Claremont School Board Finance Committee — December 1, 2023

Three hours, line by line, through the secondary-school and district-wide halves of the FY2025 budget — the morning after the same committee spent an evening on the elementary schools. It is the session in which the district's business administrator tells the committee that the current year's budget contains a negative line of $688,426.17 that she cannot account for, and in which the committee chair finds one employee budgeted in two places at once. No agenda, no packet and no minutes for this meeting exist in any district share, so this page and the video are the only public account of it. Generated from the meeting's diarized transcript and the recording. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.

Body
Finance Committee of the Claremont School Board (SAU 6) — three members: Frank Sprague (chair of the committee; vice chair of the board), Heather Whitney (chair of the board) and Candace Crawford. All three were present; the committee had a full quorum throughout. Membership and chairmanship are stated on camera by Sprague in the opening round-robin of the previous evening's session and again here. The chair opens by noting the body's own renaming: "This is a Claremont budget, our finance committee. We've changed our name. As, we, we see our, our role being a year long role, not just during the budget process, but anything in all things finance with the district." The corpus dates that change to the board meeting of 1 November 2023; the district's own Drive folder still calls it a sub‑committee.
Date
Friday, December 1, 2023 — the day after the committee's Thursday evening session on the elementary schools
Board composition
The Claremont School Board had seven seated members at this date — Whitney (chair), Sprague (vice chair), Crawford, Arlene Hawkins, Jennifer Gallagher, Bonnie Miles and Whitney Skillen. This committee is three of them. The other four were neither present nor expected, and the chair returns to that fact in the closing minutes: "one of the worst things that can happen is for the subcommittee or a committee to be operating separate from" the rest of the board (2:59:50). The Right-to-Know Law's notice and minutes duties attach to the committee in its own right regardless — see flag 1.
Start time
9:00 a.m. — not stated on this recording, but fixed by the close of the previous evening's session, where the chair says "I'm going to let these poor people go. Sorry. Okay. Tomorrow. At what time? Nine nine. 9:00. Yeah." He then asks "Will they make coffee in the" and the board chair answers "I'll bring some" — and on this recording the high-school principal offers "Want some more coffee?" at 1:52:51. A 9 a.m. start is also what the committee books for its next working session, 9 to 12 on December 13. There is no call to order, no roll call, no motion, no vote and no adjournment on this recording. It opens on the chair checking the feed — "I'm not sure if we're on TV yet or not, but I'm going to get it started. Josh, if you're ready." — and the recording runs 3:00:39. The live broadcast ends at 2:55:12, when the operator says "Okay off air, but you're still being recorded"; the final five minutes exist on the recording but were not broadcast live, and they are where the committee schedules a members-only working session (flag 7).
Location
Not stated in available records. The room has a CCTV feed and an operator; the tech-centre director leaves saying he has "to get back," and the business administrator offers to "see if he can come over now" about the maintenance director, which points to a district building rather than a remote site. No document places this meeting anywhere, and this page does not guess.
Recording
Cablecast: Claremont School Board Finance Committee - 12/1/23 (title and 1 December 2023 event date reproduced exactly as the Cablecast API returns them; recording runs 3:00:39 and appears to capture the whole session, including five minutes after the live broadcast ended). A five-minute break is called at 1:11:25; the recording shows no interruption and the next presentation begins 34 seconds later.
Minutes
None located in any district public share as of 2026-08-29, after a two-stage search described in the appendix. Nothing in the recording says minutes exist elsewhere or are coming. See flag 1.

Participants

Everyone who appears in the record of this meeting. There is no agenda, no attendance sheet and no minutes, so names and roles come from the recording — the chair's introductions, direct address between speakers, and the previous evening's round-robin, which named the same committee and administrators — cross-checked against the project's roster for 2023–24. This was a working session of a subcommittee: no member of the public spoke and no public-comment period was offered (see flag 8). Confidence notes are given where a name rests on inference rather than on someone saying it aloud.
NameRoleParticipation
Frank SpragueChair, Finance Committee; Vice Chair, Claremont School BoardPresided. Opened with the preamble on the committee's renaming and its year-round remit, called each presenter, and closed the session. 270 segments, 3,688 words. Pressed hardest on lines that appear as new positions at nil budget impact, on the $663,000 rise in the Stevens bottom line, and on out-of-district placement quality — drawing on having "worked in Newport for so many years." Found the double-budgeted social worker himself at 1:50:28. Names the unexplained prior-year adjustment "the Fudge Factory."
Candace CrawfordClaremont School Board member; Finance Committee memberThe heaviest questioner by volume — 401 segments, 4,327 words, more than any other participant. Worked page by page through every budget book: guidance salaries, culinary salaries, maintenance and water lines, paraprofessional counts, computer-education salaries, family and consumer science, worker's compensation, the clerk and secretarial lines. Asked for the maintenance director to present his own budget: "I think we owe that to him to hear what he has to say." Pressed the social-worker question to a plain answer over roughly eight minutes.
Heather WhitneyChair, Claremont School Board; Finance Committee member256 segments, 3,367 words. Took the structural questions — dual-credit capacity at River Valley, teaching load and class coverage at both secondary schools, the net saving from returning an out-of-district student, whether the psychologist hire offsets contracted services. Delivered the meeting's central demand at 2:06:13: a public accounting of "the volume or the number of potential errors that impacted our impacting our budget numbers, past and present." Explains the televising: "the reason why we're televising this. The reason why we're having this an open session is to be utterly transparent to the community."
Mary HenryBusiness Administrator, Claremont School District / SAU 6The single largest voice by time and words — 393 segments, 6,715 words, 40 minutes of floor time. Answered line by line for a budget she did not build: "I did not upload this budget. I did not put these numbers in." Disclosed the $688,426.17 "board voted expense reductions" line unprompted, identified and corrected her own error on the district-wide special-education administrator block, and agreed on camera to pull the double-budgeted social worker, move the occupational therapist out of the assistant's line, recode the ESL position and restore the career counselor. Appointed 11 May 2023 and in post since early July 2023 — five months at this date, a fact the board chair raises deliberately for the viewing public.
Alex HerzogDirector, Sugar River Valley Regional Technical CenterPresented first, from 0:01:34 to 0:35:21. 101 segments, 4,197 words — the fastest, densest presentation in the file. Six programmes; small supply increases "because of the increase in inflation and costs overall"; proposed health-science and teacher-preparation programmes; the unfilled career-counselor post; the unreplaced custodian; front doors he says are not ADA compliant. Addressed as "Doctor Herzog" by the chair. Leaves at 0:35:21: "Thanks. I got to get back. We have a sub today."
Frank RomeoPrincipal, Claremont Middle School92 segments, 2,876 words, from 0:35:21 to about 1:10:47. A $97,000 music-instrument grant; a third counselor for 367 students; two academic centres in place of three; seven paraprofessionals against ten budgeted; and a proposed schedule change moving teachers from three of five classes to four. Declined to answer the staffing-reduction question — "That is not a question for me to answer" — and handed it to the superintendent.
Chris PrattPrincipal, Stevens High School86 segments, 2,020 words, from 1:11:59 to about 1:53:57. About 500 students; visual-arts expansion; $40,000 for city fields and assistant coaches "strictly for liability reasons"; 13 paraprofessionals; two guidance counselors where three are budgeted for. Says two lines were "taken out after I submitted the budget" by "the former business minister" — the recognizer's rendering of business administrator. He is the principal of Stevens High School at this date, not the superintendent — he became interim superintendent on 11 January 2024, six weeks after this meeting.
Michael TempestaSuperintendent, SAU 6 — participating remotely by telephonePresent but barely on the record. 27 segments across 236 seconds of floor time yield only 175 transcribed words — about 44 words a minute, against 126 to 215 for everyone else in the room. His longest single segment, 59 seconds at 1:09:49, transcribes as ten words. He appears from 0:47:25 and is gone by 1:54:46, when an unidentified voice says he "jumped in his car and just driving." He answered the meeting's most consequential staffing question and the answer is not in the transcript — see flag 6. He was dismissed by the SAU 6 board on 11–12 January 2024, six weeks after this meeting.
Jeff SmallDirector of Technology, SAU 6 name inferred, not spoken18 segments, 500 words, from 2:31:10. Presented the technology integrator post, copier leasing, phone-system and internet savings. This speaker is never named on the recording. The attribution rests on role and on district records naming Jeff Small as Director of Technology through this period; the dialogue file records the same caveat. A reader should treat the name, not the content, as the uncertain part.
JoshCCTV / Claremont Community Television operator first name onlyTwo lines in the record. Addressed by the chair at the open — "Josh, if you're ready" — and speaks once, at 2:55:12: "Okay off air, but you're still being recorded." Surname never spoken.
Chelsea WeatherfordRecording secretary, SAU 6 — addressed on the record; presence not establishedThe business administrator asks at 2:54:52: "Did you write this all down, Heather? And I'm assuming Chelsea, did you get it all?" The board chair then dictates the meeting dates "just for for Chelsea." Whether she was in the room is not established by this record. This board is recorded elsewhere in the corpus addressing her through the video rather than in the room — at the board meeting of 4 October 2023 a member says "Chelsea, when you watch this, please change" — so being spoken to here is not proof of attendance. Only her first name is spoken; the surname comes from district minutes she signs elsewhere. That someone was asked to capture this meeting, and that no minutes exist, is the point of flag 1.
Ben NesterDirector of Special Education, SAU 6 — not presentAbsent, and the absence shapes the meeting. Referred to throughout as the only person who can answer the special-education questions: "That's a Ben question," "leave it as a question for him," "I would feel better having him answer." At least six separate lines were deferred to him. The committee scheduled him for the December 6 session in consequence.
Steve HoltDirector of Buildings and Grounds / Maintenance Director — not presentAbsent. Crawford asks twice for him to present the maintenance budget himself (0:26:09, 2:37:38) and he is added to the December 6 agenda. The business administrator considers fetching him mid-meeting.
Mike KoskiAssistant Superintendent, SAU 6 — not presentPresent at the previous evening's session, where he answered the curriculum questions; not heard on this recording. His absence is not explained.
Unattributed voices117 rows (6.6 per cent of the file, 258 words) carry no named speaker — almost all one- to three-word interjections and agreement noises inside another speaker's turn. Two substantive claims on this page rest partly on unattributed rows and are marked where they appear: the report that the superintendent "jumped in his car and just driving," and the mention of a policy subcommittee at 2:50:04.

Agenda

No agenda was posted for this meeting and none has since appeared in any district share. The item list below is reconstructed from the chair's own transitions on the recording — he names each presenter — and is not an official document. There were no motions, no seconds, no votes, no roll call and no adjournment, so the third column records what the committee did with each item, not what it decided. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell to read the full text.

Taken upItem (reconstructed)What the chair said, and the disposition
0:00:011. Opening; chair's preamble on the committee's remit"I'm not sure if we're on TV yet or not, but I'm going to get it started. Josh, if you're ready." Then the framing: the committee has renamed itself, sees its role as "a year long role, not just during the budget process," and is "walking that very fine line between supporting our programs and presenting a, a palatable tax rate to our voters." No agenda is read; no target figure or percentage is set; the order of presenters is announced one at a time. This 44-second preamble is the whole of the meeting's formal opening.
0:01:342. Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center — Alex HerzogSix programmes — "building construction, we have business entrepreneurship. We have plumbing, HVAC, culinary engineering and the advanced manufacturing or machine tool" — with "small increases in supplies" attributed to inflation. Proposed additions: health science, a teacher-preparation programme for students, and the restoration of a career-counselor post. The committee established that the career counselor and the teacher-preparation programme were not in the budget; the business administrator agreed on camera to put the career counselor back in, and confirmed it again in the closing minutes. Taken as requests; nothing voted.
0:35:213. Claremont Middle School — Frank Romeo"Okay. So next would be CMS. Mr. Romeo. … Give us a thumbnail of of some of the more substantial changes in your budget proposal. Sure. What? The drivers are behind those?" A $97,000 music-instrument grant and the maintenance it implies; a third counselor; two academic centres run by "campus monitors" moved off ESSER; seven paraprofessionals against ten budgeted; and a schedule change taking teachers from three of five classes to four. The instructional-salary reduction of $333,000 was referred to the superintendent, whose answer is not in the transcript. Requests only.
1:11:594. Stevens High School — Chris Pratt"So, Mr. Pratt, welcome. Thank you. If you could. As we had Mr. Romeo and Doctor Herzog go over some of the high points, and then we'll get into the nitty gritty of things." About $10,000 for a visual-arts expansion; a substitute line and a $40,000 city-fields line both restored after being "taken out after I submitted the budget"; assistant coaches "strictly for liability reasons"; incremental provision against the end of ESSER. The committee then spent about ten minutes on the out-of-district special-education line and about nine on a single social-worker post. Requests only; two corrections agreed.
1:53:575. District-wide — Mary Henry"All right. So now we still have district wide to go over, and we have the maintenance person to come in and talk about the maintenance." The unfinished item from the previous evening — the elementary session had closed with "we haven't seen the district wide portion yet." This hour produced the meeting's substantive findings: the $688,426.17 unexplained prior-year adjustment, a special-education administrator block the business administrator removed live, an occupational therapist inside the therapy-assistant line, a mis-coded ESL position, and a secretary whose employer the committee and the business administrator disagreed about.
2:31:106. Technology — Jeff Small speaker name inferredSix minutes, taken up inside the district-wide walkthrough when the committee reached the information-management line. A technology-integrator post the chair identifies as a predecessor's old job; a $90,000 copier line broken into a four-year lease on twelve machines plus per-machine and usage costs; a $127,000 reduction in technology equipment; and reductions on phones and internet following a new telephone system and a competitive E-Rate procurement. No request was refused and nothing was voted.
2:37:217. Consolidation of questions; meeting calendar"We've got like seven minutes to go. And what I'm hoping is that if we can kind of, I kind of hijacking. … So we can kind of group some of our questions to make sure that we know what we want for our next meeting." The committee then set three further sessions by consensus — December 6 at 1 p.m. with the special-education director and the maintenance director, December 13 from 9 to 12, and December 18 from 1 to 3 — against a full-board presentation on December 20 and a budget hearing on January 3. No motion was made and no vote taken on any of it.
2:55:128. Off air — recording continues"Okay off air, but you're still being recorded." The live broadcast ends here. In the five recorded minutes that follow, the business administrator reads back her action list and gives her tax-rate outlook, and the board chair proposes the December 18 session as a members-only caucus that she asks to have recorded anyway. See flag 7.

Discussion timeline

Chronological, from the dialogue file. Times are the transcript's own start seconds, rendered from the same number that the link seeks to, so text and link cannot disagree. Quotations are reproduced exactly as the speech recognizer rendered them: square brackets mark an insertion or correction and the garbled wording is kept visible wherever the correction changes the sense; nothing else has been smoothed. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell to read the full text.

TimeTopicWhat was saidFlags
0:00:19The committee explains itselfSprague: "This is a Claremont budget, our finance committee. We've changed our name. As, we, we see our, our role being a year long role, not just during the budget process, but anything in all things finance with the district. And, this is the process through which we go to, the mayor is the voters with what's being proposed." The clause after "we go to" is garbled and is left as the recognizer produced it. He then names the tension the committee works inside: "as board members walking that very fine line between supporting our programs and presenting a, a palatable tax rate to our voters."POSITIVE
0:01:34Tech centre: six programmes, supply increases onlyHerzog: "I'm Alex Herzog. I'm the director of the River tech here in Claremont, in which we currently have six programs. And really, the only, we did small increases in supplies is what we've requested only for this year to start with, because of the increase in inflation and costs overall." He describes copper for plumbing projects that "really can't be reused" once assembled, and a tabletop audit done with the Southern Regional Education Board — the recognizer renders it sRGB — alongside "Andy LaFrance," the first-name-only chair of the tech centre's visioning committee whose surname this corpus renders three different ways and does not resolve.
0:05:39Three new positions — or notWhitney: "So are you. So we have three new positions that are built into this budget, or you're looking to add." Herzog: "I'm not sure if they're built in. I know we requested that when we talked. Mary." Henry: "Yeah, I built in the health teacher part of the budget, but I didn't build in the other ones." Within four minutes of the first presentation the committee has established that neither the presenter nor the committee knew what was in the document in front of them. This pattern recurs all morning.HIGH
0:08:13A $51,801 guidance salary for a post that does not existCrawford: "Mary, just for clarification, at the bottom of page three. Yeah. There's a guidance salary number of 51,801, and it shows zero for this year. What would that have been for and why is it zeroed out for this year?" Herzog: "There was not one hired." Crawford: "Well, then why is 51,000 there?" Herzog: "I think they just left it in the budget." Henry: "It was left in the budget the previous year… but not filled." Whitney then supplies the answer nobody in the room had: "So, Mary, I think that that that position was moved to the middle school." Resolution took eight exchanges.HIGH
0:10:03Career counselor in, teacher-preparation programme outCrawford: "I'm curious why. Health specialist is in when the teacher training is not, because that was proposed last year and there is a tremendous need for parents [paras] and substitutes in the district." Herzog: "I find them both equally necessary." Sprague adds the Running Start angle — that dual-credit health-science courses could be reached through River Valley "even if we did not have the person with the master's degree here to teach them, they could access them" The career counselor is put back into the budget by the end of the meeting; the teacher-preparation programme is not.
0:13:57Substitute line at zeroCrawford: "Just the obvious question. There's the very first line is celery [salary,] substitutes and it's 0000." Herzog: "We struggle with substitutes… A lot of times when a staff member calls in sick and we. And it doesn't happen very often, but they do call in sick and we cover our classes ourselves here." The two named substitutes — "Mr. Lambert" and "Mr. Gallagher" — share surnames with a former board member and a sitting one; nothing in this record connects them and this page does not.
0:14:43Whitney on buying education more cheaply through River ValleyWhitney: "Just so I can get a sense of how programs are built so that we can maximize the amount of educational opportunity and advancement with the least amount of dollars and being able to partner with River Valley and get those dual credit." She puts Running Start at "between 3 and $600 per student"; Sprague and she settle on "150 A credit." Her conclusion: "So the more that we optimize our opportunities at River Valley, the less we have to actually build into our legacy budget," and it frees classroom space. Herzog explains the two-way accreditation constraint that limits it: college faculty cannot be left alone with K–12 students, and district teachers must meet the college's standards to teach for credit.POSITIVE
0:22:43Two staff on one culinary lineCrawford: "On page two. Alex. The culinary salary goes from 97 to 82. Why is there a decrease there?" Henry: "it's just it's the way it was budgeted last year was budgeted higher than what we're actually spending." Herzog: "We had two. We have two staff in there and they put both staff in the line." Henry: "Right. But I haven't moved it out of there yet." A chef and an assistant chef, one of them "on a letter of agreement," sit in a single salary line.HIGH
0:24:12Maintenance salaries down $9,000, health insurance up $16,000Crawford: "On page five, the, maintenance salaries go down 9000, but the health insurance goes up 16." Henry's answer is that she budgeted a two-person insurance plan where a single had been assumed, and set the custodian line "at a lower rate because more than likely, whoever we're" hiring starts lower. Herzog supplies the human fact underneath it at 0:24:31: "Our beloved custodian. I knew that having passed. Right, we have not replaced him… they've had interviews and just nobody taken the job. So we do have a paying somebody overtime."
0:25:26Front doors described as not ADA compliantCrawford asks about "2005 thousand for water, 12,500 for building" on the maintenance page. Herzog: "when I met Mr. Holt, I didn't ask for this, but two years ago. Our front doors are not Ada [ADA] compliant… I believe some of that is budgeted because it could be up to $10,000 to replace those doors." The claim is the director's characterisation, made in passing; no one at the table asked what standard the doors fail, and no document in any share addresses it. Henry then explains the water line: "the water and sewer is what that is… That's the cost of our part of" it, and the prior year "was only 6000" — "it was too low."OBSERVATION
0:26:09"I think we owe that to him" — the maintenance director should present his own budgetCrawford: "So so just as a point for administration, I would really love to have Steve Holt come in and explain the maintenance budgets. I think we owe that to him to hear what he has to say, and it helps us have a better understanding of what those items are." Henry: "Totally agree with you." Whitney raises the Capital Improvement Committee as the natural home for several of these items and notes "we have capital reserve funds that may cover these dollars and some of the Esser [ESSER] money"; Crawford answers that the committee "had one meeting" — "there was one meeting." Holt is put on the December 6 agenda.POSITIVE
0:27:45What a career counselor is, and why the tech centre wants oneWhitney: "The career counselor, can you explain to the public and the group the difference between a career counselor and a guidance counselor?" Herzog: same certification, different focus — work-based learning, employer relationships, "resume interviewing connections," a job board. He describes the age barrier — "You can't go out to even intern until you're 18" — and Sprague describes the information gap he used to hear about from students: "my guidance counselor told me I couldn't take the second I couldn't complete because I've got to have algebra two." Crawford states that a career counselor is a tech-centre requirement; Herzog corrects her: "It's recommended."
0:35:38CMS opens: a $97,000 grant and its long tailRomeo: "we don't have too many new proposals. The same thing as Doctor Herzog said, we have some supply lines that we've increased. We were awarded a grant, $97,000 for music instruments. And so with that comes sort of the maintenance and upkeep of that. So I asked for a little bit of an increase in repairs." A second grant brought mountain bikes and snowshoes, and with them stipends for the clubs that use them — a worked example of grant income creating recurring local cost.
0:36:25A third counselor for 367 studentsRomeo: "Technically, we have two. I'm asking that we have three. And the reason behind that simply is with 367 kiddos and at times we've reached 400. There's always one in crisis. And that would leave one counselor for the rest of our kids." He adds that counselors are being asked to teach as well, following a social-emotional-learning model in sixth grade, career readiness in eighth.
0:37:24Student centres, deans, and what the words meanRomeo: "I know there's a big question about the student centers. Right. And the dean positions… I would like to retain at least one of those rooms, sort of as an academic slash behavioral room." Asked whether the deans stay, he answers "if I had the the magic wand. Yes." Crawford spends several minutes establishing that dean, academic center, campus monitor and campus aide are four labels for overlapping things; Romeo concedes it: "We're kind of using two different languages for the same thing. I'm more using internal language." Sprague, from experience: "I've worked in schools that had deans of students. And these people have master's degrees."
0:39:49Teaching load: three classes of five, and the case for fourWhitney: "using your current model with grade based teachers right now, how many classes and how many students does do those teachers cover versus going to a" different model. Romeo: teachers "teach are three out of the five classes." The other two periods carry IEP and 504 work, lunch duty, the student centres, team meetings and in-house substituting — for which, Crawford establishes, "They get a small stipend for that." Romeo's defence of lunch duty is that "kids like seeing teachers in there and teachers like seeing kids in there." Whitney's point, made plainly: "there's a different value attached to their time."
0:45:23Seven paraprofessionals against ten budgetedRomeo: "we're fortunate enough to have one pro grade level… We have seven Paris [paras] right now." Crawford: "Why don't you have ten?" Romeo: "It's tough to find qualified people." The behavioural programme "definitely needs two powers [paras] in there"; the life-skills programme "really should have three. They operate with two right now." The middle school is also moving to Title I status — "It was just proposed to us to move into that" — which changes the qualification requirement for its paraprofessionals, and Romeo says the district is "looking for tr[aining]" so as not to lose anyone.
0:47:05Instructional salaries down $333,000 — and the answer is not in the transcriptCrawford: "So now looking at this budget, instructional salaries go down 333,000. And is that a loss of position." Romeo: "That is not a question for me to answer." Henry: "All right. Mike, do you want to answer it or do you want me to?" Tempesta, by telephone: "I can answer it." His next segment runs 28 seconds and transcribes as seven words. Crawford's own words at 0:48:09 — "Six fewer staff." — are the only surviving trace of the superintendent's answer. She then draws the inference herself: the schedule change is not optional. Romeo: "It does seem that way doesn't it?"OBSERVATION
0:49:20The payroll-tax match, and the first "over budgeted"Crawford: "regular instruction TSA [FICA] match. Less 20,000. 19,900." Henry: "That is the additional match for, Those six teachers for. Well, not just them. It's actually was over. Budgeted. Okay. Yeah. So that's an actual number." The reduction is therefore partly a staffing change and partly a correction of a prior-year over-budget — a compound the committee will meet repeatedly and which makes the comparative columns hard to read.HIGH
0:52:07"A budgeting error"On the CMS special-education salary line, down $132,000, Henry: "it's actually it was a budgeting situation and" — Whitney finishes it: "A budgeting error." Henry: "Yeah. Budgeting error. And the number of kids right now it's a combination of the two." The board chair supplies the word; the business administrator adopts it. It is the first of at least four occasions in this meeting on which a variance is explained as an error in the document rather than as a change in the district's operations.HIGH
0:53:40$50,000 for family and consumer science that is not family and consumer scienceCrawford: "it's family and consumer science increase of 50,000." Romeo: the post could not be filled, so "we went towards is intro to design, like a digital literacy teacher." Crawford works it through: "it seems like this budget proposes continuing with digital instruction rather than an actual per[son]" — and Romeo confirms the substitution happened "two years ago because we cannot find anyone to hire." Sprague: "but is showing his new money in our budget line that it didn't exist last year." Romeo: "It should not because… It wasn't a new position I put in."HIGH
0:56:13Lines that look like new positions, at nil impactSprague: "FY2324 was zero and now proposed 2425 it's 50,000. And when I look over at the percentage increase," the column does not show it. Henry: "It's the way the system does it." Sprague: "Does that affect. Well the overall percent at the end of the" — Henry: "It should not." Sprague: "And that's not the only one that's like that," naming the social-work salary line at the bottom of page six as the same pattern: "Because they look like they're brand new positions."HIGH
1:02:19Campus monitors: ESSER positions arriving in the operating budgetSprague: "Campus monitor on page nine. 2410 1165. Again, brand new position, 0% impact." Henry: "Yep. They were in Esser [ESSER] and we put those into the budget." Two positions, about $60,000 of salary. Sprague notes that with benefits "it goes up to north of 100 grand" — Henry checks and corrects him, because the benefit line below also carries secretaries. The same movement is happening across the district: behaviour interventionists, instructional coaches and campus monitors all coming off expiring federal relief money and into local appropriation, presented as lines with no percentage change.MEDIUM
1:04:04"The lack of detail in what we're being presented here"Sprague, after the benefits line turns out to contain several unrelated groups of staff: "That's where the the lack of detail in what we're being presented here makes it" — Henry, immediately: "And maybe I should put it into an Excel sheet for you so you can see the full description of the line." That offer becomes one of the meeting's two concrete deliverables, and Sprague returns to it at 2:39:31: "the vast majority of our questions have been who? Who is under that line?"HIGH
1:07:17A $90,000 administrator who is a teacher on a stipendSprague finds a school-administration line of about $90,000 that Romeo identifies as something else entirely: "That's a sped position. So the school Lee A [LEA] the one of our Sped teachers receives a stipend to be the lee a for those meetings." Sprague: "It's a $68,000 position." Henry: "It was 98000." Sprague: "It doesn't show it that way… And this person does not have any, does not have an administrator certification either… Listed as an administrator." Henry: "So it could be it's in the wrong line. I'm not sure," and then the explanation that recurs: "this is how the budget was entered into the system when I came here. It was uploaded before my time."HIGH
1:12:11Stevens opens: pottery, printmaking, and lines that vanished after submissionPratt: "the largest edition [addition] I put in there was about $10,000 to the finance department, and that is where building two new courses and programs try to build the visual arts department. And that is a pottery class and a printmaking class." The kiln already exists and is in use. Then, at 1:13:18, a different kind of item: "If you look at that item there, it didn't show up in the budget last year. But to be honest, it was taken out after I submitted the budget. And I think it's one of the things that the former business minister [administrator], there was a few things taken out."HIGH
1:14:01$40,000 for city fields, and assistant coaches for liabilityPratt: "the $40,000 that we used for all the town fields… the city fields that we use. So that's the other big increase you see there in the Athletics." He says it too "was put in the budget last year, but it was taken out after the fact." On coaching: "a lot of the larger teams only have one coach… we looked at is looking at hiring some assistant coaches strictly for liability reasons. Because if we have it's an away game and a student gets hurt. Right now we have the coach going to the hospital. No one's going back on the bus with the kids."
1:14:38Budgeting ahead of the federal cliff, on purposePratt: "you'll see little increments, to some of the different departments. And that's because I want to stop budgeting now for when the Esser [ESSER] grants run out to cover the cost of like the, the Excel [IXL]. And we've, we got the grant for the yonder [Yondr]. So we don't have to worry about that. But down the road we will. So I'm trying to add the money in incrementally to the budget. So it's not one big increase at at 1.1 or 2 years down the road." A deliberate, disclosed glide path off expiring federal money — the opposite approach to the same problem the campus-monitor line represents.MEDIUMPOSITIVE
1:19:09Two guidance counselors where three are budgetedCrawford: "the salary line, only increases $20,000, which is minuscule based on the size of the budget… It's 1,000,006 category." She then maps the structure: a principal, two assistant principals — "we cut the alphabet in half" — and "two guidance people." Crawford: "You should have three." Pratt: "Should have three. That's another area where I budgeted for three last year. And in the fall when I showed up, it wasn't budgeted. But I didn't budget it. This year we still have two." The third is being traded, in effect, for the tech centre's career counselor: "That was the swap."HIGH
1:24:02Whitney lines the two schools up side by sideWhitney: "this is what I have. Let's make sure we have it lined up. So I've got a mess [CMS] 367 students. We have a principal. An assistant principal recommended two academic center deans with two behavioral specialists in those centers a social worker, a sped teacher. This is what the request is for." Against that: "three guidance counselors at Stevens High School with 500 students who have a principal, two assistant principals, two guidance counselors budgeted for, three, our restorative practices." Henry then corrects her own earlier answer: CMS has three special-education teachers, "One is 50% in a grant."
1:25:17A $663,000 increase, and where it comes fromSprague: "I'm looking at your bottom line. Yep. And you've got a $663,000 increase. And I'm not blaming that on you because I'm looking at the sped out of district, which is 800 and something." Henry interjects to prevent the wrong inference: "remember, there was $400,000. That is less in the middle that went up to the high." Sprague's concern is the taxpayer's: "we've got almost $1 million worth of what I'm presuming to be ninth graders. Right, that are out of district."MEDIUM
1:27:18"About 10% of the class is out of district"Sprague: "I'm an English major and I'm not that great at math, but even I can figure out that that's about 10% of the class is out of district." Pratt explains why the in-house alternative programme cannot absorb them: "we have the academy now upstairs, and we have about 14 students in that. But right now, none of them are. None of them are special ed kids… we cannot find special educators to take on that role of level of need… the kids who are out of placement right now, we don't have the the bodies to get them into the program." The staffing shortage, not the placement policy, is what holds the cost in place.MEDIUM
1:30:44The chair questions whether the placement matches the needSprague, disclosing his own connection first: "I hate to say this because I've benefited greatly from from the Orion group, but I worry about the what the kids are actually getting in a place like Granite Hill. And really what they're being exposed to is Granite Hills, an offshoot of Orion House, which, deals with a lot of kids that are involved in the court system." He describes the placement as it should work — "a temporary kind of waypoint along the way… and then you go back to your… home school" — against what he says happens: "have kids there for a year after year." His conclusion at 1:32:23: "from what you identified as the need, I don't know if the need matches the program." He then routes it away: "That's a Ben question or Brianna Connell question." Tuition at Granite Hill is put at "about 6060 1000" — Sprague reads it back as "61,000. So 60 800,000."MEDIUM
1:32:48What returning a student would actually saveWhitney: "Mr. Tempesta, what is your ballpark back of the napkin estimate of savings per student that we could bring back into an in district program, but are we looking at like 50% savings?" She presses through several inaudible answers to a usable number: "a worst case scenario. We're saving 50% per student if we can bring them back to district I guess that's what I'm looking at, right? Am I accurate in that assessment?" Tempesta: "Yes. That's conservative okay." Her reason for wanting a defensible figure is explicit: "if we're going to sell this to the public."MEDIUMOBSERVATION
1:35:10Stevens special-education salaries up $105,000 — 60 per centCrawford: "Sped salaries go up 105,000. That looks like at least one position… Percentage wise, it's a 60% jump, which is a lot meaningful." Henry reads five special-education teachers into the line; Pratt says "We have right now. We have three special ed teachers. I think we're budgeted for five." Crawford does the arithmetic aloud: "if you were budgeted for five. Yeah, that would have been 175,000. That was in the budget. And now it jumps to 281,000… if you look at the history, it goes from 227 to 1 74175. So those two years are similar. Why the jump from last year to this year?" No answer is reached; Pratt offers the Academy's staffing as a guess and adds "That's my best guess. That's the only thing I can think of."HIGH
1:42:01One social worker, nine minutes, and a plain questionCrawford: "I'm trying to understand this. So there is so there was a social worker. There has been a social worker full time at the high school last year. It was funded under a title program. But this year it's going back into our budget. Just yes or no." What emerges instead: Courtney Porter is the district-wide social worker, housed at Stevens, spending — Pratt estimates — "more like 35, 40% this year" of her time there; she is 90 per cent in the district-wide budget and about 10 per cent in the McKinney-Vento grant ("McKinney Bento" in the transcript). Henry on the separate $67,000 Stevens line: "There was an additional low social worker that was here, but it didn't transfer into the budget in the system. I don't I don't know why."MEDIUM
1:50:28The same employee found in two budgets at onceSprague, who has gone back to the prior-year book while the others talk: "So I found Courtney Porter for last year in district wide… Now with a salary of 52,000 and that wide." He had already read her out of the Stevens book at 1:47:34: "We said 16 salary of 69. 956." Then the question that names it: "Is she make 120,000 a year." Henry: "I can pull her out. She is not pulled out a district wide currently." Whitney: "Not pulled out of Stevens High School." Henry: "Pull that out of Stevens High School." Whitney: "Awesome." The correction is agreed on camera and confirmed again at 2:55:46: "Courtney. Out of there. Got it."MEDIUM
1:51:50Four maintenance posts, one personCrawford: "We survive on one maintenance salary at that one might be at the high school." Pratt: "That's really. We only have one maintenance person at the high school right now." Sprague: "Shouldn't there be three?" Pratt: "We all pitch in." Henry: "we can't hire people. That's the problem. It's not that they're budgeted." Whitney: "Oh, you have four budgeted." The line is budgeted for four full-time people at rates set low because "we've had lost people that were at higher end." Crawford's aside to the business administrator — "Don't jump off the cliff" — comes at the end of the third hour of this.
1:53:57District-wide begins — the item left over from the night beforeCrawford: "So now we still have district wide to go over, and we have the maintenance person to come in and talk about the maintenance." The previous evening's session had ended on exactly this gap: "We haven't seen it yet because we haven't seen the district wide portion yet." Henry offers to fetch the maintenance director mid-meeting; Crawford declines — "I hate to ask him to be on the spot." The superintendent, who had been on the line, is reported gone: an unattributed voice at 1:54:46 says he "jumped in his car and just driving."
1:55:15The SAU share: 90 per cent, "still up in the air"Sprague: "what we're going to find in district wide would be would be say [the SAU], the Claremont share of Siu [SAU] expenses as well." Henry: "Yes. They would be in here." Crawford: "Well it would be 90% of whatever that is. And that's still up in the air." Henry: "I gave an estimate is what I did, I did." Crawford supplies the basis: "Those these numbers in here on the proposed that you send out for the city." Henry: "So yes, exactly. Yep. So that could change." The SAU 6 budget itself would not go to its own public hearing until December 14, thirteen days later — so the district's largest single administrative cost sits in this document as an estimate of a number not yet adopted.OBSERVATION
1:56:02District-wide special-education salaries up 133 per centSprague: "District wide special ed salaries. Oh it's up on it's up 133%. So I'm curious what's in that line." Henry: speech and language staff, and a behaviour specialist. Whitney reads the history back — "in 2122 we're at 400,000. Right. Then at 2223 it's more reflective of what" it should be — and asks the question directly: "are you suggesting there may have been an accounting error?" Henry: "Yeah… I have not had the opportunity to go back and look I just know in 2324 that this is who we have." Sprague ends it as he ends several others: "leave it as a question for him," meaning the absent special-education director.HIGH
1:59:50A negative line of $688,426.17 that nobody can explainCrawford asks about the second line on page one. Henry: "I don't want to say this when I was I did not upload this budget. I did not put these numbers in. Again, I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying that I don't know." Then, at 2:00:19: "there was a, a line item called board voted expense reductions that was a negative number of $688,426.17 loaded into the budget. Now, again, I cannot tell you what that number was because I can't find any notes. Dave, Jack and I tried to figure it out and we couldn't." The name is David Jack, the interim business administrator who covered the vacancy between April and July 2023; the recogniser's comma is spurious.HIGH
2:01:12Spent, deducted, or put back — the room cannot tellWhitney: "So am I right in assuming that that money was spent? We're just not sure where." Henry: "That money wasn't spent. That money was deducted." Whitney: "But it was put back in." Henry: "The I'm sure it was put back in because your bottom line number is right." Crawford: "So that 668,000 was divvied up among God knows where." Henry: "Like yes, I have no idea." The two figures spoken for the same item — $688,426.17 by the business administrator, and Crawford's "So that 668,000 was divvied up among God knows where" — are both left as spoken. Henry's decision: "I just felt at this point I'm going to leave it… It's going to be one of those anomalies is just going to sit there."HIGH
2:01:55"Call it the Fudge Factory"Sprague names it: "Call it the Fudge Factory." Crawford: "Well, I've seen fudge factors." Henry, twice in twenty seconds: "I don't want to I wasn't here, I can't wait" and, earlier, "I don't want anybody to think I'm blaming anybody because that's not what I'm saying." The exchange is the meeting's turning point: from here the committee stops asking about individual lines and starts asking how many of them are wrong.HIGH
2:02:04Substitute pay down $125,000, and what a substitute is worthHenry: "I'm looking at where we're at currently substitute pay wise. And I was looking at the previous year of 22, 23, which was around 159,000 300,000 is way too much." Crawford turns it into policy: "should we as a board look at increasing that pay to make it more acceptable or more interesting… if we increase the rate of the substitute, might we be more successful in getting subs?" Henry: "A lot of districts have done that right in the area of increased their amount on sub pay." Crawford also asks for a flat daily rate instead of hourly; Henry proposes "a half day amount and a full day amount." Sprague reports a Vermont posting "for a long term sub $260 a day." Crawford asks for the rates at Fall Mountain, Newport and Lebanon for comparison.POSITIVE
2:04:33Teachers doing substitute dutyCrawford: "I keep hearing how staff, how our professional staff has to pick up and do substitute pay substitute services. It seems to me like we could be much more effective using those teachers for instruction, rather than for substituting." Henry: "I don't disagree with you. I know that that's the way it is in a lot of districts right now." The point connects directly to the middle school's proposed schedule change, which the committee endorses forty minutes later.
2:06:13The board chair asks for a public count of the errorsWhitney: "That's bigger than Candy's ask. Okay. I think that the the voters will want to know." She first protects the business administrator on the record — "Miss Henry is new to the administrative team… it's not a reflection on her" — then states the ask: "it is very important that we know the volume or the number of potential errors that impacted our impacting our budget numbers, past and present." And: "I think we owe it to the public, to, to talk about it." At 2:07:27 she puts a shape on it: "We need to know the aggregate potential, you know, errors that were in the budget that impacted the tax rate one way or the other, and how we're going to manage those inconsistencies."HIGHPOSITIVE
2:08:03Why the meeting is on televisionWhitney: "I know this is a lot of work and I'm and I'm but I think it's super important because I agree the reason why we're televising this. The reason why we're having this an open session is to be utterly transparent to the community and utterly transparent to other board members and to administrative, personnel." Henry accepts the work but scopes it honestly: "I need to go back to 22, 23 as well… that is a lot of work given the size, but what I can do is pick out some of the really high discrepancy lines and focus in on those to begin with."HIGHPOSITIVE
2:09:21An administrator block removed live, on cameraSprague: "I'm looking at the bottom of page. Eight okay. And it says district wide special ed admin salary. So I'm assuming that's bad but it's zero. And then" the benefits "are all listed on the next page." Henry: "I apologize Frank that needs to come out. I that needs to come out. That doesn't belong there. I'm taking out right now. I apologize, I took out the admin salary that was supposed to be in there that we have discussed where, the person did not come over and stayed within the saw [SAU], so I just took that out." Crawford reads the associated figures back across two turns — "The 490." … "964 all come out." Henry: "Yes. My air [error]. I will take out the lines that are associated with that."HIGH
2:12:04Why SAU costs cannot be seen in the district budgetHenry: "we would not be able to break them out in here because they're technically not. They're they're administrative fees for Claremont, but they are not actual expenditures within Claremont. So like, I couldn't show how much we pay in New Hampshire retirement because it's not part of the Claremont liability. Only the cost is." Sprague says the district did receive a breakout last year — "I've got it in my book" — and Henry answers that if so it came as "a separate spreadsheet," not out of the budget system. The SAU's own budget is a separate document adopted by a separate board.OBSERVATION
2:13:59Board secretarial and clerk lines — and a new clerkCrawford works the school-board object codes. Henry: "I did increase your secretarial line or district clerk line. Excuse me. Your secretarial line. Substantially because of the amount of money you're paying" — the line moves to about $9,000 because "your new clerk with the number of meetings you have" costs more than the previous arrangement. The board had appointed Noelle Kronberg its clerk on 15 November 2023, sixteen days before this meeting. Crawford adds, unprompted: "I just want it known that we do not have any compensation for being on the school board. So these aren't fees that we would" receive. The "school board fees" line turns out to be staff background checks.POSITIVE
2:17:14Psychological services up $92,000; therapy assistants up 160 per centWhitney: "Just stick [district] wide. Psych services increased by 92,000… And then the code [COTA] of salaries were up 160% ready." Henry explains the psychologist as a substitution, not an addition: "the cost of hiring a psych through, like, a a contracted service is very expensive… contracted services are up about $200 an hour." She points to the offset at 2:20:26: "There's $198,000 reduction and contacted [contracted] services under Sped." Whitney tests the logic and accepts it: "the purpose of that is to offset a higher rate contracted services."POSITIVE
2:20:50A grieved position, and two accounts of where it landedSprague: "there was a position that was put into the saw [SAU] budget was grieved. Right. The position came back into the Claremont budget. The salary was supposed to be paid out of the saw budget." Henry: "It isn't in this budget. That person is an saw employee." Sprague: "No they're not. It was it was grieved and it was retained in Claremont." Henry: "I thought that it was grieved that the person wanted to stay in the Saw budget." Sprague: "The other way around." Henry accepts the correction and books the change: "So then I will move that person into the Claremont budget." The committee and the business administrator held opposite understandings of the outcome of a grievance affecting a salary in the document.HIGH
2:22:48An ESL post moved to the code it belongs inCrawford: "There's an s l [ESL] salary. It looks like adding a position." Henry: "That position actually is currently was here but has been moved to it belongs in ESL. We I believe had it in c regular district wide salaries and it didn't belong there. You'll see a decrease in district wide by about 36,000… because I moved the ESL person to where that is should be coded to." The new line is about $54,000 against a $36,000 reduction elsewhere, and Henry warns the difference is not clean: "There's some changes within that as well. So it's not just a simple wash."POSITIVE
2:25:46Instructional coaches move off federal moneyCrawford: "The professional development salary looks like a new line item." Henry: "That are instructional coaches that, I believe has been talked about with the board that we had an and that would be moving those positions to the general budget." Two people, with about $24,000 of associated retirement appearing on the next page. Another ESSER-funded post arriving in local appropriation as a line with no history behind it.MEDIUM
2:28:50A $91,000 occupational therapist inside the assistants' lineSprague: "Are we bringing in a slew of new people? Is that what's happening?… If we're bringing do we already are they already working for us. Because how do we know if they're projected proposed and they're not in the fiscal 23. How do we know they're going to take benefits or not?" Henry: "I have one that is in here is proposed, and the other four are currently working for us," then finds the cause: "there is an occupational therapist sitting in here that is around 91,000. That's huge." Whitney: "So that's not a a coda [COTA]." Henry: "That's not a coda. It's an OT… I'm going to pull that out." Her own diagnosis: "I would have had an OT line, an occupational therapy line within the budget. So I've got to do some cleanup in the way that things are done."HIGH
2:29:33The state's chart of accounts, named on tapeHenry, explaining why the corrections matter beyond tidiness: "there's things that I felt like, like DSL [ESL] for instance, did not belong in regular Ed. It is supposed to be coded in that line, per the wonderful book that we have from the state of New Hampshire. So, I can move the OT out into the a line where they'll be separate." Then, quietly: "I know there's a lot of work to do." Sprague apologises for the pressure — "I probably always think Q-Tip quit taking it personally" — and Henry answers "It's hard though. You gotta understand. I take pride in my job."HIGH
2:31:10Technology: an integrator, and a job that already existedSmall: "we're really looking to get a technology integrator. That is one of the big pieces. We had two part time ones in the past… They will offer professional development services, they'll offer trainings, they'll do rostering of any of the new programs." Sprague: "I'll call this what it is. It's Tammy Morse's old job basically… one of the justifications for an assistant for the assistant superintendent would be that that person would assume a lot of what Tammy Morse did… it sounds like we were we hired somebody to do something. They're not doing it now. We're going to hire somebody else to do what we thought that they were going to do." He is careful to separate the two questions: "I'm not disagreeing with anything either."OBSERVATION
2:34:42$90,000 of copiers, broken down on requestCrawford: "here's an maybe an offset. So copiers go up $90,000." Small: "we should have probably broken that down a little bit. But part of that is roughly when I wrote that down here, 37,000 of that is a loss [lease]. So it is a lease payment. We replace like 12 copiers in our first brick, and we put them on a four year lease. So of that comes out and then we have 27 standalone printers" at "like $19 a month… includes all of the service and toners." Crawford connects it to the $127,000 reduction in technology equipment; Small confirms the two lines were deliberately separated: "I don't want to just keep them in a 734 line because I want to keep it separate." Henry agrees: "They need to be separated… They don't belong in equipment."POSITIVE
2:36:29Phone and internet reductions, and a competitive E-Rate bidSmall: "there's some pretty big reductions both on the phones and the internet. The phones are that was a project that we did with the new IT phones, which does drastically reduce our price. And the other one was, we did an RFP proposal through E-Rate. And, because our fiber build the last five years, we were paying for the fiber build, plus the internet. And now, it's a new five year, and it's just for the internet." On the federal share: "they do 70%, we pay 30." The E-Rate discount matrix runs from 20 to 90 per cent by poverty and rurality, so a 70 per cent discount is squarely inside it.POSITIVE
2:37:21Consolidating the asksWhitney: "We've got like seven minutes to go. And what I'm hoping is that if we can kind of, I kind of hijacking… we can kind of group some of our questions to make sure that we know what we want for our next meeting." Crawford returns to the maintenance director at 2:37:38 and to a $25,000 worker's-compensation rise, which Henry attributes to another "budgeting error. Based on what the previous years were. Right. That was way too low." Asked how she builds the numbers, Henry describes her method: employee-related lines "calculated out based on this person's salary… I audit my information that comes through to make sure everything came through. Right. And if there are any variances, I, I look at those."HIGH
2:39:31"Who is under that line?"Sprague, summing up what three hours of questioning had actually been about: "that would save us, because I would say the vast majority of our questions have been who? Who is under that line?" The request is for a staffing schedule behind the appropriation — the same thing Henry had offered herself ninety minutes earlier. It is the single most repeated ask of the meeting and the one that most plainly describes the defect in the document.HIGH
2:40:01The chair backs the middle school's schedule changeSprague: "the schedule change or the teaching load change at the middle school, I personally I had no idea what the arrangement was there… after talking with Mr.. Mr. Pratt about what? The, the teacher's teacher to student load is at the high school. It seems very reasonable. What what they're proposing as far as people going to teaching four classes instead of three. Having been an administrator, I want my most qualified people not doing I want them doing what they're good at." And: "I don't want them covering detentions. I don't want them doing bus watch. I want them I want them teaching. And so I support that model." He adds the caveat that the union has not agreed: "I'm interested in teacher reaction to that because that's a substantial change."
2:41:11Whitney on getting the public to the deliberative session informedWhitney: "I think it's important that the community has an opportunity to digest this before we have our deliberative session… because I think there's going to be some some misconceptions about what this means for the education at Claremont, a CMS, and it needs to be parsed out." Her analogy: "I can't imagine having a physician doing something that a nursing assistant would be doing. That would be a gross mismanagement of resources and a disservice to the to patients." And the risk if it is not explained: "we may have a situation where there's going to be a demand or a, a, a disconnect about the validity of this budget change." Crawford: "I do think we need at least another finance committee." Whitney: "this is the beginning of we have multiple meetings that are that document these conversations."HIGHPOSITIVE
2:43:38The calendar, set by consensusSprague: "let's look at the timetable because this is scheduled to go I didn't bring my calendar with me when this is supposed to come to the full board." Henry: "I put down the 13th to finalize… that's to me, not really possible… I don't feel comfortable with doing the 13 as your final. So but you've also got your hearing on January 3rd." What the committee settles: December 6 at 1 p.m. — the special-education director and the maintenance director, plus an update on revisions; December 13 from 9 to 12 — a summary of changes, the scheduling presentation, the tax-rate implication and "the compilation of the budget inconsistency"; December 18 from 1 to 3; presentation to the full board December 20. Whitney: "we'll have to have CCTV be available. Contact them." No motion, no vote.OBSERVATION
2:52:06What a penny on the tax rate is now worthCrawford: "the grand list has changed to like $1 million. So, I mean, I always used a billion. So I was used to use 750 million as a back of the envelope increases the text, an increase of 750 million. Increase the tax rate by $1." Henry offers "250,000 usually depends on your" — the two are describing different units and neither reconciles them on the record. Crawford's source is named: "I just talked to Yuji [Yoshi Manale] the other day and he said that he had gotten that information," the Claremont city manager. Sprague's caution: "keep in mind that people's assessments have gone" up.OBSERVATION
2:54:52"Did you get it all?"Henry: "And here's what I'm going to ask. Did you write this all down, Heather? And I'm assuming Chelsea, did you get it all?" Whitney: "And we were still on air. Okay. We're still on air." The business administrator is asking whether the meeting's action list has been captured — by the board chair's own notes and by the district's recording secretary. Whatever was captured has not reached any public share.HIGH
2:55:12Off air; the recording keeps runningJosh, the CCTV operator: "Okay off air, but you're still being recorded." Henry immediately reads her list back — "explanation of the school update on revisions. On summary comparisons" — and then remembers the first correction of the day: "I want to go back to the career counselor real quick. Did we talk? We were going to put that back in. Yeah okay. Got it I just I wrote it down." And: "Courtney. Out of there. Got it." Everything after this point is on the recording but was not broadcast live.OBSERVATION
2:55:50Adequacy aid up, statewide property tax upHenry: "as far as the tax rate goes, I don't think you're going to see that big of an impact because you got more money in adequacy this year. Again, because of the new funding formula that I had, because I've gotten your adequacy at estimates in, although your sweat [SWEPT] tax went up." Then the mechanism, correctly stated: "even though you're your property values are going up, that means you're swept is going to go up, which means you're going to get less adequacy… not not for next year, but the following year, you're going to see a sweat increase that's going to be your part of the statewide education tax." The "new funding formula" is real — the per-pupil adequacy amounts had been raised effective 1 July 2023.POSITIVE
2:56:37A members-only working session — which the chair asks to have recordedWhitney: "How do you guys feel about just us meeting perhaps on 18th? I could do sometime during the day… For a caucus. I would like it still to be recorded and we can have a discussion." Her purpose: "so we can really hash through it as a budget committee… so that we can then present on the 20th." Crawford: "We need to talk among ourselves to make sure we've got our stories straight for the 20." Whitney: "that we have our rationale of what we are supporting as a subcommittee"… "And what we're not." On administrators attending: "If people if administrative administration wants to be involved in present, that's fine. But we don't want to say we I don't feel it's necessary… It's not to exclude. It's just not to demand."OBSERVATIONPOSITIVE
2:59:50The chair's closing principleSprague: "one of my goals is to make sure that the whole board. Knows. Knows what's going on because" — and then: "one of the worst things that can happen is for the subcommittee or a committee to be operating separate from" the board. Crawford completes it: "Right in a vacuum. And the rest of the board not knowing." Whitney: "just by doing it this way. Everybody has an opportunity to" — Crawford: "Log in. That's absolutely right." Whitney: "Either in real time or not. So thank you so much." The recording ends twenty seconds later on Whitney's "It's such a stressful thing. And we know it's really."HIGHPOSITIVE

Items flagged for review

Flags are a reviewer's aid, produced by reading the recording against the New Hampshire and federal law in force on 1 December 2023. They are not findings of violation and they are not legal advice. Each card names the rule it rests on and, where a provision has been amended since, says which text applied on the day. Where no verified rule supports a concern it is graded OBSERVATION and labelled as such. Severity tracks legal grounding, not importance. Because this meeting produced no agenda, no packet and no minutes, every card rests on the recording alone; that limitation is stated where it bites.

HIGH A three-hour televised meeting of a public body, in budget season, with no agenda, no packet and no minutes anywhere the public can find them

Which limb this rests on. This project grades an unrecorded meeting HIGH where the absence is unmitigated — a public body met, no minutes exist in any district share, and nothing on the record explains it — and MEDIUM where the record mitigates: someone on tape says minutes exist elsewhere or are coming, or the body lacked a quorum and transacted nothing, or the meeting was noticed and packeted and only the minutes are missing. This is the unmitigated limb, and every mitigating condition is absent. All three members were present, so the committee had a full quorum. It transacted a great deal: at least six corrections to the FY2025 budget document were agreed on camera, a schedule of four further meetings was set, and the middle school's teaching-load change was endorsed by the chair. No packet or agenda exists either, so this is not a case of minutes alone going missing. And nobody at any point says minutes exist, are being kept elsewhere, or are coming — the nearest thing is the business administrator asking, in the closing minutes, "Did you write this all down, Heather? And I'm assuming Chelsea, did you get it all?" (2:54:52). That someone was asked to capture the meeting sharpens the gap rather than mitigating it.

The legal frame. The Right-to-Know Law's definition of "public body" reaches "[a]ny 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 is what carries this flag, and it has stood unamended since 2008. A finance subcommittee of a school board is therefore a public body in its own right, with the full notice and minutes duties. The version of RSA 91-A:2 in force on this date was the one amended by 2023, 188:1, effective 3 October 2023 — eight weeks before this meeting. It required that "[m]inutes of all such meetings, including nonpublic sessions, shall include the names of members, persons appearing before the public bodies, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions"; that "[t]he names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes"; and that "minutes shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting." A draft satisfies the deadline. Nothing was posted within five business days, and nothing has been posted in the two years and nine months since.

The district built the shelf and never used it. A Drive folder titled Claremont Finance Sub Committee, owned by sau6webmaster@sau6.org, was created on 27 October 2022 — thirteen months before this meeting. It contains no files (verified directly for this page, 2026-08-29). The same is true of the district's other subcommittee folders created the same day — Capital Improvement, Claremont Policy Sub Committee, Curriculum Committee and Ad Hoc SAU Exploratory Subcommittee — all four empty on the same verification date. The first subcommittee material ever filed into the district's main packets share is a folder dated 19 August 2026, two years and eight months after this meeting. So the destination existed, was labelled for exactly this body, and stayed empty through an entire budget season in which this committee met at least six times.

What makes the gap consequential rather than clerical. Nineteen days after this meeting, at the board meeting of 20 December 2023, Candace Crawford voted to send the FY2025 budget to its public hearing with this on the record: "there's much work still to be done. And there are still many questions. And I encourage the public to listen to those, budget discussions. And there are still many answered questions." She was pointing citizens at this meeting and its siblings. A member of the public who took her advice would find a three-hour video and nothing else — no agenda telling them what was to be covered, no packet containing the budget document every question refers to by page and line number, and no minutes recording what the committee agreed. The substance at stake is not trivial: the $688,426.17 line nobody could explain (flag 2), an employee budgeted in two places (flag 3), and a demand from the board chair for a public accounting of budget errors "past and present" all exist in the public record solely because Claremont Community Television was in the room.

In fairness. The statute requires availability for inspection; nothing in this record shows anyone asking for these minutes and being refused, and absence from Drive is not proof that no minutes were written. The committee took no vote, so no formal decision went unrecorded. And the body did the opposite of meeting in private — it broadcast itself live for nearly three hours and said on camera why (flag 9). Those facts reduce the harm. They do not satisfy a minutes duty that attached to this body for this meeting.

What would resolve this: dated minutes for 1 December 2023, or a working public link to wherever this committee's minutes are in fact kept. What would sharpen it: a documented request to inspect them that went unanswered.

Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — "public body" includes "any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof" unamended since 2008, 354:1; RSA 91-A:2, II as codified in 2023 (2023, 188:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023) — 24-hour notice; minutes recorded and open to inspection within 5 business days; movers and seconders named; RSA 91-A:4 — availability of governmental records; Claremont Finance Sub Committee (Drive folder, created 27 Oct 2022, empty); Claremont School Board dialogue, 20 December 2023 source of the Crawford quotation.

HIGH The budget document under review does not reconcile to itself — including a $688,426.17 reduction the district cannot account for

At 2:00:19 the district's business administrator told the committee, unprompted: "there was a, a line item called board voted expense reductions that was a negative number of $688,426.17 loaded into the budget. Now, again, I cannot tell you what that number was because I can't find any notes. Dave, Jack and I tried to figure it out and we couldn't." The second name is David Jack, the interim business administrator from Municipal Resources Inc. who covered the vacancy between April and July 2023; two successive business administrators, working together, could not determine what the line represented. The committee then could not establish what happened to the money. Whitney: "am I right in assuming that that money was spent? We're just not sure where." Henry: "That money wasn't spent. That money was deducted." Whitney: "But it was put back in." Henry: "I'm sure it was put back in because your bottom line number is right." Crawford: "So that 668,000 was divvied up among God knows where." Henry: "Like yes, I have no idea." Two different figures are spoken for the same item and neither speaker corrects the other; both are reproduced here as spoken. The business administrator's decision was to leave it: "It's going to be one of those anomalies is just going to sit there. It'll eventually fall off the map." The chair's name for it was "the Fudge Factory."

It is not an isolated anomaly. In one sitting this committee established, on camera, that the document in front of it contained: a $51,801 guidance salary for a post that had been moved to another school (0:08:13); two culinary staff inside one salary line (0:22:43); a special-education variance the board chair named and the business administrator accepted as "a budgeting error" (0:52:07); a $50,000 family-and-consumer-science line that has funded a digital-design post for two years (0:53:40); several lines that display as brand-new positions at nil percentage impact (0:56:13); a roughly $90,000 "school administration" line that is in fact a special-education teacher on a stipend, and whose holder "does not have an administrator certification" (1:07:17); a 60 per cent rise in Stevens special-education salaries that nobody could explain (1:35:10); a 133 per cent rise in district-wide special-education salaries the business administrator agreed might be an accounting error (1:56:02); a special-education administrator block she removed live because "that needs to come out… My air [error]" (2:09:21); a roughly $91,000 occupational therapist sitting inside the therapy-assistants line (2:28:50); a $25,000 worker's-compensation rise attributed to another "budgeting error"; and a secretary about whose employer the committee and the business administrator held opposite beliefs (2:20:50).

Why this is graded HIGH. No verified provision requires a working budget draft to be error-free, and none is asserted to have been breached here. The grade rests on the material-misstatement limb: the district's own officers established on the public record that a current-year appropriation document contains a $688,426.17 adjustment whose purpose cannot be stated and whose redistribution cannot be traced, and that the prior-year comparative figures against which every FY2025 request was being judged are unreliable in an unknown number of lines. That matters because of where the document was going. Under RSA 32:5 the budget must go to at least one public hearing, at which "[a]ll purposes and amounts of appropriations to be included in the budget or special warrant articles shall be disclosed or discussed," and the forms for the annual meeting must carry comparative columns showing the appropriations voted the previous year and the actual expenditures under them. An unattributable $688,426.17 is, by definition, a purpose and amount that cannot be disclosed. The committee itself named the destination: Henry reminded them "you've also got your hearing on January 3rd," and Whitney asked for "the aggregate potential… errors that were in the budget that impacted the tax rate one way or the other." The FY2025 hearing was held on 3 January 2024 and the deliberative session on 3 February 2024.

In fairness, and it matters. Every one of these findings was volunteered or conceded by the business administrator herself, in public, on television, five months into the post, about a document she repeatedly said she did not build: "I did not upload this budget. I did not put these numbers in." Both other committee members said so explicitly on the record — Whitney: "it's not a reflection on her, the services that she's providing to the district"; Crawford: "This is not Mary's fault at all." She corrected several items live and committed to a written reconciliation. Her described method is a reasonable one: employee-related lines "calculated out based on this person's salary," then "I audit my information that comes through to make sure everything came through." And the corrective work happened. At the board meeting of 17 January 2024 she reported: "I did go through every line item. And I'm not kidding. Every line item… more than once… I went into the system because I couldn't necessarily rely on what I felt was in the budget number." The board adopted $36,117,406.87 that night.

Where this meeting sits in the FY2025 arithmetic — precisely. The board moved $36,313,407.97 to the public hearing on 20 December 2023 and adopted $36,117,406.87 on 17 January 2024, a reduction of $196,001.10. The corrections agreed at this meeting are upstream of the December figure, not inside that gap: the committee's stated plan was to feed its changes through the 6 and 13 December sessions into the 20 December presentation, and two of them are visibly complete by January — Crawford reports on 17 January that "the career counselor was already in the budget. It was just in a different place. Now it is assigned to the tech center," and that the social-worker post is now "in the district wide, but it's an additional person that we're thinking we're targeting the elementary schools," which is the resolution Whitney proposed here at 1:46:47. Nothing in the public record itemises the $196,001.10, and this page does not attribute it to this meeting. Nor does the promised error compilation surface where the committee scheduled it: a keyword search of the 13 December dialogue file for the unexplained reduction, for the social-worker correction and for the words error, inconsistency and discrepancy returns nothing. That is a keyword search of one transcript, not proof of a negative — but with no minutes for any session in the sequence there is no other way to look. What this meeting demonstrably produced was the demand for the line-by-line rebuild that the January record shows was carried out.

Sources: RSA 32:5, I–IV as codified in 2023 — public hearing at least 25 days before the annual meeting on 7 days' notice; all purposes and amounts disclosed or discussed; gross-basis appropriations; comparative columns showing prior-year appropriations and actual expenditures source note then ended 2021, 134:3–4; the section was further amended by 2025, 144:1, which does not apply here; RSA 32:1 — the chapter's application, which names school districts; RSA 40:13 — official ballot (SB 2) procedure, under which Claremont School District operates; RSA 21-J:19 — audits by independent public accountants context only; permissive as to timing, and no audit finding is asserted here; Claremont School Board dialogue, 20 December 2023; Claremont School Board dialogue, 17 January 2024.

MEDIUM One employee appears in two budgets at once — the documented instance of a problem this committee's chair would raise again, in the abstract, a year later

Between 1:42:01 and 1:50:58 the committee spent about nine minutes trying to establish whether Stevens High School has a social worker and where she is paid from. What emerged: Courtney Porter is the district-wide social worker, housed at Stevens, spending by the principal's estimate "more like 35, 40% this year" of her time there and the rest across the elementary schools; she is "90% of her currently is in the district wide budget" with "roughly 10% is in the grant" — the McKinney-Vento homeless-education grant, rendered "McKinney Bento" by the recognizer. Separately, the Stevens page carries about $67,000 for a social worker that the committee took to be a full-time post at the high school. Henry on where that came from: "There was an additional low social worker that was here, but it didn't transfer into the budget in the system. I don't I don't know why."

The chair then found her twice. Reading the prior-year books while the others talked, Sprague reported the Stevens figure — "We said 16 salary of 69. 956" — and then, at 1:50:28, "I found Courtney Porter for last year in district wide… Now with a salary of 52,000." His question follows immediately: "Is she make 120,000 a year." Henry: "I can pull her out. She is not pulled out a district wide currently." Whitney: "Not pulled out of Stevens High School." Henry: "Pull that out of Stevens High School." The correction was agreed on camera and confirmed again after the broadcast ended: "Courtney. Out of there. Got it." Crawford's summary of the state before correction is the clearest statement of it: "This budget has a budget of 67,000. For a social worker. It appears that it's full time at the high school. But it's not… And we have no idea where this how it was accounted for last year."

Why this is graded MEDIUM and not higher. The record establishes a duplicated appropriation in a working draft that was caught and corrected in the same session, by the body reviewing it, before the document went anywhere. It does not establish a duplicated payment, and nobody suggested one: the question "Is she make 120,000 a year" is the chair testing an inference, not an allegation, and the answer he got was that she is not. No verified provision was breached by a draft containing a duplicate. What earns the flag is that the duplicate was invisible in the document itself and was found only because a committee member happened to be reading two budget books side by side.

The reason it is worth carrying forward. At this committee's meeting of 19 November 2024, Sprague raised the same concern as a recollection with no example attached — "We've, we've I found people that are in district wide. And and in school" — and Whitney and Henry supplied the word "double budget." That exchange was disposed of on a personal assurance and no document. This meeting is the documented instance. It shows the mechanism is real, that it is detectable by inspection of the staffing behind the lines, and that the fix Sprague asked for in 2024 — attribute staff to the building they actually work in — is exactly the fix agreed here in 2023.

Sources: RSA 32:5, II–IV as codified in 2023 — purposes and amounts disclosed; comparative columns; 42 U.S.C. §11432(g) — McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, education of homeless children and youths the grant funding the other 10 per cent; Claremont School Board Finance Committee, 19 November 2024 the same committee raising the same concern without an example.

MEDIUM Federally funded posts moving into local appropriation, presented as lines with no percentage change

This is the first Claremont budget built against the end of pandemic relief money, and the committee met the transition three times without ever seeing it totalled. At 1:02:19 Sprague reads out a middle-school line: "Campus monitor on page nine. 2410 1165. Again, brand new position, 0% impact." Henry: "Yep. They were in Esser [ESSER] and we put those into the budget." Two positions, about $60,000. At 2:25:46 the same thing for professional development: "That are instructional coaches that… would be moving those positions to the general budget," two people plus about $24,000 of associated retirement. Earlier, on the middle school's special-education line, Henry explains a reduction the same way: "We had a bunch of teachers that were actually in Esser in the middle school… they're obviously we're not part of this budget, but, were pulled ou[t]." The word Sprague keeps using for these lines is "brand new," and the percentage column shows nothing, because there is no prior-year local figure to compare against.

The deadline was real and known. The evening before, the superintendent had told the same committee that the relief-funded staff "expire in September of 24 next September, so we need to take most of that out of the budget." He was right: the U.S. Department of Education's obligation deadline for ARP ESSER funds was 30 September 2024, with liquidation by 28 January 2025 under the standard 120-day rule at 2 CFR 200.344(b); the availability of federal formula money for one additional fiscal year comes from the Tydings Amendment at 20 U.S.C. §1225(b). FY2025 — the year this budget covers — is therefore the first year in which these salaries fall wholly on local appropriation and state aid. The high-school principal was managing the same cliff deliberately and said so at 1:14:38: "I want to stop budgeting now for when the Esser grants run out… So I'm trying to add the money in incrementally to the budget. So it's not one big increase at at 1.1 or 2 years down the road."

Why this is graded MEDIUM. Moving a grant-funded post into the operating budget when the grant ends is lawful, ordinary and — where it was disclosed, as it was each time it came up — good practice. No rule requires a district to present the transition as a single figure. The concern is presentational and it is the committee's own: a reader of this budget, including the voters who would decide it at the February deliberative session, sees several unrelated new lines at nil percentage impact rather than one identified transfer of previously federally funded staff into the tax base. Nobody in the room asked for the aggregate, and no document in any share supplies it. The counterweight is that the district was demonstrably not hiding the transition — it is named openly every time, and at the board meeting of 17 January 2024 the board chair explained on that record that "every administrator that got positions related to that were Esser funded knew that they were coming out."

The committee's asking produced the document. What would resolve this concern is a single schedule of every position moving from ESSER to local appropriation for FY2025, with its cost. The administration produced one twelve days later. At the finance session of 18 December 2023 the chair reads it into the record: "one of the things we received from the administration on December 13th is this this handout"… "the title of this page is sunset. Additional staff funded by federal Esser positions intended to mitigate student learning loss due to impact the impact of Covid." Reading it against the middle school he recites the same figures this meeting could not resolve — "a reduction in regular instruction of 333,000" and "a reduction of 133,000 in special ed" — and then the number nobody had on 1 December: "these programs have been added to individual school budgets in the fiscal year 25 budget. Estimated additional impact 300,000." Those quotations are from the 18 December recording, not this one. The handout itself is in no public share; it survives only as the chair reading it aloud at a second meeting that also has no agenda, packet or minutes.

Sources: 20 U.S.C. §1225(b) — Tydings Amendment: federal education formula funds available for obligation one additional fiscal year; U.S. Department of Education, ARP ESSER obligation deadline 30 September 2024; liquidation by 28 January 2025; 2 CFR 200.344(b) — 120-day closeout liquidation period; 2 CFR 200.303 — internal control over federal awards.

MEDIUM Roughly $1 million of out-of-district special-education tuition at one school, a placement the chair questions on its merits, and a staffing shortage that keeps it in place

At 1:25:17 Sprague identifies the driver of the Stevens bottom line: "you've got a $663,000 increase. And I'm not blaming that on you because I'm looking at the sped out of district, which is 800 and something." Henry immediately prevents the wrong inference — "remember, there was $400,000. That is less in the middle that went up to the high" — so roughly half the rise is a cohort moving from the middle school, not new placements. Sprague's concern is nonetheless about the total: "we've got almost $1 million worth of what I'm presuming to be ninth graders. Right, that are out of district," and, at 1:27:18, "even I can figure out that that's about 10% of the class is out of district." Tuition at one named provider is put at "about 6060 1000" by the superintendent and read back by Sprague as "61,000. So 60 800,000."

Two distinct questions were raised and neither was answered here. The first is programme fit. Sprague, disclosing his own connection first — "I hate to say this because I've benefited greatly from from the Orion group" — says of Granite Hill that it "deals with a lot of kids that are involved in the court system," describes what he thinks it should be ("a temporary kind of waypoint along the way… and then you… come back to your home school") against what he says it is ("have kids there for a year after year"), and concludes: "from what you identified as the need, I don't know if the need matches the program." He then routes it to two absent staff — "That's a Ben question or Brianna Connell question" — and the meeting moves on. The second is the return case. Whitney pressed the superintendent for a defensible per-student saving and got to "a worst case scenario. We're saving 50% per student if we can bring them back to district"; his answer, "Yes. That's conservative," is one of the few of his sentences the transcript carries in full. The obstacle is staffing, not policy: Pratt at 1:27:18 — "we cannot find special educators to take on that role of level of need… the kids who are out of placement right now, we don't have the the bodies to get them into the program."

The legal frame, dated to this meeting. Where a public agency places or refers a child with a disability to a private school or facility, IDEA requires that the child be provided an education meeting the standards that apply to the State and local agencies, under an IEP, at no cost to the parents — a standard that presumes the placing agency knows what the facility delivers. A district officer saying on camera that he doubts the need matches the programme, and then referring the doubt to a colleague who is not present, is thin oversight for a line of this size; it is not, on this record, a breach of anything. On the state side, the vintage matters and cuts against over-reading. RSA 186-C:18, III made the department of education liable for 80 per cent of costs above 3½ times the state average expenditure per pupil and 100 per cent above ten times, "prorated proportionally based on entitlement" when the appropriation was insufficient — with no floor. The "not less than 80 percent of the district's entitlement" floor now in that section was added by the 2025 budget trailer (HB 2, §137) and did not exist in 2023; a reviewer reading today's text against this meeting would reach the wrong conclusion about the State's obligations at the time. Nobody in this meeting cited any of it.

Why MEDIUM. The record establishes a large and rising line, a stated doubt about placement quality left with absent staff, and a return plan blocked by hiring. It establishes no denial of services to any child, names no monitoring finding or corrective action, and reflects a district actively trying to build the in-house capacity that would reduce the cost — the Academy programme, with about 14 students, exists for exactly that purpose. In fairness the committee did the right thing procedurally: it identified the two people who could answer and put the special-education director on the 6 December agenda.

Sources: 34 CFR 300.146 — children placed in or referred to private schools by public agencies must receive an education meeting SEA and LEA standards, under an IEP, at no cost to parents; 34 CFR 300.101 — FAPE must be available to all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive; RSA 186-C:18, III as codified in 2023 — 80% above 3½×, 100% above 10×, proration with no floor; 2025 N.H. HB 2, §137 — adds the 80%-of-entitlement floor, eighteen months after this meeting not applicable here; cited to prevent a vintage error; RSA 186-C:19-b — district liability capped at 3× the state average for DHHS-responsible placements.

OBSERVATION The superintendent attended by telephone and about three-quarters of what he said is not in the record — including the answer to the meeting's central staffing question

Michael Tempesta participated remotely. Across 27 segments and 236 seconds of floor time the transcript carries 175 words — roughly 44 words a minute, against 126 for Crawford, 144 for Whitney, 157 for Sprague, 166 for Henry and 215 for Herzog. His longest single segment, 59 seconds beginning at 1:09:49, transcribes as ten words; a 28-second segment at 1:29:15 transcribes as six. This is a transcript finding, not a finding about the video — whether his words are audible on the recording has not been tested, and the pattern is consistent with a telephone line the speech recognizer could not resolve rather than with anything missing from the broadcast.

What it costs the record. At 0:47:05 Crawford asked the largest single question of the middle-school budget: "instructional salaries go down 333,000. And is that a loss of position." Romeo declined it — "That is not a question for me to answer" — and Tempesta took it: "I can answer it." His answer occupies 28 seconds and reaches the transcript as seven words. The only surviving trace of it is Crawford repeating a figure back at 0:48:09: "Six fewer staff." Everything this page says about a $333,000 reduction meaning six fewer teaching positions rests on that single repetition, and a reader should treat it accordingly. The same happens on the out-of-district savings estimate: Whitney's "are we looking at a $30,000 per student saving" is followed by an untranscribed reply, and the usable answer only exists because she rephrased the question twice until she got "Yes. That's conservative."

Why this is an observation and not a violation. RSA 91-A:2, III governs the electronic participation of members of a public body: it requires that in-person attendance not be reasonably practical, that the reason be stated in the minutes, that a quorum be physically present except in an emergency, that all participants can hear one another simultaneously, that each part of the meeting be "audible or otherwise discernable to the public at the location specified in the meeting notice," and that votes be by roll call. The superintendent is not a member of this committee — he is the district's chief administrator appearing before it — so none of those conditions attaches to him, and all three members were physically present. No provision is asserted to have been breached. What is recorded here is a records-completeness problem: on a page whose whole premise is that the video is the only account of the meeting, the participant with the most authority is the one the account captures least. It is also worth noting for a different reason: this is one of the last recordings in which Tempesta appears as superintendent. The SAU 6 board dismissed him on 11–12 January 2024, six weeks later.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, III as codified in 2023 — conditions on a member's electronic participation; quorum physically present; each part of the meeting audible to the public cited to show why it does not apply; the dialogue file itself the word and duration counts above are computed from its Start (sec) / End (sec) columns and are reproducible.

OBSERVATION A members-only working session set after the broadcast ended — and the board chair's instinct to record it anyway

At 2:55:12 the CCTV operator says "Okay off air, but you're still being recorded." Eighty-five seconds later, at 2:56:37, Whitney proposes an additional session: "How do you guys feel about just us meeting perhaps on 18th? I could do sometime during the day… For a caucus. I would like it still to be recorded and we can have a discussion." Its purpose is stated plainly — "so we can really hash through it as a budget committee… so that we can then present on the 20th," and "that we have our rationale of what we are supporting as a subcommittee"… "And what we're not." Crawford: "We need to talk among ourselves to make sure we've got our stories straight for the 20." On whether administrators should come, Whitney is careful: "If people if administrative administration wants to be involved in present, that's fine. But we don't want to say we I don't feel it's necessary… It's not to exclude. It's just not to demand." The session was fixed for 1 to 3 p.m. on 18 December.

Why this is worth recording. All three members of this committee constitute its full membership and therefore a quorum. A gathering of a quorum of a public body to discuss matters over which it has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power is a meeting under the Right-to-Know Law, whatever it is called, and carries the same 24-hour notice and five-business-day minutes duties as any other. Nothing here suggests anyone thought otherwise — the chair asked for it to be recorded, unprompted, in the same breath in which she proposed it, which is the correct instinct and is graded POSITIVE at flag 9. The observation is about what the word caucus invites, and about the fact that the scheduling of it happened in the five minutes after the live broadcast ended. Both are visible only because the recording kept running.

What happened next, from the 18 December recording itself. The session took place at the time set here. The chair opens it: "Well, good afternoon everyone. It's 1:00 on, What is today? Monday the 18th. Monday the 18th. And we're here to look at the the budget and have a caucus with our with the three of us who are the budget finance committee." But it is not a members-only session — the administrative team attended and held the floor throughout. And the caucus itself is not on tape: near the end of a recording that runs 2:24:25, the chair says "Well I think we need to we need to caucus, I guess," and the recording ends twenty-two seconds later. So the one part of that day that Whitney had asked to have recorded is the one part that was not. No agenda, packet or minutes exists for 18 December 2023 either. This is stated as a fact about the sibling recording, not as a finding about this meeting; a reader who wants to test it should watch Cablecast show 15451 rather than rely on this paragraph. Those two quotations come from that recording, not this one.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2 as codified in 2023 — open meetings; 24-hour notice; minutes within 5 business days; RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — a subcommittee is a public body; RSA 91-A:3 — nonpublic sessions, the only lawful route to a closed discussion, none of whose grounds was invoked here.

OBSERVATION A three-hour public budget meeting at which no member of the public could speak, and five substantive questions left without an owner or a date

No public-comment period was offered and no member of the public spoke. RSA 189:74 requires that "a school board shall 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 "[t]he public comment period shall be for no less than 30 minutes," excepting emergency meetings and meetings held solely for nonpublic session. The text says "school board," not "public body," and this page does not assert that it reaches a subcommittee — that question is not settled by the statute's words and no decision resolving it was identified. It is recorded because of the mismatch it creates: this session was televised live precisely so that citizens could follow the budget, the board chair said twice that the public needed to understand these figures before the deliberative session, and the format offered them no way to ask anything. Nobody was turned away, because nobody was invited.

Five matters were raised at the table and parked with no named owner and no date. (1) The tech-centre director stated that the building's front doors "are not Ada [ADA] compliant" (0:25:26); it was treated entirely as a $10,000 budget item, and no one asked what standard the doors fail, who had assessed them, or whether a complaint existed. Under Title II of the ADA a public entity must operate each service, program or activity so that, viewed in its entirety, it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, and an entity with 50 or more employees must designate a compliance coordinator and publish grievance procedures — none of which was mentioned. This is graded OBSERVATION and not higher because the claim is one director's passing characterisation, this page has not seen any assessment, and a door that is hard to open is not automatically a program-access violation. (2) The Claremont share of the SAU 6 budget — the district's largest single administrative cost — sits in this document as an estimate of a figure not yet adopted: "it would be 90% of whatever that is. And that's still up in the air" (1:55:15). The SAU's own budget hearing was still thirteen days away, and RSA 194-C:9 required the SAU board to adopt that budget before 1 January and to certify each district's share by 15 January — so on this date the district's largest single administrative line was an estimate of a number the SAU board had six weeks left to fix. (3) SAU costs cannot be seen in the district's budget at all — "you will not see them broken out… because they're part of the Saw [SAU] budget" — and the committee's recollection of having received a breakout the previous year could not be reconciled with the business administrator's (2:12:04). (4) The chair's overlap question about the technology integrator — that the district may already have hired someone to do this work — was raised, acknowledged as a fair question and never answered (2:31:10). (5) The tax-rate arithmetic does not reconcile on the record: Crawford's "the grand list has changed to like $1 million… I was used to use 750 million as a back of the envelope" and Henry's "250,000 usually depends on your" are different units and are never brought together (2:52:06). The committee deferred the tax-rate presentation to 13 December.

The common thread is the absence of a written record. Each of these would ordinarily be captured as an action item in minutes with an owner and a date. Without minutes, the only way to know whether any of them was ever answered is to watch the next recording — which is the practical cost of flag 1, stated concretely.

Sources: RSA 189:74 — school board public comment period, no less than 30 minutes 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022; its application to a subcommittee is not asserted here; 28 CFR 35.150(a) — ADA Title II program accessibility in existing facilities; 28 CFR 35.107 — ADA coordinator and published grievance procedures, 50 or more employees; RSA 194-C:9 as codified in 2023 — the SAU board "shall adopt a budget" at a meeting "held before January 1," apportioned half on average membership and half on equalized valuation, and certified to each district's school board by January 15 source note then ended 2003, 279:1; the SAU budget procedure was revised by 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 153, eff. 18 August 2026, which does not apply here.

POSITIVE The committee televised its working sessions on purpose, said why, and asked for its own private session to be recorded too

Nothing in New Hampshire law required this. A subcommittee must notice its meetings and open them to anyone who turns up; it need not broadcast a three-hour line-by-line budget review, and most do not. This committee did, and its members articulated the reason more than once. Whitney at 2:08:03: "the reason why we're televising this. The reason why we're having this an open session is to be utterly transparent to the community and utterly transparent to other board members and to administrative, personnel." At 2:41:11, on why it matters before the vote: "I think it's important that the community has an opportunity to digest this before we have our deliberative session… if we start talking about it now and we have it on, you know, documented and people can review it, listen to the explanation to this." And in the closing exchange, Sprague names the failure mode he is guarding against — "one of the worst things that can happen is for the subcommittee or a committee to be operating separate from" the board — which Crawford completes as "Right in a vacuum. And the rest of the board not knowing," and Whitney closes: "just by doing it this way. Everybody has an opportunity to… Either in real time or not."

Four further practices in this meeting exceed what any rule requires. The board chair asked for the members-only session to be recorded before anyone raised the question (2:56:37) — the correct instinct, and one this project has not seen stated so plainly elsewhere in the corpus. The committee asked for a public count of the district's own budget errors rather than quietly correcting them: "I think we owe it to the public, to, to talk about it" (2:06:13). It protected the official it was questioning, on the record and unprompted, from the blame that its own findings would otherwise attach to her. And it asked for the maintenance director to present his own budget in person — "I think we owe that to him to hear what he has to say" (0:26:09) — rather than accept a summary. Crawford also volunteered, unasked, that "we do not have any compensation for being on the school board" when a line called "school board fees" came up, so that a viewer would not misread it.

The irony is the whole subject of flag 1. A body this deliberate about being watched produced no agenda, no packet and no minutes, and so left its own carefully public work retrievable only by watching three hours of video. The transparency practice and the records failure are not in tension on the merits; they are the same commitment, executed in one medium and not the other.

Sources: RSA 91-A:1 — the Right-to-Know Law's statement of purpose: "the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies"; RSA 91-A:2 as codified in 2023 — the minimum this practice exceeds.

POSITIVE Documented cost reductions, a competitive federal procurement, and substitutions the committee could actually test

Against a meeting dominated by things that did not add up, several items in this budget were built well and were shown to be. Psychological services. A $92,000 rise in salaries is presented as a substitution, not an addition: hiring a psychologist because "the cost of hiring a psych through, like, a a contracted service is very expensive… contracted services are up about $200 an hour," with the offset named and located — "There's $198,000 reduction and contacted [contracted] services under Sped" (2:20:26). Whitney tested the logic and accepted it. Technology. The $90,000 copier line was broken down on request into a four-year lease on twelve machines plus 27 standalone printers "like $19 a month… includes all of the service and toners," and the technology director had deliberately split it out of the equipment code — "I don't want to just keep them in a 734 line because I want to keep it separate" — which is the correct instinct and the one the business administrator endorsed. Reductions on phones followed a new telephone system, and a five-year internet contract followed a competitive E-Rate procurement: "we did an RFP proposal through E-Rate… because our fiber build the last five years, we were paying for the fiber build, plus the internet. And now, it's a new five year, and it's just for the internet." The federal share he reports — "they do 70%, we pay 30" — sits squarely inside the E-Rate discount matrix, which runs from 20 to 90 per cent by poverty concentration and rurality, and the competitive-bidding step is a condition of the programme, not an optional courtesy.

Account-coding corrections made for the right reason. The business administrator moved an ESL position to its own code because "it is supposed to be coded in that line, per the wonderful book that we have from the state of New Hampshire" — the state's chart of accounts for local education agencies — and undertook to move a roughly $91,000 occupational therapist out of the therapy-assistants line for the same reason. These are the corrections that make future comparative columns readable.

Two pieces of good fiscal thinking from members. Whitney's Running Start line of questioning (0:14:43) is a search for the same educational output at lower cost — "the more that we optimize our opportunities at River Valley, the less we have to actually build into our legacy budget," with the freed classroom space as a second-order gain — and she took the answer seriously when the director explained the two-way accreditation constraint that limits it. Crawford turned the substitute-pay line into a policy question rather than a number (2:02:04): raise the rate, move from hourly to a flat half-day and full-day rate, and benchmark against Fall Mountain, Newport and Lebanon before deciding. And the business administrator's closing explanation of the tax-rate outlook is correct as a matter of law. She told the committee to expect adequacy aid up "because of the new funding formula" and warned that rising valuations mean "you're swept [SWEPT] is going to go up, which means you're going to get less adequacy." That is exactly the statutory mechanism: the per-pupil adequacy amounts had been raised to $4,100 base, $2,300 free-and-reduced, $2,100 special education and $800 English learner effective 1 July 2023, five months before this meeting, and the total grant is computed by adding the per-pupil cost and then subtracting the statewide education property tax warrant for the municipality.

Sources: 47 CFR 54.505 — E-Rate discount matrix, 20 to 90 per cent by poverty and urban/rural status; 47 CFR 54.503 — competitive bidding requirement for E-Rate supported services; RSA 198:40-a, II — cost of an adequate education: $4,100 base plus $2,300, $2,100 and $800 differentiated aid amounts enacted by 2023, 79:150, eff. July 1, 2023 — the text in force on this date; RSA 198:41, I as codified in 2023 — grant equals the per-pupil adequacy cost minus the education tax warrant, plus the extraordinary need grant; RSA 76:3 — the statewide education property tax (SWEPT).

Appendix — source files

Official and public sources

Project files

Relative links work when this page is opened from Output/HTML/.

Laws and rules cited on this page

New Hampshire statutes, cited in the text in force on 1 December 2023. Where the current text differs, both are given.

New Hampshire session laws enacted after this meeting that change its subject matter, listed so a reader does not apply them backwards:

Federal: