is, if anything, to the board's credit.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, III (72-hour disclosure unless 2/3 of members present determine one of the three statutory circumstances; withheld-minutes list with date, time and exemption relied on) and RSA 91-A:3, IV (10-year review; added 2023, 189:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023 — after this meeting); minutes of August 16, 2023.

MEDIUM Nineteen educators were elected on a nomination the record does not document — no nominator named, no signature, no date, and the superintendent the agenda named was absent

RSA 189:39 is short and allocates the two halves of the job: "Superintendents shall nominate and school boards elect all teachers employed in the schools in their school administrative unit, providing such teachers hold a valid educational credential issued by the state board of education." It has not been amended since 1971.

The board's half was done. At 1:10:53 Jennifer Gallagher moved to approve the nominations, Arlene Hawkins seconded, and the chair put it: "Is there any discussion or concerns related to the nominations as presented? Not seeing any objections? I'd like to call a voice vote. All in approval of nominations, as read by Michael Kosky. Say I ayes have it. Motions are approved." That is a vote of the board on the nominations, and it is what the statute means by elect — twenty-four seconds, four members, no question asked about any of the nineteen.

The superintendent's half is not in the record. The posted agenda assigns the item to "Superintendent, Michael Tempesta"; he was absent for a family emergency and gave no report. The assistant superintendent read the list instead. Exhibit A — the only documentary trace — is a single page headed "Nominations for Claremont School Board" carrying three columns, Position, Name and Building. It bears no signature, no date and no nominator's name. Nothing in the public record states that the superintendent nominated these nineteen people, and nothing addresses the statute's credential proviso. An assistant superintendent may of course convey a superintendent's nominations, and there is no reason on this record to doubt that these were his; the point is that the document that should show it does not.

The word the district uses is the wrong one. Both the agenda and the minutes head the item "Ratification of Nomination of Professional Staff," and the chair's own floor motion earlier in the evening called it "ratification of nominations for professional staff" — but she announced it from the chair, correctly, as "Nomination of professional staff. Assistant superintendent to present" (1:09:12). Ratifying is confirming someone else's completed act; RSA 189:39 gives the board an independent election. The label is not merely pedantic: an item framed as ratification invites the twenty-four-second treatment it received.

Two entries worth a question nobody asked. The list is titled, in the district's Drive folder, "Teacher Nominations for Claremont School Board" — and its last line is David Irwin, Asst Principal, CMS, who had spent the previous half-hour at the table presenting the middle-school handbook to the board that was about to elect him. He took no part in the item and had no vote. And Lee Mulloy, SPED Teacher, is listed with Building "TBD" — a special educator elected to a school not yet identified, two weeks before the year began.

Sources: RSA 189:39 (superintendents shall nominate and school boards elect all teachers holding a valid educational credential; last amended 1971, 371:2); Exhibit A- Teacher Nominations for Claremont School Board.pdf; CSB Agenda 8.16.23.docx.pdf; minutes of August 16, 2023.

MEDIUM The consent agenda is marked "vote required" and got no vote; the public-comment period was opened for ninety seconds, and only to items not on the agenda

The consent agenda. The posted agenda heads item II "Consent Agenda (vote required)" and lists two items beneath it: approval of the agenda and approval of the August 2 minutes. The chair split them, folded the first into her own floor motion, and disposed of the second by assumed consent: "I'm just going to ask that we consent to approve the minutes… Is there anyone on the board that opposes approving the minutes for August 2nd, 2023? Seeing none, we'll consider that a consent and accepting the minutes" (0:01:31). The minutes follow suit: "No objections from any board member in accepting the minutes from 8.2.23. Minutes accepted." No motion, no second, no vote, on an item the board's own agenda says requires one — the same procedure used at the August 2 meeting. Because there is no motion, RSA 91-A:2, II's requirement to record the members who made and seconded it has nothing to attach to.

The public-comment period. RSA 189:74, in force since 2022, 333:1, effective 6 September 2022, requires a school board to "provide the opportunity for the public to comment on school district matters at a meeting of the school board held under RSA 91-A:2," and states that "the public comment period shall be for no less than 30 minutes." Here the floor opened at 0:01:31 and closed at 0:02:55 — about a minute and a half, one speaker, and he came to praise the district's website.

Two separate points, graded differently. On the ninety seconds, this page asserts nothing: the statutory text does not settle whether the thirty minutes is a floor on the opportunity or on elapsed time, nobody was turned away, and no one else came to the podium. On the framing, the concern is firmer. The chair's standing script opens the floor "to citizens to non-agenda items" and adds that "The board will not hear personal complaints regarding school personnel or complaints against any person connected to the school system. Complaints regarding individual employees will be directed to the Superintendent of Schools." School district matters is what the statute opens; matters not on tonight's agenda is narrower, and it excludes precisely the subjects a resident is most likely to come about — the items the board is deciding that night. In fairness to this chair, at the previous meeting a speaker asked whether the period was for non-agenda items only and she invited him to speak to the agenda item anyway.

Sources: RSA 189:74 (school board public comment period, no less than 30 minutes; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022); RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes: final decisions; names of members who made or seconded each motion); CSB Agenda 8.16.23.docx.pdf.

MEDIUM Three student handbooks were approved with amendments that did not exist in writing — and two more were added to the list after the vote

The motion was "to approve the handbooks with our notes and comments," to which the chair added the operative word from the chair: Incorporated (0:59:20). Arlene Hawkins seconded and the chair put it as "approving the, saw six elementary school handbook, Claremont middle school handbook, Stevens high school handbook with modifications per board request." It carried on a voice vote.

Nobody in the room knew what had been approved. Twenty-four seconds later the assistant superintendent stopped the meeting to find out: "Before we go on. Heather, just to make sure I have all the changes that you want made. We want to put the bullying policy in both Stevens and CMS, and we want to add the picture of the dress code to CMS is there. And other than the few the elementary word changes, were there any other?" (0:59:54). There were. Arlene Hawkins added the alignment of the behaviour and restorative-justice framework from grade six to twelve (1:00:13) and, after David Irwin said of the middle-school programme "we we're still we're still building it," Jennifer Gallagher settled the point at 1:00:42: "I think that it just references. That is fine. I don't think we need to include the whole thing." The list of amendments was still growing after the board had voted on it.

What the record shows was approved. The minutes give five bullets and one sentence that stops mid-clause (flag 3). The recording carries at least eleven distinct changes raised across twenty-seven minutes — a missing website on the CMS cover, a missing signature block, a misspelling on page 41, roughly a dozen mis-numbered pages, the McKinney-Vento housing list, the board's bullying policy into both secondary handbooks, a dress-code diagram for CMS, attendance-policy alignment, the may/shall in the elementary bullying clause, may/must in the elementary sign-out rule, and bicycle-and-scooter storage — and no motion enumerated any of them. RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes to record "final decisions." The final decision here was to approve three documents whose operative text did not yet exist, and no reader of the minutes can determine what it was.

No return date was set. Arlene Hawkins asked at 0:57:03 whether the board would "get a new handbook once they're printed" and received no commitment; no amended handbook appears in this packet folder or in any later 2023 Claremont packet folder in the district's public Drive (verified 2026-08-29). The elementary handbook remains posted as "Exhibit E 2023-2024 DRAFT elementary student handbook (2).pdf". These are the documents that state the discipline, dress, attendance and bullying rules for every pupil in the district, and they were normally issued with registration. School opened within days.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes shall record a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions); Exhibit E 2023-2024 DRAFT elementary student handbook (2).pdf; Exhibit F- CMS Parent-Student Handbook 23-24 (1).pdf; Exhibit G- SHS Student Handbook .pdf; minutes of August 16, 2023.