Participants
Every seat on the agenda and minutes mastheads, marked present or absent, plus the central-office administrators on the masthead and everyone else named in the record. Attendance follows the chair's own count on the recording where the minutes contradict it — see flag 1 — and the disagreement is stated in each affected row. Name spellings follow the draft minutes and the packet's own staff directory; the automatic transcript's rendering is given where it differs. Counts are from the dialogue transcript (689 rows, 12,340 words, 12 named speakers, 89 rows — 12.9% — left Unidentified). No member of the public spoke, so there are no citizens'-comment rows.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Arlene Hawkins | SAU 6 Board Chair (elected 7/13/23, 8–3 over Marjorie Erickson); SAU 6 Treasurer from 4/13/23 until she took the chair; Claremont School Board member | Present, presiding. 209 rows and 2,639 words — more rows than anyone. Moved the agenda amendment that pulled the nonpublic session to the front (0:01:21); moved the appointment of all four evaluation-subcommittee members (0:07:30); moved the hire of David Ryan "at a cost not to exceed $5,000" (0:09:10); moved the suspension of policy CBI (0:10:48). Opened the two vacancies she had created by becoming chair: "We have two openings. I was the saw treasurer and I was the SA delegate to the Assembly in October" (0:32:12). Declined to let an absent member be nominated — "we have four board members not present. We're not going to nominate any one of those four" (0:33:49) — and then asked, after the single voice vote, "Did we vote on Bonnie?" (0:34:57). See flag 9. Rendered Earlene Hawkins and Early Hawkins by the roll-call reader. |
| Rocco Ruggeri | SAU 6 Board Vice Chair (elected 3/30/23); Unity School Board member | Present. 17 rows, 264 words. Moved the nomination of Frank Sprague as NHSBA delegate (0:34:08). Supplied the night's clearest procedural correction when the chair doubted the treasurer vote: "No. There was a group vote" and "We identify the details, and then we voted" (0:35:09, 0:35:14). Pressed the recurring cost of the Tyler purchase past the first ESSER-funded year — "And that would be the 28,000 roughly. Yeah. And it's 28 every year after that" (1:15:25). Raised the meeting-cycle problem in the pre-populated agenda (1:19:29) and gave Unity's annual-meeting timing (1:17:55). Rendered Gary in one roll call. |
| Frank Sprague | SAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board Vice Chair; SAU 6 vice chair before March 30, 2023 | Present. 53 rows, 1,302 words. Moved the appointment of the evaluation subcommittee's chair (0:08:31) and put the reason for the paid facilitator on the record for the public (0:09:36) — see flag 17. Volunteered for the NHSBA delegacy: "I'll do it, Arlene" (0:33:58). Asked whether all 47 departing staff had been offered an exit interview (0:12:57) and pressed for years-of-service data on leavers, tied to bargaining (0:16:58). Challenged the HR report's language on evaluations (0:51:39) — see flag 11. Named on the subcommittee. Sprague's "vice chair" title after March 2023 is the Claremont board's, not this one's. |
| Heather Whitney | SAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board Chair | Present. 58 rows, 439 words. The mover or seconder of record on most of the night's business: seconded the agenda amendment (0:01:58), moved approval of the July 13 minutes (0:02:39), nominated Bonnie Miles for treasurer (0:32:52), nominated the absent Kelly Simpson for the NHSBA delegacy (0:33:27), and moved the Tyler software purchase (1:16:00). Asked the question that produced the purchase's only figure — "Mary, if you tell me the amount, I'll. I'll make a motion" (1:14:47) — and then, told it was about $120,000, asked "So do I need to put that in the motion?" and was told no (1:14:54). See flag 3. Praised the HR work as "unglamorous, foundational work that's boring and horrible" (0:56:42). Heather Whitney and Whitney Skillen sit on this board together; Whitney in anyone's mouth here can be either. |
| Candace Crawford | SAU 6 Board member (Claremont) — appointed to the Claremont board 7/19/23; first SAU 6 meeting | Present. 23 rows, 277 words. Abstained on the July 13 minutes and said why: "I'm abstaining because I wasn't. I wasn't a board member then" (0:02:58). Moved the adoption of the pre-populated agenda (1:18:59 — the chair names her the mover at 1:21:05). Read the exit survey's harshest line back into the public record (0:25:02) — see flag 15. Asked whether the substitute-pay increase could go to the two district boards "for implementation immediately" (0:49:21). Connected the paraprofessional shortage to the Tech Center visioning committee's early-childhood proposal (0:23:37). |
| Atonya (Tanya) Hart | SAU 6 Board member (Unity) — elected chair of the Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee at this meeting | Present. One row, one word — Second. at 0:33:02, seconding the treasurer nomination, which the chair confirms in the next breath: "Second. Tanya. Seconds." Per the minutes she also seconded the seal of the nonpublic minutes and the adjournment, and was named subcommittee chair on Sprague's motion; the transcript renders that motion "Move to make a time, chairman" (0:08:31) and the chair's acknowledgement "To me, the chair. I know you'll do a fabulous job" (0:08:42) — both consistent with her name and neither decisive on its own. The minutes settle it. She had also been struck from the July 13 minutes' list of those present, at this meeting, as not having been there. |
| Bonnie Miles | SAU 6 Board member (Claremont) — nominated SAU 6 Treasurer at this meeting | Present per the minutes' roll calls and the chair's count. No speaking row is attributed to her, which is true of nearly every 2023 meeting in this corpus. Her acceptance is clipped into the chair's own cluster at 0:32:56 — "One or both. Bonnie. I'll do the treasurer." — and the minutes record it as "Bonnie Miles accepts." The minutes record no vote on the nomination. See flag 9. The minutes also make her the seconder of the Tyler purchase, which the chair corrected aloud within three seconds; see flag 8. |
| Jennifer Gallagher | SAU 6 Board member (Claremont) | Present. 10 rows, 249 words. Seconded the July 13 minutes per the chair's restatement, "Moved by Heather and seconded by Jen" (0:02:39) — the minutes name a different seconder. Moved the adjournment (1:22:11). Read a departing employee's comment about parents' treatment of staff aloud and answered it: "I find that statement to be absolutely appalling, and I think we should all do better because our children are watching us" (0:15:30). See flag 15. Asked whether River Valley Community College runs a programme that could feed paraprofessional hiring (0:22:49). |
| Whitney Skillen | SAU 6 Board member (Claremont) — appointed to the Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee at this meeting, in absentia | Absent. The chair counts four members away at 0:33:49 and Skillen is not audible in any of the four roll calls; the minutes list her both among those present and among those absent, in the same sentence, and record her voting Yes in all three nonpublic roll calls. See flag 1. She was nevertheless named to the evaluation subcommittee (0:07:30), twenty-six minutes before the chair declined to nominate any absent member for the NHSBA delegacy — see flag 13. Rendered Whitney Skilling throughout. |
| Marjorie Erickson | SAU 6 Board member; Unity School Board Chair; SAU 6 chair until 3/30/23 — removed from the Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee at this meeting | Absent. Not audible in any roll call; the minutes list her among those absent, and also record her voting Yes on entry to nonpublic session. She had reported the subcommittee's work to the board on July 13 and announced its July 19 meeting with the superintendent; she was one of its four members from March 30, 2023, and is not among the four appointed here. See flag 7. Rendered Marjorie Harrison and Margaret Erickson by the roll-call reader. |
| Shannon Popescu | SAU 6 Board member (Unity) — removed from the Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee at this meeting | Absent on the chair's count of four. The minutes place her among those present and record her voting Yes on entry to nonpublic session, then omit her from the two later roll calls. No speaking row is attributed to her, and her name is not recognisable in the transcript's rendering of the rolls — the fragment "professor Hughes here" at 0:00:29 is a documented candidate for her name in this corpus and is not enough to place her in the room. She was a member of the evaluation subcommittee from March 30, 2023 and is not among the four appointed here. See flag 1 and flag 7. |
| Kelly Simpson | SAU 6 Board member (Unity) | Absent, and the only absence the recording states outright: nominated for the NHSBA delegacy by Heather Whitney, the chair answers "Kelly is not present" (0:33:33). The minutes list her among those absent. No speaking row. Kelly Simpson joined this board in April 2023, replacing Garry Bator; a Unity roster carried forward from February 2023 would be wrong here. |
| Michael C. Tempesta | Superintendent of Schools, SAU 6 (July 2019 – January 2024) | Absent. The chair: "Mr. Tempesta is not here. Mr. Kosugi [Koski] will be giving the report" (0:11:38). Three of the four superintendent's-report items on the posted agenda are assigned to him; the first, the telephone system upgrade, was tabled in his absence in the same breath. He is the subject of the evaluation business: the chair moved to suspend policy CBI "In light of the fact that the superintendent has not been evaluated in a timely manner" (0:10:48), and the facilitator was hired to run "the evaluation process as set forth in the superintendent's contract" (0:09:10). Tempesta was superintendent throughout 2023 and was dismissed on 11 January 2024. A Pratt voice in this year is the Stevens High School principal, not the superintendent. |
| Michael Koski | Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Innovation, SAU 6 | Present. 45 rows, 773 words. Delivered the whole superintendent's report in Tempesta's place (0:11:58 onward): the exit-interview analysis, the updated organizational chart and the staff directory. Gave the headline figure — "there were 47 resignations and retirements. We had eight people, fill out the survey" (0:12:18) — and cautioned against reading too much into it, twice (0:14:00). Handed the paraprofessional question to Ben Nester (0:20:14). Explained the curriculum-director post as a replacement for the content-specialist model (0:27:20). Rendered Mr. Kosugi by the chair. |
| Angela Vivian | Director of Human Resources, SAU 6 — appointed 2/16/23 | Present. 53 rows, 1,830 words. Delivered the Human Resources Update (0:35:28 onward), an itemized walk through four findings of the Lupini–Wilson organizational study with what had changed against each. Stated the gap in plain terms: on evaluations beyond teachers and paraprofessionals, "Currently, there is not an evaluation process in place" (0:43:56); on job descriptions, "majority had dates from 2018, 2019, 2017 that I could find" (0:39:48). Added three recommendations of her own that were not in the study — district payment of the background-check fee, a substitute pay rise above $100 a day, and an applicant-tracking system (0:44:39, 0:46:55, 0:48:02). Named twelve comparison districts from an HR peer group on the background-check question (0:45:10, 0:45:43). |
| Mary Henry | Business Administrator, SAU 6 — appointed 5/11/23, started 7/1/23 | Present. 96 rows and 2,840 words — the largest share of anyone in the room. Presented the Tyler/iVisions purchase and then disclosed, unprompted, that it had already been made: "We've already purchased this software through SRS" (1:12:19). Gave the figure only when asked: "I don't even know what the whole amount was, but it was 120,000" (1:14:47). Thanked the board before it voted — "I know you haven't voted, but ... this makes my day" (1:13:44). See flag 3. Gave the SAU's fund-balance position — a surplus of "anywhere from 10 to 20,000", encumbered purchase orders "about 35,000", and "6500 on the bottom line" (1:16:36, 1:16:58). Told the board the background-check and substitute-pay decisions belonged to the two district boards, not this one (0:46:48). Apologised that the budget timeline was not in the packet (1:18:03, 1:18:59); that item was postponed. |
| Ben Nester | Director of Special Education, SAU 6 — in his eighth year | Present. 19 rows, 271 words. Answered the paraprofessional-staffing question: the administrative team had met the Teamsters, "who now represent the union", and had "expressed interest in coming back to the table and renegotiating that contract" (0:20:17). Confirmed open paraprofessional positions (0:20:34). Gave the night's clearest measure of improvement: "this is the first year in my eight years here that we haven't had staff leave because of, you know, them not being called in a timely manner" (0:57:04) — see flag 18. Explained the Medicaid specialist's cross-district funding arrangement, and its provenance in advice from the board attorney (0:28:32 onward). |
| Jeff Small | Director of Technology, SAU 6 | Present. 16 rows, 555 words. Opened the Tyler software item (0:58:02) and made the security and continuity case: "the data that we have there, it's worth its weight in gold. I mean, I just think even the historical data, I'm just like, if that is lost. I don't know where we'd be" (0:58:40). Described the vendor's development as concentrated on the portal product — "all their focus is on it's called, I visions [iVisions] or their portal, and that's where all their new features are" (1:00:08) — and noted the first year includes migration and training (1:15:02). The telephone-system upgrade assigned to him on the posted agenda was tabled. |
| Chelsea Weatherford | Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent; recording secretary, SAU 6 — staff, not a board officer | Not audible on the recording and not on the board masthead, but she signs these minutes and prepared three of the seven exhibits — the organizational chart ("Prepared & Organized by C. Weatherford 8.10.23"), the staff directory and, per Vivian, the chart's underlying work. Thanked three times from the table (0:31:10). The chair directs board correspondence through her: "I'm asking Chelsea to please notify New Hampshire School Board Association of the change in the delegate" (0:34:38); "Chelsea, if you could reflect that in the minutes" (1:20:15). Producing the minutes is not the office of board secretary that RSA 194-C:5, I requires; see flag 4. |
| David Ryan | Outside facilitator, superintendent evaluation — engaged by vote at this meeting | Not present, and not described. The chair's motion is the entire public record of who he is: "to hire David Ryan to work with the evaluation subcommittee to facilitate the evaluation process as set forth in the superintendent's contract, at a cost not to exceed $5,000" (0:09:10). The minutes record the hire without the $5,000 ceiling, and no qualifications, firm, scope of work, quotes or selection process appear anywhere in the packet or the recording. See flag 7. |
| Dr. William Lupini and Dr. Anne Wilson | Authors of the SAU 6 organizational study (November 2022) | Not present. Their study is the framework for the entire Human Resources Update: "an update to the organizational study report that will provide by Doctor Luchini [Lupini] and Doctor Wilson" (0:35:28). The minutes give the first author's full name, "Dr. William Lupini". The study itself is in neither district Drive share, so a reader cannot check the findings against the source. Rendered Luchini throughout this transcript and the Luchini report elsewhere in this corpus. |
| Matt Upton | Board attorney | Not present. Named once, by Ben Nester, as the source of advice on the Medicaid specialist's funding: "I think there was a nonpublic where guidance was offered by Matt Upton on the arrangement around funding for that position" (0:28:44). |
Agenda
Item numbering and wording from the posted agenda (SAU 6 School Board Agenda 8.17.23.docx (3).pdf — the doubled space and the (3) are the district's), with dispositions from the draft minutes and the recording. Scheduled clock times are printed plain; the Taken up column gives the moment in the recording. The board amended its own agenda before adopting it: the chair moved the nonpublic session and the subcommittee reports out of "Other Business" at the end and up to item III, ahead of the superintendent's report, renumbering everything below. The minutes follow the amended order and drop the posted numbering; the rows below are in the order the meeting took them, with the posted item number given alongside. One posted item — the CBI policy revision — was voted on and does not appear in the minutes at all; see flag 2.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:10 | I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 6:30 PM | Agenda: "6:30 PM Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance". Minutes: "Meeting called to order by chair Arlene Hawkins." The chair calls the order, asks for phones off and calls for the roll, and is reminded of the Pledge only afterwards: "Right, I forgot that. Thank you. We'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please" (0:00:55). |
| 0:00:29 | II. General Business — "Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members" 6:35 PM | Agenda: "Turn off cell phones and electronic devices. 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)." The board has no secretary — the line is read as printed and an unnamed voice takes the roll (0:00:29). The minutes' resulting list is internally contradictory and disagrees with the chair's own count of four absent members. See flag 1 and flag 4. |
| 0:01:21 | II. Agenda – Amendments and Final Approval | The chair: "I would like to amend tonight's agenda to move the other business and make that item number three before the superintendent's report. And I'd like to follow that with the subcommittee reports, which would become number one under other business" (0:01:21). She moves it herself; Heather Whitney seconds ("Make a second that and that is Heather. Seconds", 0:01:58); voice vote, no count. Minutes: "all in favor via voice vote. Motion passes." |
| 0:02:14 | II. Minutes Approval — July 13, 2023 | Moved by Heather Whitney; the chair restates "Moved by Heather and seconded by Jen" (0:02:39) — the minutes name Atonya Hart as seconder; see flag 8. Amended from the floor by a member who was recorded present and was not: "It said that I was present for the meeting, and I was not there" (0:02:45); the minutes identify her — "Atonya Hart was not present at that last meeting. Motion amended to remove Atonya from the present list." Candace Crawford abstains, "because I wasn't. I wasn't a board member then" (0:02:58). Carried on a voice vote with one abstention. The amended text of the July 13 minutes exists in neither district share; the only public copy is the unamended draft. |
| 0:03:02 | II. Citizens Comments | Opened and closed in twenty seconds, to a room with no member of the public in it: "Okay. Citizens. Comments?" (0:03:02) and then "None then" (0:03:22). No citizen speaks anywhere in the 689-row transcript. See flag 16. |
| 0:03:22 | III. Non-public session — RSA 91-A:3, II (c) moved up from posted item VI by floor amendment | The chair states the exemption from the agenda's own wording: "a motion to move into nonpublic session under RSA 91 a three to see [II(c)] matters which have discussed in public would likely adverse effect of the reputation of any person other than a member of the board. I believe that we need a roll call. Vote for that" (0:03:22). Seconded by Heather Whitney; roll call at 0:04:00; return at 0:06:20; motion to seal the minutes for two years at 0:06:53, roll call at 0:07:09. The recording is continuous across all of it: 76 seconds elapse between the entry vote and the motion to return, and the only audible speech in that span is about distributing papers. See flag 6. |
| 0:07:30 | III / posted VI.6. Sub-Committee Reports — Superintendent Evaluation Sub-Committee (approval) | Agenda: "Sub-Committee Reports: Policy Revision - Policy CBI(vote) Exhibit G / Superintendent Evaluation Sub-Committee (approval)". Three motions. (1) Appointment: the chair moves "the following members from unity Rocco Ruggieri, Tanya Hart from Claremont, Frank Sprague and Whitney Skilling" (0:07:30) — two of the four are new, replacing Marjorie Erickson and Shannon Popescu, and Skillen was absent. (2) Sub-committee chair: Frank Sprague moves it (0:08:31); the minutes record Atonya Hart elected. (3) Facilitator: the chair moves "to hire David Ryan to work with the evaluation subcommittee to facilitate the evaluation process as set forth in the superintendent's contract, at a cost not to exceed $5,000" (0:09:10). All three carried on voice votes with no counts. See flag 7 and flag 13. |
| 0:10:48 | III / posted VI.6. Policy Revision — Policy CBI (vote), Exhibit G | The chair: "I'd also move moving to the policy revision for policy CBI. In light of the fact that the superintendent has not been evaluated in a timely manner. I'd like to move that we suspend the application of policy. CBI. That's the s a [SAU] superintendent evaluation and goal setting for this evaluation cycle, since we're already passed the timelines" (0:10:48). Seconded by an unnamed voice; "All those in favor. I oppose" (0:11:33); no count. This item and this vote appear nowhere in the draft minutes, which jump from the facilitator motion to the superintendent's report. See flag 2. The packet's copy of the policy, filed three days before the meeting, already carries "District revision history: Revised 8/17/2023" — see flag 12. |
| 0:11:38 | V. Superintendent Report — a) Telephone System Upgrade posted 6:40 PM; assigned to M. Tempesta and J. Small | Tabled, in the superintendent's absence. The chair: "Mr. Tempesta is not here. Mr. Kosugi [Koski] will be giving the report. I believe that the telephone system upgrade will be tabled until a future meeting" (0:11:38). The minutes print the item heading with no disposition beneath it. |
| 0:11:58 | V.b) Distribution of analysis of staff exit interview results (Policy GCQ), Exhibit A | Agenda assigns it to "(M. Tempesta; A.Vivian)"; the minutes to "(M. Koski; A.Vivian)". Koski: "there were 47 resignations and retirements. We had eight people, fill out the survey during the exit interview" (0:12:18). Twenty-three minutes of discussion — the longest single item of the night — ending with the chair tying it to the retreat: "the purpose of implementing the exit interview was to take the data and help us with our goal setting and strategic planning" (0:25:46). Minutes record two forward actions: adding years of experience, and adding Claremont-or-Unity location, to the survey. See flag 15. |
| 0:26:19 | V.c) Updated organizational chart, Exhibit B | Koski walks the chart: new hires under the business administrator, the out-of-district coordinator, and "the only other one that we may not be aware of is curriculum director Caitlin [Catlin] McLaughlin. Who is replacing Stephanie's position" (0:26:45, 0:27:20). Questions from the chair on a truancy officer (0:28:05), on the Medicaid specialist's cross-district funding (0:28:32), and on the split between the HR assistant's two titles (0:29:39). Minutes: heading only, no disposition. |
| 0:30:11 | V.d) SAU6 Staff Transitions Update, Exhibit C | Koski: "a staff transitions update which is really kind of a meet the staff program. Can't tell the players without a program" (0:30:11), and "And and opening day we'll introduce everybody because there's been a lot of change over at the saw [SAU]". The eighteen-person illustrated directory goes on the district website. Heather Whitney: "very excited to see it up online. It was fantastic and probably overdue" (0:31:53). Minutes: heading only. |
| 0:32:12 | VI.1.a) Nominations — SAU Treasurer (nomination/vote) posted 7:00 PM | The chair opens both vacancies she created by taking the chair on July 13: "We have two openings. I was the saw treasurer and I was the SA delegate to the Assembly in October" (0:32:12), and describes the office as "go in once a month and initial vouchers" (0:32:12). Heather Whitney nominates Bonnie Miles (0:32:52); Miles accepts; Atonya Hart seconds (0:33:02). No vote is taken at this point, and the minutes record none — they stop at "Bonnie Miles accepts." See flag 9. |
| 0:33:27 | VI.1.b) Nominations — SAU Delegate to NHSBA Assembly (nomination/vote), Saturday Oct 14, 2023 | Heather Whitney nominates the absent Kelly Simpson; the chair declines — "Kelly is not present ... we have four board members not present. We're not going to nominate any one of those four" (0:33:33, 0:33:49). Frank Sprague volunteers (0:33:58); Rocco Ruggeri moves it, Atonya Hart seconds (0:34:08, 0:34:38). A single voice vote is then taken covering both nominations — "All those in favor? Opposed? It's unanimous for both" (0:34:57) — immediately followed by the chair's own doubt, "Did we vote on Bonnie?" Minutes: "All in favor via voice vote. Motion passed", recorded under the delegate item only. |
| 0:35:18 | VI.2. Human Resources Update (Discussion), Exhibit D — progress on the Lupini Report HR recommendations | Angela Vivian's report runs 0:35:18 to about 0:57:29, finding by finding against the Lupini–Wilson organizational study, plus three recommendations of her own. The board took no vote: the business administrator advised that both money recommendations belonged to the two district boards — "It should go back to the district" (0:46:48) — and the minutes record exactly that: "The board felt that this should be discussed at each entity level. Claremont and Unity School Boards." The minutes also record the chair's ask: "Arlene asked that moving forward they receive periodic updates from human resources." See flag 11 and flag 18. |
| 0:58:02 | VI.3. Tyler Software Update Presentation (Vote) | Jeff Small then Mary Henry, for about eighteen minutes. The disclosure comes at 1:12:19: "We've already purchased this software through SRS." The figure comes at 1:14:47: "it was 120,000". Heather Whitney moves "to approve the purchase of the Tyler software update" (1:16:00) with no amount in it — "So do I need to put that in the motion?" / "No" (1:14:54, 1:14:56). The chair names Bonnie Miles the seconder and corrects herself to Tanya within three seconds (1:16:08, 1:16:11); the minutes keep Miles. Carried on a voice vote, no count (1:16:19). See flag 3 and flag 8. |
| 1:16:36 | VI.4. Budget Update (M. Henry) — a) financial update; b) proposed budget timeline | (a) The SAU's own year-end position, given without a document: a surplus "anywhere from 10 to 20,000" against encumbered purchase orders "about 35,000" and "6500 on the bottom line", with audit fees still to land (1:16:36, 1:16:58, 1:17:20). (b) Postponed — the document was not in the packet. "It's not in the. Did I not give you that in the packet? I'm sorry. Oh no. It was online" (1:18:03); the chair: "Can we postpone that to the next meeting?" (1:18:08). Minutes: "proposed budget timeline- Postponed to next meeting." |
| 1:18:23 | VI.5. Adoption of SAU6 Board Proposed Pre-Populated Agenda Items (Vote), Exhibit F | The chair explains why it is back: "there were suggestions made at that meeting and it was not finalized. So it has not appeared on the website. And we thought about having if we have a vote, then it's done and it can be put out on the website" (1:18:23). Moved by Candace Crawford, seconded by Heather Whitney (1:21:05). Rocco Ruggeri raises the second-Thursday problem — "you'll get months where it's the third Thursday, right?" (1:19:42) — and the board leaves "subject to change" as written. Carried, voice vote, no count. The document the board adopted lists the annual officer election as Chair and Vice chair only; see flag 4. |
| 1:21:05 | VII. Future Dates / Future Agenda Items posted 8:00 PM | Minutes list four future dates: "SAU#6 Board Retreat 8/23/23 5:00-7:00 Teal Room", Claremont School Board 9/6/2023, Unity School Board 9/12/2023, SAU#6 School Board 9/14/2023. Future agenda item: the proposed budget timeline. Neither the 8/23 retreat nor the 9/14 meeting has any packet, agenda, minutes or recording in the project's sources — see flag 10. The chair also asked members to route agenda items through her (1:21:59). |
| 1:22:11 | IX. Closing Activities posted 8:30 PM | Jennifer Gallagher moves adjournment (1:22:11); the chair: "Gallagher, have a second. Thank you very much. Meeting is adjourned" (1:22:12), naming no seconder. Minutes: "seconded by Atonya Hart". About 7:52 p.m. The posted "VII. 8:30PM Return to public meeting" never arose, the nonpublic session having been moved to the front. |
Discussion timeline
Times are taken from the dialogue transcript (Output/Dialogue/15254 SAU6081723.mp4.CSV) and link into the recording. Quotations reproduce the transcript verbatim, ASR errors included, with editorial insertions in square brackets; where a correction changes the sense the garbled wording is left visible beside it. Quotations from the agenda, the draft minutes, a packet document or a statute are attributed to that document. The published recording is continuous, so a recording position is also a clock time: add 6:30 p.m.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:00:10 | Gavel, and a roll call with no secretary to take it | "Evening. 630. I'd like to call the school board and to order. I first asked people to turn off their cell phones and any electronic devices we would need a roll call of attendance of the board members" (0:00:10). An unnamed voice reads twelve names (0:00:29); the transcript renders the answers as a single run — "Arlene Hawkins here. Over here. Marjorie erickson, professor Hughes here. Kelly Simpson. Tanya Hart here. Spread your phone [Frank Sprague], Miles. Here. Let me. Skilling. Jennifer Gallagher, present. Heather. Wendy [Whitney]. And is Crawford here?" — from which four members can be heard not answering. The board then remembers the Pledge (0:00:55). | HIGH HIGH |
| 0:01:21 | The agenda is turned inside out from the chair | The chair moves the nonpublic session and the subcommittee reports from the end of the meeting to item three, ahead of the superintendent's report, and renumbers aloud: "the superintendent report would become for [four] discussion action items would become five future date six closing. Activities would become seven" (0:01:21, 0:01:58). She makes the motion herself; Heather Whitney seconds; a single Aye is audible (0:02:13). The public copy of the agenda still shows the pre-amendment order, so a reader working from the posted document alone will not find the night's business where the minutes put it. | |
| 0:02:14 | The July minutes are approved after a member says she was recorded present and was not | Moved by Heather Whitney; the chair: "Moved by Heather and seconded by Jen" (0:02:39). Then, from an unnamed voice, "It said that I was present for the meeting, and I was not there" (0:02:45), and the chair's reply, "I wanted you present" (0:02:52). The minutes name the member: "Atonya Hart was not present at that last meeting. Motion amended to remove Atonya from the present list." Candace Crawford abstains as a non-member at the time (0:02:58); the chair restates it correctly (0:03:02). The July 13 minutes record Hart voting Yes in three roll calls; that was not touched by the amendment, and no amended text was ever published. | MED |
| 0:03:02 | Citizens' comments, to nobody | "Okay. Citizens. Comments?" (0:03:02) — then, twenty seconds later, "None then" (0:03:22). No member of the public speaks at any point in the meeting. The SAU 6 board has no public-comment item on its pre-populated annual calendar either; the line survives only in the meeting agenda template. | OBS |
| 0:03:22 | Into nonpublic session under II(c) — and out again seventy-six seconds later | The chair reads the exemption from the agenda: "under RSA 91 a three to see [RSA 91-A:3, II(c)] matters which have discussed in public would likely adverse effect of the reputation of any person other than a member of the board" (0:03:22). Roll call at 0:04:00. The recording does not stop. What follows is 76 seconds of room noise and one exchange about handing out papers — "Chelsea had. / These little things that I just slipped them over them. Claremont ones. Oh, really? There you go. And the unity ones" (0:05:05) — then "I'd like a motion to reconvene" (0:05:14), then "We're going to take a minute break right now" (0:05:18), then "I'd like to entertain a motion to go back into public session, please" (0:05:34). The board debates whether a roll call is needed (0:05:50) before taking one (0:06:20). | MED |
| 0:06:48 | Two years' seal, moved by a member the chair cannot identify | "I'd like to entertain a motion to seal the minutes" (0:06:40). An unnamed voice: "I'll second. For how many long? Right." (0:06:48); the chair: "Wait a minute. Are you making the motion" (0:06:51); the answer: "I would like to make a motion to seal the minutes for two years. I'll second" (0:06:53). The chair then misidentifies the seconder and corrects herself: "Candy. Was. Was it your second that I heard mine? Oh, I'm sorry Tonya. I apologize" (0:06:59). Roll call at 0:07:09. No statutory ground for the seal is stated by anyone, and neither the motion nor the minutes recites one. | MED MED |
| 0:07:30 | The Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee is rebuilt — two of its four members replaced, one appointee absent | The chair moves the whole membership at once: "the following members from unity Rocco Ruggieri, Tanya Hart from Claremont, Frank Sprague and Whitney Skilling as members of the superintendent evaluation subcommittee. I'll make that motion. That board approve it" (0:07:30). The March 30, 2023 minutes name the outgoing four: "Superintendent Evaluation Committee: Whitney Skillen, Frank Sprague, Shannon Popescu & Marjorie Erickson." Sprague and Skillen stay; Popescu and Erickson are replaced by Ruggeri and Hart. The two-Claremont, two-Unity balance is unchanged. Erickson — who had reported the subcommittee to the board in July — and Popescu were both absent, as was Skillen, who was appointed anyway. Seconded by an unnamed voice (0:08:05); minutes name Heather Whitney; voice vote, no count (0:08:08). | MED OBS |
| 0:08:24 | A subcommittee chair is elected, and the transcript cannot name her | Frank Sprague: "I was. Going to make a motion to appoint the chair, but I guess we can appoint and make a motion to appoint. A chair" (0:08:24), then "Move to make a time, chairman" (0:08:31). The chair's acknowledgement is "Opposed? Passed. Thank you. To me, the chair. I know you'll do a fabulous job" (0:08:42). Neither line names anyone the transcript can resolve; the minutes do: "Frank Sprague makes a motion to appoint Atonya Hart sub-committee chair of the Superintendent's evaluation committee; seconded by Rocco Ruggeri." Policy CBI, adopted by this board on 4/13/23, requires exactly this: "The Board will elect a subcommittee of less than a quorum of the SAU Board and appoint a chair." | |
| 0:08:59 | David Ryan is hired to facilitate the superintendent's evaluation, "at a cost not to exceed $5,000" | The chair asks the new subcommittee to move it and then does it herself: "does the evaluation committee have a motion that they would like to make at this point? Or I can make it" (0:08:59); Sprague: "Can you. Make it? Since you." (0:09:09); the chair: "I'd like to propose the motion to hire David Ryan to work with the evaluation subcommittee to facilitate the evaluation process as set forth in the superintendent's contract, at a cost not to exceed $5,000" (0:09:10). Nothing else about the engagement is on the record — no firm, no qualifications, no scope, no quotes, no selection process, and no written agreement in the packet. The minutes carry the hire without the $5,000. | MED |
| 0:09:36 | "I'd like to people watching to know that the reason we're doing this is…" | Asked for discussion, Frank Sprague addresses the camera: "I'd like to people watching to know that the reason we're doing this is so that we, it's it's very difficult for for citizens to that are working and have various commitments to, to really provide the attention to detail that this requires. And bringing in an outside person will help us set up consistency and it will, do a much better job, I think, in structuring the process than the board itself" (0:09:36), and "I'm a very strong supporter of this" (0:10:08). The chair adds the limit: "We are all volunteers here ... And the board will conduct the evaluation. But we are getting some guidance and some expertise ... to assist us in the process" (0:10:14). | POS |
| 0:10:48 | Policy CBI is suspended because the superintendent's evaluation is overdue — and the minutes never mention it | "I'd also move moving to the policy revision for policy CBI. In light of the fact that the superintendent has not been evaluated in a timely manner. I'd like to move that we suspend the application of policy. CBI. That's the s a [SAU] superintendent evaluation and goal setting for this evaluation cycle, since we're already passed the timelines" (0:10:48). Policy CBI, in the packet as Exhibit G, sets those timelines: goals "before the end of August of each year", informal reviews "in November and January", and "A final, formal Superintendent review will be conducted by the end of June of each year". Seconded by an unnamed voice (0:11:27); carried on a voice vote with no count (0:11:33). No trace of this item survives in the draft minutes. | HIGH OBS |
| 0:11:38 | The superintendent is absent; the telephone item is tabled | "Mr. Tempesta is not here. Mr. Kosugi [Koski] will be giving the report. I believe that the telephone system upgrade will be tabled until a future meeting" (0:11:38). Three of the four report items on the posted agenda are assigned to Tempesta by name. Michael Koski delivers all of them. | |
| 0:11:58 | "There were 47 resignations and retirements. We had eight people, fill out the survey" | Koski, introducing Exhibit A: "the school board exit, interview results are in your packet. They are the light blue print" (0:11:58), then the numbers (0:12:18). His reading of the trend: "teachers generally like their building and their colleagues and graded those situations much higher than the district as a whole" (0:13:06); "Salary was a was an issue that that popped up ... salary mentioned several times, workload mentioned multiple times. Staffing" (0:13:25); "Being feeling overworked, underpaid, and having a lot of responsibility" (0:14:00). Twice he cautions against over-reading eight responses (0:12:18, 0:14:00). Frank Sprague's first question is whether the sample is self-selected: "of the 47, were they all offered. The exit interview?" (0:12:57) — answered yes. | OBS |
| 0:14:23 | "This was written before the race" — the new contract against the survey | An unnamed member: "This was written before the race [raise]. Nobody nobody had the benefit of the of the race of the board" (0:14:23). Koski agrees and claims one of the survey's complaints already answered: "of the problems that are mentioned in this, in this exit survey, we've addressed one of them by the new contract ... We've, we've have improved our staffing from last year" (0:14:37). Sprague ties the same point to bargaining: the raise "targeted that group from the 4 to 8 year range ... That's where the raise is the most noticeable" (0:16:08, 0:16:37), and asks for leaver data by years of service — "one of the things we always here at the bargaining table" (0:17:43) — which HR says would have to be added to the survey (0:17:17). | OBS |
| 0:15:10 | A departing employee's account of parents at the middle school is read into the record, twice | Jennifer Gallagher: "One respondent wrote that I think the district needs positive PR for CMS to help the public see the wonderful things students and staff are doing at the school ... The parents also need to be told that they need to treat school employees with respect, because most that I came across did not. I have never been sworn at so many times in my life than in my one year at CMS by parents, as a parent in this district. I find that statement to be absolutely appalling" (0:15:10, 0:15:30). Twenty-five minutes later Candace Crawford returns to the survey's blunter line: "I really dislike being aggressively sworn at and verbally assaulted by parents at CMS on a regular basis. We've heard a number of issues at the middle school regarding bullying ... I never want to see our employees being treated like that" (0:25:02, 0:25:34). Both are quoting Exhibit A. | OBS |
| 0:18:48 | The chair asks whether the eight respondents were Claremont or Unity — and whether she may ask | The chair, across seven clipped fragments from 0:18:13: "I have a question. Do we. Know if. These eight. Response respondents, Where they often Clam out [Claremont] or. Any of them from unity. I don't believe can't we we can't we. Can't ask that information." Angela Vivian: "The survey was sent to everyone exiting. But on the survey it didn't indicate location" (0:18:35). The chair: "Which location? I wonder if that would be important" (0:18:41), and "this is the first year we've done this. Correct. So we're learning what additional information we can add" (0:18:48), and notes a duplicated item in the results, "communication with the district is in here twice." Both improvements — location and years of service — are the only forward actions the minutes record for this item. | OBS |
| 0:19:26 | Paraprofessionals, IEPs and the Teamsters | An unnamed voice takes the survey's "Lack of resources within my department (ie; not enough special educators and paras)" and asks how it is being addressed (0:19:26, 0:19:47). Ben Nester: the administrative team met "with the Teamsters who now represent the union ... we, you know, as an administrative team, have expressed interest in coming back to the table and renegotiating that contract" (0:20:17). The questioner presses on federal exposure: "if we ever were, you know, audited by the feds, that we're not going to get dinged because we didn't have the actual supports we need for these children in classes" (0:20:34), and "teachers can't be both. They can't be, you know, special educators, and they can't be the pair [para] as well if they're in a classroom alone with 4 or 5 children who have IEPs" (0:20:57). Nester confirms open paraprofessional posts (0:22:15); the chair suggests advertising around town as the district did for bus drivers (0:22:16). | OBS |
| 0:22:49 | Where paraprofessionals might come from: River Valley, Newport, and the visioning committee | Jennifer Gallagher asks whether River Valley Community College runs anything relevant (0:22:49); Nester names a therapy-assistant programme and an intern the district takes (0:23:01). Candace Crawford connects it to the Tech Center's visioning work — "a childhood education and training of the pairs [paras] ... The preschool ... as kind of a lab for the training" (0:23:37, 0:24:03). Heather Whitney describes a three-track paraprofessional-behavioral programme at "the Newport Vo[cational]" starting this year (0:24:20, 0:24:30); the chair: "So then we can send people out to recruit them" (0:24:53). | |
| 0:26:19 | The organizational chart: who is at the SAU, and who is paid by whom | Koski walks Exhibit B: new hires under the business administrator, the out-of-district coordinator, "and the only other one that we may not be aware of is curriculum director Caitlin [Catlin] McLaughlin. Who is replacing Stephanie's position" (0:26:45, 0:27:20), plus "color coding for funding sources." The chair asks about a truancy officer — answered that the school resource officer is Claremont police and sits under the principals (0:28:05, 0:28:32) — and then about the Medicaid specialist "listed as being saw [SAU] and I believe she's Claremont" (0:28:32). Ben Nester: "I think there was a nonpublic where guidance was offered by Matt Upton on the arrangement around funding for that position" (0:28:44), and "we have a Claremont employee" funded by the SAU budget (0:29:13). Sprague asks whether any other post is funded that way; Nester: "that's the only one that's in that sort of odd funding arrangement" (0:29:32). | |
| 0:30:11 | "Can't tell the players without a program" — an eighteen-person staff directory goes online | Koski introduces Exhibit C, a photographed directory of the SAU office prepared by Chelsea Weatherford: "And and opening day we'll introduce everybody because there's been a lot of change over at the saw [SAU]" (0:30:11, 0:30:43). Praise from the table (0:31:10); Heather Whitney spots a typo in a job title, "Medicaid Specia[list]" (0:31:24), which the printed exhibit does carry. Whitney: "very excited to see it up online. It was fantastic and probably overdue" (0:31:53). Koski closes the superintendent's report at 0:32:07. | OBS |
| 0:32:12 | "We have two openings. I was the saw treasurer" — the offices the July election emptied | The chair opens both vacancies and describes the treasurer's work as she was told it: "Saw treasurer position. I was told by the board is go in once a month and initial vouchers. Yes. It's not a lot of work. Steve promised me it was not. And he was true to his word" (0:32:12, 0:32:40). Heather Whitney: "I'd like to nominate Bonny Miles" (0:32:52); Miles' acceptance is clipped into the chair's cluster — "One or both. Bonnie. I'll do the treasurer" (0:32:56); Atonya Hart: Second. (0:33:02), confirmed by the chair (0:33:04). The chair then moves straight to the delegate item without calling a vote. The secretary's office — the third RSA 194-C:5, I names — is not mentioned. | HIGH MED |
| 0:33:27 | "We're not going to nominate any one of those four" — and one appointee tonight was one of the four | Heather Whitney nominates the absent Kelly Simpson for the NHSBA delegacy; the chair: "Kelly is not present" (0:33:33) and "Can we do that? Nominate someone. Who's not present" (0:33:37). Whitney answers from experience — "I nominated for something. And I wasn't here" (0:33:41) — and the chair settles it: "Do I have someone who's willing to step up because we have four board members not present. We're not going to nominate any one of those four. Unfortunately" (0:33:49). Twenty-six minutes earlier the same chair had moved Whitney Skillen, one of those four, onto the evaluation subcommittee. Frank Sprague volunteers (0:33:58); Ruggeri moves it (0:34:08); Sprague says what he will do with the seat: "I'll be sending that to people so I can get your opinions on whatever's going to be on the agenda so that it's not Frank voting instead" (0:34:14). | OBS |
| 0:34:55 | "It's unanimous for both. Did we vote on Bonnie?" | An unnamed voice prompts the chair: "It would be good to vote on it" (0:34:55). The chair takes one voice vote for two offices — "Any discussion? Shall we vote? All those in favor? Opposed? It's unanimous for both" — and immediately doubts it: "Did we vote on Bonnie?" (0:34:57). An unnamed voice: No. (0:35:07). Rocco Ruggeri: "No. There was a group vote" (0:35:09) and "We identify the details, and then we voted" (0:35:14). The chair accepts it (0:35:17) and moves on. No count was taken and none is recorded anywhere; the minutes record a vote on the delegate nomination only. | MED |
| 0:35:28 | The Lupini report, finding by finding: the HR update | Angela Vivian: "I'm here to provide an update to the organizational study report that will provide by Doctor Luchini [Lupini] and Doctor Wilson. Specifically related to HR. So first I'll list each finding and then what was along with that and then any updates that had occurred since I walked into this position" (0:35:28). Finding 1, timeliness: postings now checked against the budget before approval, though "this process is still seeing some delay due to lack of clarity ... with previously provided budget items" (0:36:45), and a 48-hour turnaround goal on offers (0:37:21). Finding 2, structure: the new organizational chart, and job descriptions where "majority had dates from 2018, 2019, 2017 that I could find", pushed to a winter start (0:38:17, 0:39:48). Finding 4, cross-training: "there are now three people across [cross] trained" with written SOPs for the director's absence (0:41:17). Finding 5, turnover (0:41:59). | POS |
| 0:43:56 | "Currently, there is not an evaluation process in place" | Vivian, on the Lupini finding about supervision and evaluation: "HR has pitched the recommendation for evaluations, not just for teachers and paraprofessionals, which is which currently exists and resides in our program frontline, but for all staff of the district. Currently, there is not an evaluation process in place. So the idea would be to have evaluation set up for everybody" (0:43:56). Frank Sprague answers it as a legal point rather than a proposal: "This is your HR pitch, the recommendation for evaluations, that are required, by statute" (0:51:39); Vivian: "So I meant more for teachers and pears [paras]. They are evaluated" (0:51:55); Sprague: "Everybody, everybody's required to be. So, I think it's got to be more than a pitch. I think people need to be evaluated" (0:52:02). No provision is named by anyone. | OBS |
| 0:44:39 | Three recommendations that were not in the study: background checks, substitute pay, applicant tracking | "I did add, this wasn't. Part of the Luchini [Lupini] before. But some recommendations or considerations to the board" (0:44:34, 0:44:39). (1) The district should pay the background-check fee, currently on the applicant — "It's 48, 25" (0:45:43); the minutes give it as "$48.25 for each employee background check". She had polled an HR peer group and names both camps (0:45:10, 0:45:43). (2) Substitute pay: "it's $100 a day right now. That's our rate. Works out to be 14, 29 an hour" (0:46:55). (3) An applicant-tracking system: "Right now, everything is paper. Everything is manual. And it's just a very big inefficiency" (0:47:46, 0:48:02). Heather Whitney supports the first (0:46:20); the business administrator rules that both money items belong to the district boards (0:46:48), which the minutes confirm. | |
| 0:49:21 | "Can that be brought to the individual boards for implementation immediately?" | Candace Crawford on the substitute rate (0:49:21); Mary Henry: "It can be. Yes. We just got to look at our budget" (0:49:33) and "To the Claremont and Unity boards for them to make a decision on that" (0:49:41). The chair confirms the background-check fee follows the same route (0:49:45). Nothing on this record shows either item returning to this board. | |
| 0:51:13 | Frank Sprague's question set: emergency authorizations, pay steps and who checks the DOE site | Sprague had sent questions in advance at Chelsea Weatherford's invitation (0:49:58). He asks whether a staff member who moved to payroll took a pay cut (0:50:21, 0:50:42) — Henry: "I wasn't here for that change" (0:51:00); what happens when a three-year certification plan lapses — Koski: "it's just like a certification lapsing. The time's up. Clocks run out", and the district lets them go (0:52:33, 0:52:39); and whether anyone is hired this year under emergency authorization — yes, with a second year available (0:53:04, 0:53:02). He wants the list for budget season: "Ben was kind enough. He has different access to the doe my DOE site ... when I go in and I look, I can only see people that are fully licensed" (0:54:37). Koski asks the purpose; Sprague: "I'm always interested what we're bringing people in at for pay. And making sure it's consistent" (0:55:28). | |
| 0:56:12 | "This is the first year in my eight years here" | The chair compliments the HR work and asks for standing reporting: "You haven't even been here a year ... I would like to get periodic updates as to how things are going" (0:56:12). Heather Whitney: "it's unglamorous, foundational work that's boring and horrible ... And it's like the most important work that needs to be done" (0:56:42, 0:56:48). Ben Nester then supplies a measure: "regarding, you know, Frank's question about, the timeliness of reaching out to staff. I can say that this is the first year in my eight years here that we haven't had staff leave because of, you know, them not being called in a timely manner" (0:57:04). Sprague: "I haven't heard any incidents of it this year, but I have in the past" (0:57:25). | POS |
| 0:58:02 | Tyler / iVisions: the technology and finance case | Jeff Small: "I don't know what it is listed as Tyler software. That's our accounting software" (0:58:02), and on the risk it retires: "the data that we have there, it's worth its weight in gold ... if that is lost. I don't know where we'd be" (0:58:40). On the vendor's direction: "all their focus is on it's called, I visions [iVisions] or their portal, and that's where all their new features are ... we can never get there if we don't get to the, if we don't upgrade to the next level" (1:00:08, 1:00:39). Mary Henry follows for about twelve minutes on payroll, onboarding, contract generation, 1095s, document management, grant management, vendor insurance tracking and audit support (1:01:09 onward), against ageing hardware — "servers are $60,000 a piece to go out and replace" (1:07:17) — and a past vendor-file loss: "we lost 200 vendors. It was incredible" (1:12:01). | |
| 1:12:19 | "We've already purchased this software through SRS" | Asked what she is asking for and told the board will vote on it (1:12:14, 1:12:17), the business administrator answers: "Well, I'm going to say this. We've already purchased this software through SRS" (1:12:19). "We purchased it because I know that it was. Well, it was talked about it a meeting. I think it was the meeting that I was hired at" (1:12:25), and, after an interjection, "That David Jack had talked to you and he had come out and said that it was good to go" (1:12:31). The chair: "To [a] formal vote is what I understand" (1:12:37). Henry: "when I talked to them, I told them, we can put this into SRS ... And we were able to get it into SRS instead of making that purchase ourselves" (1:12:39). The acronym SRS is never expanded by anyone. Minutes: "The software was able to be purchased using ESSER funds." | HIGH |
| 1:13:44 | "I know you haven't voted, but…" — and the price, when someone asks | Henry thanks the board before the question is put: "I want to thank you all for supporting this. You know, I know you haven't voted, but ... this makes my day" (1:13:44). Rocco Ruggeri asks the recurring cost (1:14:09); Henry: "annual cost, I, I didn't I think it's around what, 20,000 isn't it" (1:14:13), offset "with what he's been saving on the internet cost" (1:14:22). Heather Whitney: "Mary, if you tell me the amount, I'll. I'll make a motion" (1:14:43); Henry: "I don't even know what the whole amount was, but it was 120,000 ... It was around 120,000 for everything" (1:14:47, 1:14:51). Whitney: "So do I need to put that in the motion?" — No (1:14:54, 1:14:56). Ruggeri establishes the funding tail: ESSER for the first year (1:15:12), and "that would be the 28,000 roughly ... it's 28 every year after that" (1:15:25); Henry: "in 26 we'd feel the impact of the budget" (1:15:30). | HIGH |
| 1:16:00 | The vote: a motion with no figure in it, and a seconder the chair corrects | "I would like to make a motion to approve the purchase of the Tyler software update" (1:16:00). The chair: "Heather, that's the motion. And it's seconded by Bonnie" (1:16:08), then "Oh, Tanya" (1:16:11) — the minutes keep Bonnie Miles. Asked whether to state a figure, Whitney declines: "No. Does not necessary because it's ... Giving the nod" (1:16:13, 1:16:16). "All those in favor? I oppose non motion passes" (1:16:19); no count. The recorded decision therefore authorises a purchase without naming its amount, its recurring cost, or the fact that it had been made. | HIGH MED |
| 1:16:36 | The SAU's own year end, off the cuff, and a budget timeline nobody has | "you guys are going to be okay on the fund balance side, but I can't tell you exactly where you're going to be yet because I started getting into it today ... you'll probably be anywhere from 10 to 20,000 in the, with the surplus" (1:16:36). Frank Sprague checks the scope: "This is the s a [SAU] budget" (1:16:57); Henry confirms, adds "Encumbered purchase orders is about 35,000. I don't know how much of that is valid" and "right now it's saying I have 6500 on the bottom line" (1:16:58), with audit fees still to come (1:17:20). The proposed budget timeline was not in the packet — "Did I not give you that in the packet? I'm sorry. Oh no. It was online" (1:18:03) — and is postponed (1:18:08). Unity's annual meeting date is supplied from the floor (1:17:55). | |
| 1:18:23 | The annual calendar is adopted — and its officer election lists two offices, not three | The chair: "there were suggestions made at that meeting and it was not finalized. So it has not appeared on the website. And we thought about having if we have a vote, then it's done and it can be put out on the website" (1:18:23). Moved by Candace Crawford, seconded by Heather Whitney. Rocco Ruggeri presses the meeting-day wording — "does the board meet the second Thursday of each month?" (1:19:29), "you'll get months where it's the third Thursday, right?" (1:19:42) — and settles for "subject to change" (1:20:02); the chair asks that it go in the minutes (1:20:15). Carried, voice vote, no count (1:21:05). Exhibit F's April entry reads "Elect SAU 6 Board officers — Chair; Vice chair": the annual election of the secretary and treasurer RSA 194-C:5, I requires is not on the calendar the board has just adopted. | HIGH |
| 1:21:05 | Future dates: a retreat six days away, and a September meeting | The minutes list "SAU#6 Board Retreat 8/23/23 5:00-7:00 Teal Room", Claremont 9/6, Unity 9/12 and "SAU#6 School Board Meeting: 9/14/2023". The retreat is the session the chair had twice pointed the exit-interview data at — "I really hopeful that this will help us in our retreat so that we can take this data" (0:25:46) — and Exhibit F puts board goal-setting and strategic planning in it. Neither event has a packet folder, agenda, minutes or recording in the project's sources, and the board's next recorded meeting is November 9. Sprague and the chair fix the Claremont date, September 6 (1:21:52, 1:21:54); the chair asks that agenda items come through her (1:21:59). | MED |
| 1:22:11 | Adjournment | Jennifer Gallagher: "I'm a motion to adjourn" (1:22:11); the chair: "Gallagher, have a second. Thank you very much. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you" (1:22:12). No seconder is named aloud; the minutes name Atonya Hart. About 7:52 p.m., roughly forty minutes inside the agenda's printed 8:30 p.m. close. | |
Items flagged for review
These are a reviewer's aid, not findings of violation and not legal advice. Each card states what happened, grounded in the recording and the documents, names the rule it rests on, and gives the mitigation the record itself supplies. Every provision cited was checked against the text in force on August 17, 2023 — that matters here: RSA 91-A:2 was amended by 2023, 188:1 effective October 3, 2023, and RSA 91-A:3, IV was added by 2023, 189:1 on the same date, so the 2019 codification of RSA 91-A:2 is the governing text and the ten-year seal-review duty in RSA 91-A:3, IV did not yet exist. Where no verified rule supports a concern it is labelled an Observation or a speaker's characterization. Cards run HIGH, then MEDIUM, then Observation, then Positive.
HIGH The minutes' roll of attendance lists one member as both present and absent, disagrees with the chair's own count, and records three roll-call votes cast by members the recording places outside the room
What the minutes say. One sentence: "Present: Arlene Hawkins,Rocco Ruggeri, Shannon Popescu, Atonya Hart, Frank Sprague, Bonnie Miles, Whitney Skillen, Jennifer Gallagher, Heather Whitney, Candace Crawford. Absent: Marjorie Erickson, Whitney Skillen, Kelly Simpson". Whitney Skillen is in both lists, and ten plus three is thirteen names on a board of twelve.
What the recording says. Eight members answer. The chair states the total herself, out loud, when she refuses to nominate anyone who is not there: "we have four board members not present. We're not going to nominate any one of those four" (0:33:49). She names one of the four in the same exchange — "Kelly is not present" (0:33:33). Of the remaining three, Marjorie Erickson and Kelly Simpson are in the minutes' own Absent line; Skillen and Shannon Popescu are not audible in any of the four rolls, and neither has a single attributed speaking row in a 689-row transcript. Twelve minus four is eight, which is the count the chair gives.
What follows from that. The minutes record three roll-call votes on the nonpublic session. The first lists ten members voting Yes, including Popescu and Skillen; the second and third list nine, dropping Popescu but keeping Skillen. On the chair's own count, those are votes recorded for members who were not in the room. The recording's rolls are consistent with the chair, not the minutes: the reader's names run past four seats without an answer (0:04:00, 0:06:20, 0:07:09).
Why it matters, and why HIGH. 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." Who was in the room is the fact from which quorum, majority and every recorded vote follow, and the minutes are the record the public relies on for it. This is the document in which a public body attests who voted; recording a named member as voting Yes three times when the recording places her absent is a material misstatement, not a typographical slip. It is graded on the unmitigated limb: nobody caught it at the meeting, no amended text exists in any district share, and this page located no approved version of these minutes anywhere. In fairness: nothing turned on it. Eight of twelve is a quorum on any reading, every vote of the night was unanimous or unopposed, and this is the same board that had just corrected an identical error in its own July minutes from the floor (0:02:45) — it is demonstrably capable of catching this, and did not.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification — minutes shall include the names of members and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (a school administrative unit is a public body); draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23; and the July 13 page, flag 4, on the same defect in the previous meeting's minutes.
HIGH The board voted in open session to suspend the policy governing the superintendent's evaluation, and that item and that vote appear nowhere in the minutes
The item was posted. The agenda's item 6 reads "Sub-Committee Reports: Policy Revision - Policy CBI(vote) Exhibit G", and Exhibit G — the adopted text of policy CBI — is in the packet.
The vote was taken. Immediately after the facilitator motion the chair moves it: "I'd also move moving to the policy revision for policy CBI. In light of the fact that the superintendent has not been evaluated in a timely manner. I'd like to move that we suspend the application of policy. CBI. That's the s a [SAU] superintendent evaluation and goal setting for this evaluation cycle, since we're already passed the timelines" (0:10:48). "So I'm proposing that motion" (0:11:24); an unnamed voice seconds (0:11:27); "All those in favor. I oppose" (0:11:33); and the chair moves to the superintendent's report (0:11:38).
The minutes do not have it. Their item IV records the three evaluation-subcommittee motions and then jumps to "V. 6:50 PM Superintendent Report". Policy CBI is named nowhere in the document. The agenda item that carried it is not reproduced. A member of the public reading the only written record of this meeting would not learn that the board suspended a policy, or why.
Why it matters, and why HIGH. RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes to contain "a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions." This was a final decision on a noticed agenda item, and it is absent in its entirety — not compressed, not mis-described. It is also the substantively most consequential thing the board did: what it suspended is the instrument by which it evaluates the superintendent, on the stated ground that the evaluation was already overdue, five months before that superintendent was dismissed. Graded on the unmitigated limb: nothing in the record explains the omission, and no corrected version exists. In fairness: the vote was taken in open session, on a posted item, with the reason stated aloud, and the policy itself was in the public packet — the failure is in the writing-down, not the doing.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification); SAU 6 School Board Agenda 8.17.23 (item 6); Exhibit G — SAU Policy CBI Adopted; draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23.
HIGH The board voted to approve a purchase that had already been made, and the only board record of the decision names neither the amount nor the fact
The disclosure. The agenda item is marked (Vote). Twelve minutes into the presentation, Heather Whitney asks the price and the chair says "we'll vote on it" (1:12:14, 1:12:17). The business administrator answers: "Well, I'm going to say this. We've already purchased this software through SRS" (1:12:19), and explains: "We purchased it because I know that it was. Well, it was talked about it a meeting. I think it was the meeting that I was hired at" (1:12:25), then "That David Jack had talked to you and he had come out and said that it was good to go" (1:12:31). The chair: "To [a] formal vote is what I understand" (1:12:37). Earlier still, before any question was put, the same speaker had thanked the board for its support — "I know you haven't voted, but ... this makes my day" (1:13:44). The acronym SRS is never expanded by anyone on the recording or in any packet document.
The amount, and where it went. The figure surfaces only because a member asks for it in order to write a motion: "Mary, if you tell me the amount, I'll. I'll make a motion" (1:14:43) — "I don't even know what the whole amount was, but it was 120,000 ... It was around 120,000 for everything" (1:14:47, 1:14:51). It is then deliberately left out: "So do I need to put that in the motion?" / "No. Just say the motion to, purchase" (1:14:54, 1:14:56). The recurring cost is drawn out by the vice chair — roughly $20,000 to $28,000 a year, ESSER-funded for the first year and "28 every year after that", with the general fund feeling it in 26 (1:14:13, 1:15:12, 1:15:25, 1:15:30). The motion carries on an uncounted voice vote (1:16:00, 1:16:19). The minutes record one sentence about money: "The software was able to be purchased using ESSER funds." No amount, no recurring cost, no mention that the purchase preceded the vote.
Why it matters, and why HIGH. Two distinct concerns. (1) The record. RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes to describe the subject matter and the final decisions; the decision as recorded authorises an unnamed sum for an unnamed term, and omits the single most material thing said about it. (2) The federal money. The funding source stated on the record and in the minutes is ESSER, which is a federal award; procurements under federal awards are subject to the Uniform Guidance procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.318–.327, which require documented competition and records sufficient to detail the history of the procurement, and to the internal-control requirement at 2 CFR 200.303. Nothing on this record describes any procurement process at all — no solicitation, no quotes, no sole-source justification, no written agreement in the packet — and the purchase is described as having been made before the governing board acted. This page does not determine that any rule was broken: it does not establish who held delegated authority to commit the funds, whether the SAU had a purchasing policy requiring prior board approval, what SRS is, or what documentation exists outside the public record. Those are precisely the questions a reviewer should put. Graded on the unmitigated limb because nothing in the meeting or the minutes addresses them.
In fairness: the disclosure was volunteered, unprompted, in open session, before the vote. The technology and finance cases were made at length and on the merits (0:58:02, 1:01:09). The vice chair, not the administration, is the reason the multi-year cost is on the record at all. And the underlying account — that an earlier meeting had discussed the upgrade on the recommendation of the consulting business administrator — is consistent with the corpus, though this page found no motion or vote in the May 11, 2023 minutes authorising a purchase.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification); 2 CFR 200.318–.327 (federal procurement standards — competition and documentation); 2 CFR 200.303 (internal control over federal awards); draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23; the May 11 page.
HIGH On the one night this board elected an officer, it refilled the treasurer and never mentioned the secretary — then adopted an annual calendar that lists only two offices for the yearly election
The rule. RSA 194-C:5, I is one sentence: "The school board of each school administrative unit shall meet between April 1 and June 1 in each year, at a time and place fixed by the chairpersons of the several boards, and shall organize by choosing a chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer." Its source note reads "1996, 298:3, eff. Aug. 9, 1996" — the section has never been amended, so the text quoted here is the text that governed on this date. Vice chair is not one of the three offices the statute names; secretary and treasurer are.
What this meeting did. It filled the treasurer's office, empty since the chair election of July 13 moved the treasurer into the chair. The chair opens the item by naming what she vacated — "We have two openings. I was the saw [SAU] treasurer and I was the SA delegate to the Assembly in October" (0:32:12) — and Bonnie Miles is nominated and accepts (0:32:52, 0:32:56). The secretary's office is not raised by anyone, at any point. The agenda's own line still reads "Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members"; the chair reads it as printed and an unnamed voice who holds no office takes the roll (0:00:29). Both mastheads print two officers, "Arlene Hawkins-Chair, Rocco Ruggeri- Vice Chair", and no more.
And then the board wrote the omission into its own calendar. Exhibit F, the "Annual SAU 6 Board Proposed Pre-Populated Agenda Items", was adopted by vote at this meeting (1:18:23, 1:21:05) precisely so that it could be published: "if we have a vote, then it's done and it can be put out on the website." Its April entry — the annual organization the statute puts between April 1 and June 1 — reads in full: "Elect SAU 6 Board officers — Chair; Vice chair. Committee assignments — Policies; Superintendent evaluation - this committee reports out monthly; Others. Nominate subcommittee chairs. Set regular meeting times." It provides for the election of one statutory office and one office the statute does not name, and omits both of the others. A board following this calendar exactly will never elect a secretary or a treasurer.
Why HIGH. A date-certain statutory duty passed unperformed in June; this is the second consecutive meeting at which the board reopened its own officers with a nomination process running, and the second at which the secretary went unmentioned; and on this night the board affirmatively adopted, by recorded motion, a governing document that removes both offices from its annual election. Graded on the unmitigated limb: nothing in the agenda, the minutes, the recording or the adopted calendar acknowledges any of it. Three things this flag does not say. It does not say minutes went unwritten — Chelsea Weatherford produced them, as she produces every SAU 6 draft in this period, but producing minutes as a staff member is not the office the statute directs the board to fill. It does not say the treasurer's duties went undischarged; the chair describes the office as "go in once a month and initial vouchers" (0:32:12) and the record does not suggest that lapsed. And it does not say the statute prescribes a consequence: RSA 194-C:5 is a duty without a stated penalty, and whether anything done by a board organised this way is thereby impaired is a legal question this page does not answer.
Sources: RSA 194-C:5, I (SAU board meets between April 1 and June 1 and organizes by choosing a chairperson, a secretary and a treasurer; source 1996, 298:3, never amended — re-verified 2026-08-29); RSA 194-C:8 (weighted voting expressly reaches "the organization of such unit's school board and selection of officers"); Exhibit F — Annual SAU 6 Board Proposed Pre-Populated Agenda Items; agenda 8.17.23; the July 13 page, flag 1; the May 11 page, flag 1.
MEDIUM The draft minutes reached the district's public share on the ninth business day — four business days past the statutory five
RSA 91-A:2, II requires that minutes "be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting"; a draft satisfies it. This meeting was Thursday, August 17, 2023, so the fifth business day was Thursday, August 24. The draft minutes were created in the district's Drive share on Wednesday, August 30, 2023 — the ninth business day. The same board's July 13 minutes had been filed on July 20, the fifth business day exactly, so this is a slip from an established practice rather than a standing one.
The limitation of this evidence, stated plainly. The Drive creation timestamp is the earliest public availability this page can observe. RSA 91-A:2, II speaks to availability for public inspection, which a district can satisfy at its office; if a paper or on-site copy was available earlier, nothing in the sources consulted here would show it. Graded MEDIUM on the mitigated limb: the minutes exist, were produced by the SAU's own recording secretary, and were filed in the meeting's own packet folder rather than deferred to a later packet as this board's older practice did.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification); Drive metadata for draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23 (created 2023-08-30) and for the 7.13.23 draft.
MEDIUM Minutes of a nonpublic session were sealed for two years with none of the three statutory grounds stated — on a session that occupies seventy-six seconds of an unbroken recording
The seal. RSA 91-A:3, III makes nonpublic minutes public within 72 hours unless the body determines, by recorded vote of two-thirds of the members present, that divulgence would adversely affect the reputation of a person other than a member, would render a proposed action ineffective, or pertains to terrorism. The motion here recites none of them: "I would like to make a motion to seal the minutes for two years" (0:06:53). Neither the minutes nor any other speaker supplies a ground. The roll call was taken (0:07:09), so the recorded-vote element is satisfied; the finding element is not documented.
The session. The recording does not stop. The entry roll call ends at 0:04:00; the chair says "we will return to the public after the nonpublic session"; and 76 seconds later she says "I'd like a motion to reconvene" (0:05:14). In between, the only audible speech is about distributing papers: "Chelsea had. / These little things that I just slipped them over them. Claremont ones. Oh, really? There you go. And the unity ones" (0:05:05). The file is continuous — the largest gap between consecutive transcript rows anywhere in the meeting is 4.1 seconds, and the video runs 1:22:54 against a transcript ending at 1:22:20 — so unlike the July 13 recording, which is cut around its nonpublic session, nothing here has been removed. The sequence then tangles: the chair calls for a motion to reconvene, announces "We're going to take a minute break right now" (0:05:18), and asks again for a motion to return to public session (0:05:34), after which the board debates whether a roll call is required before taking one (0:05:50).
Why MEDIUM. This page cannot establish what, if anything, was discussed: the members may have stepped out, the microphones may not have carried it, or the session may genuinely have been that short. What the record does establish is a two-year seal placed on minutes of a session for which the public record shows no stated statutory ground. Graded on the mitigated limb: the exemption was named on entering — RSA 91-A:3, II(c), read from the agenda (0:03:22) — and a roll call was taken then and on returning, which is what RSA 91-A:3, I(b) requires; the seal is for a determinate two years rather than an open-ended term; and the board's own instinct on the floor was to check whether a roll call was needed rather than to skip it. Note on vintage: RSA 91-A:3, IV, which requires periodic review of sealed minutes, was added by 2023, 189:1 effective October 3, 2023 — after this meeting — so no review duty attached at the time the seal was voted.
Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b), II(c) and III (motion stating the exemption and a roll call; 72-hour disclosure unless sealed by a recorded two-thirds vote with a statutory finding; paragraph IV added 2023, 189:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023 and not applicable here); draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23; the July 13 page, flag 2, on the same board's fourth different seal term in four months.
MEDIUM The Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee was rebuilt and a paid facilitator engaged, four weeks after the subcommittee met the superintendent with no notice, agenda or minutes anywhere in the record
The subcommittee is a public body in its own right. RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) defines public body to include "Any legislative body, governing body, board, commission, committee, agency, or authority of any county, town, municipal corporation, school district, school administrative unit, chartered public school, or other political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto." That trailing clause carries this flag: a subcommittee of the SAU 6 board owes notice under RSA 91-A:2, II and minutes on the same five-business-day clock as its parent, and its size is irrelevant to that.
The unrecorded meeting. It was announced in open session at the previous meeting, six days ahead. The July 13 minutes: "Marjorie Erickson provides an update on the committee. They will be meeting on July 19, 2023." No notice, agenda or minutes for that meeting appears in any 2023 SAU 6 packet folder recorded in this project's document map, and the Claremont Meeting Minutes share holds no SAU 6 file of any kind.
The reconstitution. The March 30, 2023 minutes name the outgoing membership: "Superintendent Evaluation Committee: Whitney Skillen, Frank Sprague, Shannon Popescu & Marjorie Erickson." At this meeting the chair moves the whole membership afresh — "from unity Rocco Ruggieri, Tanya Hart from Claremont, Frank Sprague and Whitney Skilling" (0:07:30). Two of the four change: Popescu and Erickson out, Ruggeri and Hart in; Sprague and Skillen stay, and the two-Claremont, two-Unity balance is unchanged. The two members replaced are the two who were on it before and were absent this night, one of them the member who had been reporting its work to the board. Atonya Hart is made its chair on Frank Sprague's motion (0:08:31).
The facilitator. The chair moves "to hire David Ryan to work with the evaluation subcommittee to facilitate the evaluation process as set forth in the superintendent's contract, at a cost not to exceed $5,000" (0:09:10); carried on an uncounted voice vote (0:10:45). The minutes record the hire and omit the $5,000, so the only public record of the price is the recording. Nothing anywhere — recording, minutes or packet — states who David Ryan is, what firm if any he is with, what the scope of work is, whether anyone else was considered, or whether a written agreement exists. A paid engagement of an outside person by a public body is a procurement; where a district or SAU has a purchasing policy, this is the kind of engagement it would ordinarily reach. This page found no such policy in the packet and makes no finding — it records that the public record contains no selection process.
The board's own policy is the other half of the picture. Policy CBI, in the packet as Exhibit G, provides that the subcommittee "will be elected each year at the first SAU Board meeting following elections" — March or April, not August — and that it "will meet with the superintendent in non-public meeting, unless the Superintendent requests a public meeting". A standing policy of that kind cannot substitute for the per-session motion stating the exemption and the roll-call vote that RSA 91-A:3, I(b) requires of each nonpublic session.
Why MEDIUM. The mitigation is real and belongs on the page: the July 19 meeting was announced in public, at a properly noticed meeting, by the member responsible, who in the same breath asked that the subcommittee become standing business so the board would be told regularly; the reconstitution and the hire were both done in open session, on a posted agenda item, with the reason argued aloud for the public's benefit; and the price ceiling was stated on the record even though it did not reach the minutes.
Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (public body includes a school administrative unit and any committee, subcommittee or subordinate body thereof); RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification) (notice; minutes within five business days); RSA 91-A:3, I(b); draft SAU 6 minutes 3.30.23 (the original four members); draft SAU 6 minutes 7.13.23 (the July 19 meeting); Exhibit G — policy CBI; the July 13 page, flag 9.
MEDIUM The minutes name seconders the chair contradicted on the recording, and three of the night's seconds rest on the minutes alone
RSA 91-A:2, II has required since 2018, 244:1, effective January 1, 2019 that "the names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes." Every meeting in this corpus post-dates that, so this is a live requirement here, not a later one applied backwards.
Two direct contradictions. On the July 13 minutes, the chair says "Moved by Heather and seconded by Jen" (0:02:39); the minutes record "seconded by Atonya Hart." On the Tyler software purchase, the chair says "it's seconded by Bonnie" and corrects herself three seconds later — "Oh, Tanya" (1:16:08, 1:16:11); the minutes keep Bonnie Miles, the name the chair withdrew.
Three seconds that exist only in the minutes. The appointment of the evaluation subcommittee is seconded on the recording by an unnamed voice, "I'll second" (0:08:05); the minutes name Heather Whitney. The CBI suspension is seconded by an unnamed voice (0:11:27); the minutes record the motion not at all. The adjournment is seconded by nobody the chair names — "Gallagher, have a second" (1:22:12) — and the minutes name Atonya Hart. On the seal motion the chair openly could not tell who had seconded, and said so: "Candy. Was. Was it your second that I heard mine? Oh, I'm sorry Tonya. I apologize" (0:06:59).
Why MEDIUM. None of these is a close vote and none changes an outcome; the minutes' attributions are internally plausible and were made by a recording secretary present in the room, who may well have seen what a single ceiling microphone did not catch. The concern is that the written record and the audio record of the same motions disagree on the one detail the statute singles out for recording, and that a reader has no way to tell which to believe. Graded on the mitigated limb: minutes exist, seconders are named as the statute asks, and the errors are consistent with ordinary difficulty hearing a room rather than with a gap in practice.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification — "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; draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23.
MEDIUM No tally exists for the election of the SAU's treasurer, and the board could not agree on the floor whether it had voted at all
The sequence. Heather Whitney nominates Bonnie Miles for SAU treasurer at 0:32:52; Miles accepts (0:32:56); Atonya Hart seconds (0:33:02), which the chair confirms (0:33:04). The chair then moves straight to the delegate item without putting the question. Eleven minutes of the delegate nomination follow. Only when an unnamed voice prompts — "It would be good to vote on it" (0:34:55) — does the chair take a vote, and she takes one for both offices at once: "Any discussion? Shall we vote? All those in favor? Opposed? It's unanimous for both. Did we vote on Bonnie?" (0:34:57). An unnamed voice answers No. (0:35:07); the vice chair answers the other way — "No. There was a group vote" and "We identify the details, and then we voted" (0:35:09, 0:35:14) — and the chair accepts that and moves on (0:35:17).
What the minutes record. Under "1. Nominations — a. SAU Treasurer (nomination/ vote)": "Heather Whitney makes a motion to nominate Bonnie Miles; seconded by Atonya Hart. Bonnie Miles accepts." That is the whole entry. No vote is recorded. The words "All in favor via voice vote. Motion passed" appear under the delegate sub-item only.
Why it matters, and why MEDIUM. The treasurer is one of the three offices RSA 194-C:5, I directs the board to choose, and RSA 91-A:2, II requires the minutes to record final decisions. What the record leaves is a nomination, a second and an acceptance, plus a chair who asked out loud whether the vote had happened. The uncounted voice vote is not itself irregular: RSA 194-C:8 makes weighted voting available for "the organization of such unit's school board and selection of officers" only "upon the demand of a majority of the members of any board present and voting", and nobody demanded it. Graded on the mitigated limb: a vote was in fact taken and announced as unanimous, the vice chair gave a coherent account of what had happened, the office was demonstrably filled — Bonnie Miles serves as SAU 6 treasurer thereafter — and nobody present objected to the outcome.
Sources: RSA 194-C:5, I; RSA 194-C:8 (weighted voting on the selection of officers, only on the demand of a majority); RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification); draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23.
MEDIUM A board retreat six days away and a September board meeting were fixed from this meeting; neither has a packet, agenda, minutes or recording anywhere in the district's shares
What was scheduled. The minutes' future dates: "SAU#6 Board Retreat 8/23/23 5:00-7:00 Teal Room" and "SAU#6 School Board Meeting: 9/14/2023" (with the Claremont and Unity board dates). The retreat's business is not social: Exhibit F, adopted by vote at this meeting, puts under August "Board retreat to establish FY goals and strategic plan to meet goals", and the chair twice pointed the exit-interview data at it — "I really hopeful that this will help us in our retreat so that we can take this data" (0:25:46).
Why that is a Right-to-Know question. RSA 91-A:2, I defines a meeting as the convening of a quorum of a public body "for the purpose of discussing or acting upon a matter or matters over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power". Goal-setting and strategic planning for the SAU is squarely such a matter, on the board's own adopted calendar. A retreat at which a quorum does that is a meeting, owing notice under RSA 91-A:2, II and minutes within five business days, whatever it is called.
The search, and its limits. Two-stage, as this project's convention requires. Stage one: the meeting's own folder and the folders that follow it. The SAU 6 share's 2023 Meeting Packets folder holds folders numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 16 — it runs straight from 10. SAU 8.17.23 to 14. SAU 11.9.23, with nothing for August 23 or September 14. Stage two: title searches on the dates return nothing, the project's document map records no SAU 6 meeting between August 17 and November 9, 2023, and the Claremont Meeting Minutes share has never held an SAU 6 file of any kind. This page therefore cannot establish that either session convened — a scheduled meeting that is cancelled leaves the same empty folder as one that is held and unrecorded. Graded MEDIUM for that reason, not HIGH: the absence is of the record of a scheduled session, and the fact of a quorum is unproven. What is certain is that the board fixed two dates in public, one of them for adopted-calendar business, and the public record of what followed is empty.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I and II (2019 codification — definition of meeting; 24-hour notice; minutes within five business days); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d); Exhibit F (the retreat's purpose); 2023 Meeting Packets, in the SAU 6 Schoolboard Packets share (folder numbering, verified 2026-08-29).
OBSERVATION "Everybody, everybody's required to be" evaluated — a statutory duty asserted from the table, and no provision named
The HR report's fifth item reads, in Angela Vivian's words: "HR has pitched the recommendation for evaluations, not just for teachers and paraprofessionals, which is which currently exists and resides in our program frontline, but for all staff of the district. Currently, there is not an evaluation process in place" (0:43:56). Frank Sprague answers it as law rather than as a proposal: "This is your HR pitch, the recommendation for evaluations, that are required, by statute" (0:51:39). Vivian: "So I meant more for teachers and pears [paras]. They are evaluated" (0:51:55). Sprague: "Everybody, everybody's required to be. So, I think it's got to be more than a pitch. I think people need to be evaluated" (0:52:02).
No provision is named by anyone, and this page did not locate a New Hampshire statute or administrative rule imposing a general evaluation requirement on every category of district staff. RSA 189:14-a governs the non-renewal of teachers, which is a different thing. Ed 306, the minimum-standards framework for public school approval, is cited here only at the part level: the rules were under active revision in this period and were renumbered effective 12-13-24, so guessing a subsection would be worse than naming none. This page therefore records the assertion as the speaker's characterization, not as a rule. The underlying factual point does not depend on it and is not in dispute: the Lupini–Wilson study found an "appearance of a lack of consistent and regular process for supervision and evaluation of staff and administration", and the district's own HR director confirmed on the record that no such process exists outside the teacher and paraprofessional systems.
Sources: N.H. Code Admin. R. Ed 306 (minimum standards for public school approval — cited at part level; renumbered eff. 12-13-24); Exhibit D — Human Resources Department Update (Lupini finding 2 and finding 5).
OBSERVATION The packet's copy of policy CBI was filed three days before the meeting already carrying "Revised 8/17/2023", and no revision of its text was ever moved
Exhibit G is the adopted text of policy CBI. Its history block reads: "First reading: 3/30/23 — Second reading: 4/13/23 — Adopted: 4/13/23 — District revision history: Revised 8/17/2023." The file was created in the district's Drive share on August 14, 2023, three days before the meeting, and its document timestamp is earlier still — so the revision date was written into the policy in advance of the vote that was to authorise it.
What the board actually did on August 17 was not revise the text. It voted to suspend the policy's application for one evaluation cycle, on the ground that the cycle's deadlines had already passed (0:10:48) — and, as flag 2 sets out, the minutes record neither the item nor the vote. The result is that the district's policy manual carries a revision date for which the public record contains no adopted revision, alongside a suspension for which it contains no record at all. A reader consulting policy CBI today would see a policy revised on August 17, 2023 and would have no way to learn that its application had been suspended that night.
Pre-dating an agenda exhibit is ordinary drafting practice and is not itself irregular; the observation is about what the combination leaves behind in the permanent record.
Sources: Exhibit G — SAU Policy CBI Adopted and its Drive metadata (created 2023-08-14); draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23.
OBSERVATION A member who was not at the meeting was appointed to a subcommittee, twenty-six minutes before the chair ruled that absent members would not be nominated
At 0:07:30 the chair moves four names onto the Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee, one of them Whitney Skillen, who was not present. At 0:33:49 the same chair declines a nomination for the NHSBA delegacy on exactly that ground: "Do I have someone who's willing to step up because we have four board members not present. We're not going to nominate any one of those four. Unfortunately." Whitney Skillen was one of the four. The exchange that produced the ruling is worth reading whole, because a member argued the other way from experience — "I nominated for something. And I wasn't here" (0:33:41) — and the chair's answer was "I don't think that's very nice" (0:33:44).
Nothing forbids either course. RSA 194-C contains no rule on appointing absent members, and policy CBI requires only that the subcommittee be "of less than a quorum of the SAU Board" with an appointed chair — both satisfied. The observation is that the board applied two different rules to two appointments in one meeting, without noticing, and that the appointee who could not accept or decline in person is now serving on the body that evaluates the superintendent.
Sources: Exhibit G — policy CBI; RSA 194-C:5; draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23.
OBSERVATION The staff directory the board sent to the district website attributes the special-education FAPE obligation to the Americans with Disabilities Act
Exhibit C, "Meet our Staff at SAU6", describes the Director of Special Education as "providing access to curriculum and ensuring free and appropriate education in accordance with the American Disabilities Act for SAU6's 400 special education students." The board reviewed it at 0:30:11 and approved of it going online (0:31:53).
The duty is real; the source is misidentified. The free appropriate public education owed to children with disabilities is an IDEA obligation, stated at 34 CFR 300.101 — which, in its own words, requires FAPE to be available to "all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive", including children suspended or expelled. Section 504 carries a separate FAPE duty at 34 CFR 104.33. The Americans with Disabilities Act's Title II obligation is different in kind: program accessibility — operating each service, program or activity so that, viewed in its entirety, it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities (28 CFR 35.150(a)) — together with the compliance-coordinator and grievance-procedure requirements at 28 CFR 35.107.
This is a staff biography in a district publication, not a legal filing, and nothing turns on it operationally. It is recorded because the document is the district's own public explanation of who is responsible for what, it went to the website with the board's approval, and a district that describes its central special-education obligation by the wrong statute in a public document is worth a reviewer's note. The same entry supplies a figure worth keeping: 400 special education students across SAU 6 as of August 2023.
Sources: 34 CFR 300.101 (IDEA — FAPE); 34 CFR 104.7 and 104.33 (Section 504 — coordinator, grievance procedures, FAPE); 28 CFR 35.150(a) and 28 CFR 35.107 (ADA Title II — program accessibility; coordinator and grievance procedures); Exhibit C — Meet our Staff at SAU6.
OBSERVATION Forty-seven staff left; eight answered the exit survey; four of those eight would not recommend the district as a place to work
The numbers, from Exhibit A. "Out of the 47 Resignations/retirements, 8 exit interview surveys were completed." A 17% response rate. On the closed question "Would you Recommend the district as a place to work?" the eight answers are Yes, Yes, No, Yes, No, No, Yes, No — four and four. Michael Koski gave the headline aloud at 0:12:18 and twice cautioned against over-reading eight responses (0:12:18, 0:14:00); Frank Sprague established that the sample was not filtered — all 47 were offered the interview (0:12:57).
What the eight said, in Exhibit A's own transcription of the open-ended answers. Salary is the most repeated theme: "Raise the salaries. Many people can make up to $20,000 more a year with just a short drive up the interstate. Staff also needs to feel valued. Just telling staff to use 'self care' does not constitute valuing a person." Staffing and workload run alongside it: "Lack of resources within my department (ie; not enough special educators and paras)"; "too many staff are getting burned out due to the need to take on extra jobs to keep the schools afloat ... Non-qualified staff are filling vacant roles to keep education in motion." Communication appears twice in the results, which the chair noticed (0:18:48). One respondent's account bears directly on the evaluation gap this same meeting discussed: "I had not had a performance review in at least 12 years. When I stated I was considering a job change, no one asked me to stay or reconsider." And two respondents describe abuse from parents at the middle school — "I dislike being aggressively sworn at and verbally assaulted by parents at CMS on a regular basis" and "I have never been sworn at so many times in my life than in my one year at CMS by parents."
What the board did with it. Two members read the parent-abuse comments into the public record and answered them — Jennifer Gallagher at 0:15:10 and Candace Crawford at 0:25:02; see flag 19. Two survey improvements were agreed and are the only forward actions the minutes record: add years of service, and add whether the leaver was Claremont or Unity (0:17:43, 0:18:13). The chair tied the data to the August 23 retreat's goal-setting (0:25:46) — the retreat for which no record exists; see flag 10. Koski claimed one complaint already met: "we've addressed one of them by the new contract" (0:14:37), the teacher settlement Sprague describes as targeted at the four-to-eight-year band (0:16:08).
Why this is an Observation and not a flag against a rule. No statute sets a turnover threshold or requires exit interviews; policy GCQ, the district's own policy, is what the agenda cites for the distribution. The reason to record it is that it is the clearest measure in this meeting of the condition of the workforce the SAU exists to employ, it was the first year the exercise had been run (0:18:48), and it is the baseline against which the district's later turnover reporting should be read. No respondent is identified here, and this page reproduces no name appearing in the survey responses.
Sources: Exhibit A — School Board Exit Interview Results; draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23 (the two agreed survey additions); Exhibit D (Lupini finding 5, staff turnover).
OBSERVATION Citizens' comments opened and closed in twenty seconds, to a room with no member of the public in it
"Okay. Citizens. Comments?" (0:03:02), and twenty seconds later, "None then" (0:03:22). No member of the public speaks anywhere in the 689 rows of this transcript, and none is recorded as present.
Whether a fixed minimum applies here is genuinely unsettled, and this page does not resolve it. RSA 189:74 requires that a school board "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 that "the public comment period shall be for no less than 30 minutes" (2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022). Two questions stand in the way of applying it. First, whether it reaches an SAU board: RSA 194-C:5 calls this body "the school board of each school administrative unit", but it is not a school district's board and the section's subject is school districts. Second, whether the 30 minutes is a floor on the opportunity or on elapsed time — the text does not say, and nobody was turned away here. What can be said without either question: the opportunity was offered, on the posted agenda, in open session, and nobody took it.
Worth noting alongside: the annual calendar the board adopted at this meeting (Exhibit F) carries no public-comment entry in any month. The line survives only in the per-meeting agenda template.
Sources: RSA 189:74 (school board public comment period, no less than 30 minutes; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022) — cited with its two open questions stated, not resolved; Exhibit F; the July 13 page, flag 12, which treats the same question the same way.
POSITIVE Asked for discussion on a paid outside engagement, a member explained it to the camera — and the chair drew the line the facilitator would not cross
The motion to hire David Ryan could have passed in silence; the chair asked for discussion by name, "Any discussion, Frank?" (0:09:33), and got an answer addressed to the public rather than to the table. Frank Sprague: "I'd like to people watching to know that the reason we're doing this is so that we, it's it's very difficult for for citizens to that are working and have various commitments to, to really provide the attention to detail that this requires. And bringing in an outside person will help us set up consistency and it will, do a much better job, I think, in structuring the process than the board itself" (0:09:36), and "I think you'll you'll get us headed in the right direction. So I'm a very strong supporter of this" (0:10:08).
The chair then stated the limit of the delegation, which is the part that matters for accountability: "We are all volunteers here, and we bring a variety of perspectives to our role. And the board will conduct the evaluation. But we are getting some guidance and some expertise ... to assist us in the process" (0:10:14). A board that spends public money on an outside facilitator for an evaluation it is itself responsible for owes the public exactly that explanation, and gave it unprompted. It does not answer the questions in flag 7 about how the facilitator was chosen or what the engagement covers — but it is the reason a reader of this record knows what the money was for.
Sources: the recording at 0:09:33–0:10:39; draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23.
POSITIVE An outside study's findings were answered in public, one by one, by the manager responsible — and one of them was answered with a measured improvement
The Human Resources Update is the substantive core of this meeting. Angela Vivian took each finding of the Lupini–Wilson organizational study that touched her department and reported against it in open session: what the finding said, and what had changed since (0:35:28 onward). The report does not flatter: postings are "still seeing some delay due to lack of clarity ... with previously provided budget items" (0:36:45); job descriptions mostly "had dates from 2018, 2019, 2017" and the project has slipped to a winter start (0:39:48); and on evaluation beyond teachers and paraprofessionals, "Currently, there is not an evaluation process in place" (0:43:56). Against that: three staff now cross-trained with written procedures for the director's absence (0:41:17), a 48-hour turnaround goal on offers (0:37:21), a single named point of contact for complaints and compliance (0:37:47), and an organizational chart and staff directory that did not exist before.
And it was tested against an independent witness in the room. Frank Sprague put the district's own history to her — that candidates had been lost to slow onboarding (0:53:46) — and got a qualified answer, "to my knowledge, we haven't lost any applicants" (0:53:58). Ben Nester then volunteered the check from the other side of the house: "this is the first year in my eight years here that we haven't had staff leave because of, you know, them not being called in a timely manner" (0:57:04). Sprague accepted it on the same terms: "I haven't heard any incidents of it this year, but I have in the past" (0:57:25).
The chair closed by asking for the reporting to continue rather than treating the item as discharged — "I would like to get periodic updates as to how things are going" (0:56:12) — and the minutes record it as a standing request: "Arlene asked that moving forward they receive periodic updates from human resources." Publishing a consultant's criticisms and then answering them on camera, finding by finding, with a number attached, is more than the Right-to-Know Law asks of anyone.
Sources: Exhibit D — Human Resources Department Update; draft SAU 6 minutes 8.17.23; the recording at 0:35:28–0:57:29.
POSITIVE Two members read the exit survey's hardest comments aloud, named the behaviour and answered it — and the whole packet was public three days before the meeting
The reading. Nothing required any board member to quote an anonymous survey on camera. Jennifer Gallagher did it deliberately, flagging why: "I just wanted to ... mention one thing that I noticed in the open ended comments that I think I should call attention to for everybody watching" (0:15:10), then the comment, then her own answer to it: "I find that statement to be absolutely appalling, and I think we should all do better because our children are watching us and we can't tell them to treat people with respect when we're not modeling that" (0:15:30). Twenty-five minutes later Candace Crawford went back to the blunter line in the same exhibit — "I was really upset when I read, the comment, and I think the public needs to be aware of this" — connected it to reports of bullying at the same school, and finished "I never want to see our employees being treated like that" (0:25:02, 0:25:34). A district's staff learn from records like this one whether the board will say such things out loud.
The packet. All seven exhibits — the exit-interview results, the organizational chart, the staff directory, the HR update, the proposed recurring agenda items, the CBI policy and the previous meeting's draft minutes — were in the district's public Drive share on August 14, 2023, three days before the meeting, with the agenda following on August 15, two days ahead. RSA 91-A:2, II requires 24 hours' notice of the meeting and says nothing about publishing a packet at all. Every document a member worked from that night was available to any member of the public at the same time, with one exception the meeting itself identified: the proposed budget timeline was not in the packet, and the board postponed the item rather than take it up on a document nobody had (1:18:03, 1:18:08).
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification — 24-hour notice); Drive metadata for the exhibits (created 2023-08-14) and the agenda (created 2023-08-15); Exhibit A.
Appendix — source files
Official and public sources
- Remote video: SAU 6 Board Meeting 8/17/23 (Cablecast show 15254), broadcast on CCTV Channel 8 as both the agenda and the minutes state in their heading. Every timestamp on this page links into this recording with &seekto= plus the second. The local copy of the file runs 1:22:54 and the dialogue transcript spans 0:00:00 to 1:22:20; the recording is continuous — the nonpublic session is not cut out of it, and the largest gap between consecutive transcript rows anywhere is 4.1 seconds.
- Packet folder: 10. SAU 8.17.23 — 9 items, in 2023 Meeting Packets within the SAU 6 Schoolboard Packets share — not the Claremont School Board packet share. Drive creation dates are given below because they are evidence in flag 5, flag 12 and flag 19.
- Agenda: SAU 6 School Board Agenda 8.17.23.docx (3).pdf the doubled space and the
(3) are the district's — created August 15, 2023. Twelve board members on the masthead with two officers; six central-office administrators; sections I through VII; the nonpublic session posted at item VI, "Other Business", and moved to the front from the floor. Item 6 posts the CBI policy revision as a vote — see flag 2.
- Minutes (draft, and the only form this page located): draft SAU 6 School Board meeting minutes 8.17.23.docx.pdf — created August 30, 2023, the ninth business day; signed "Respectfully submitted by Chelsea Weatherford"; five pages, structured as the amended agenda with dispositions beneath each item. See flag 1, flag 2, flag 5 and flag 8.
- Previous meeting's minutes, filed in this packet: draft SAU 6 School Board Meeting Minutes 7.13.23 — the document approved as amended at this meeting. The amended text exists in neither district share; both public copies are the unamended draft. Source for the 8–3 chair election and for the subcommittee's July 19 meeting date.
- Exhibit A- School Board Exit Interview Results.pdf — created August 14, 2023. 47 resignations and retirements; 8 completed surveys; a multiple-choice grid and five open-ended questions reproduced in full. See flag 15.
- Exhibit B- SAU 6 Organizational Chart 8.7.23 (1).pdf — created August 14, 2023; "Prepared & Organized by C. Weatherford 8.10.23", so the file name's date and the document's own date differ. Colour-coded by funding source: ESSER, Claremont, SAU #6.
- Exhibit C- Meet our Staff at SAU6 (1).pdf — created August 14, 2023. Eighteen central-office staff with photographs, duties, backgrounds and e-mail addresses; the source for several name spellings used on this page. See flag 14.
- Exhibit D- Human Resources Department Update.pdf — created August 14, 2023. Findings 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Lupini–Wilson organizational study with an update against each, plus four HR recommendations. There is no Exhibit E in the packet; the exhibits run A, B, C, D, F, G.
- Exhibit F- SAU 6 School Board Agenda Proposed Recurring items 8.7.23.docx (1).pdf — created August 14, 2023; adopted by vote at this meeting. A month-by-month annual calendar of standing business. Its April entry is the subject of flag 4; its August entry is the subject of flag 10.
- Exhibit G- SAU Policy CBI Adopted (1).pdf — created August 14, 2023 the doubled space before
(1) is the district's. Policy CBI, SAU Superintendent Evaluation and Goal Setting: first read 3/30/23, second read and adopted 4/13/23, and a history line reading "Revised 8/17/2023" written before the meeting. See flag 2 and flag 12.
- Also consulted, from neighbouring packets: draft SAU 6 School Board meeting minutes 3.30.23.pdf (the original membership of the Superintendent Evaluation Committee, and Ruggeri's election as vice chair).
- Explicit negatives, verified 2026-08-29. No record of the August 23, 2023 board retreat or the September 14, 2023 board meeting exists in either district share: the SAU 6 2023 Meeting Packets folder runs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, straight from 10. SAU 8.17.23 to 14. SAU 11.9.23; title searches on the dates return nothing; and the Claremont Meeting Minutes share has never held an SAU 6 file. No approved version of these minutes was located. No notice, agenda or minutes of the Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee appears anywhere. The Lupini–Wilson organizational study itself is in neither share, so its findings can be read here only as Exhibit D restates them. No contract, engagement letter, scope of work or quotation for David Ryan appears in any packet.
Project files
Relative links work when this page is opened from Output/HTML/.
Laws and rules cited on this page
- RSA 91-A:2 (2019 codification — the text in force on August 17, 2023) — paragraph I defines a meeting as the convening of a quorum "for the purpose of discussing or acting upon a matter or matters over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power"; paragraph II requires 24 hours' posted notice, requires that "minutes shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting", and 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 in the minutes." Vintage: the mover/seconder clause has been in force since 2018, 244:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019, so it applies here; the section was next amended by 2023, 188:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023, and by 2025, 112:1 — neither applies to this meeting, and the current gc.nh.gov text is therefore not the governing one. Verified 2026-08-29. Flags 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 19.
- RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — "public body" includes "Any legislative body, governing body, board, commission, committee, agency, or authority of any county, town, municipal corporation, school district, school administrative unit, chartered public school, or other political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto." The trailing clause is what carries every subcommittee flag. Flags 1, 7, 10.
- RSA 91-A:3, I(b), II(c) and III — a nonpublic session requires a motion stating the specific exemption and a roll-call vote in public session; nonpublic minutes are public within 72 hours unless the body determines by recorded two-thirds vote that divulgence would adversely affect the reputation of a person other than a member, render a proposed action ineffective, or pertain to terrorism. Vintage: paragraph IV, requiring periodic review of sealed minutes, was added by 2023, 189:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023 and did not exist on this date. Verified 2026-08-29. Flag 6, flag 7.
- RSA 194-C:5, I — the SAU board "shall meet between April 1 and June 1 in each year ... and shall organize by choosing a chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer." Source note "1996, 298:3, eff. Aug. 9, 1996"; never amended, so the current text is the text that governed here. Vice chair is not one of the three offices. Re-verified 2026-08-29. Flag 4, flag 9, flag 13.
- RSA 194-C:8 — weighted voting in SAU affairs, one vote for each 16 resident pupils, expressly including "the organization of such unit's school board and selection of officers", available only "upon the demand of a majority of the members of any board present and voting". Not demanded at this meeting, so the uncounted voice votes are not irregular on that account. Flag 4, flag 9.
- RSA 189:74 — school board public comment period of no less than 30 minutes; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022. Cited with its two open questions stated and not resolved: whether it reaches an SAU board, and whether the 30 minutes is a floor on the opportunity or on elapsed time. Flag 16.
- N.H. Code Admin. R. Ed 306 — minimum standards for public school approval. Cited at the part level only: the rules were under active revision in this period and were renumbered effective 12-13-24, so no subsection is asserted for a 2023 meeting. Flag 11.
- 2 CFR 200.318–.327 and 2 CFR 200.303 — Uniform Guidance procurement standards (competition, and records sufficient to detail the history of a procurement) and internal control over federal awards. Engaged because the funding source stated on the record and in the minutes for the software purchase is ESSER, a federal award. Flag 3.
- 34 CFR 300.101 (IDEA — FAPE available to all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive), 34 CFR 104.7 (Section 504 — coordinator and grievance procedures), 28 CFR 35.150(a) and 28 CFR 35.107 (ADA Title II — program accessibility; coordinator and grievance procedures). Cited to distinguish the three regimes. Flag 14.
- District policies, cited as the board's own rules rather than as law: policy CBI, SAU Superintendent Evaluation and Goal Setting (adopted 4/13/23, in the packet as Exhibit G) — annual evaluation, a subcommittee "of less than a quorum" elected "each year at the first SAU Board meeting following elections", goals set before the end of August, informal reviews in November and January, and "A final, formal Superintendent review ... conducted by the end of June of each year"; and policy GCQ, cited by the agenda as the authority for distributing the staff exit-interview analysis.