Claremont School Board, FY25 Budget Public Hearing — January 3, 2024

The one hearing New Hampshire law requires before a school district asks its voters for money. The board presented an operating budget of $36,313,407.97 against a default budget of $35,906,774 — a gap of $406,634 — and not one member of the public spoke. The hearing ran forty-one minutes; every question in it came from the board. Fourteen days later the same board adopted $36,117,406.87, $196,001.10 less than the figure disclosed here, and none of that reduction was decided on this night. Generated from the meeting’s diarized transcript, the recording, the district’s seven-document packet and its approved minutes. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.

Body
The Claremont School Board (SAU 6), sitting first as the statutory budget hearing required by RSA 32:5, I and then, without leaving the room, as a regular board meeting. The statute reads “The governing body, or the budget committee if there is one, shall hold at least one public hearing”, and here it fell to the governing body: no municipal budget committee appears anywhere in the district’s records for this cycle, and the board’s own three-member Finance Committee is a subcommittee of the board, not an RSA 32:14 budget committee. Claremont School District votes by official ballot under RSA 40:13 (SB 2), so the budget goes first to a deliberative session and then to the March ballot.
Date
Wednesday, January 3, 2024. The agenda, the approved minutes and the packet all print the date without the weekday; Wednesday is computed from the date. The Cablecast archive titles this recording “School Board Meeting 1/3/23” the wrong year is the district’s broadcast archive’s, not a transcription error — see the appendix.
Start time
Agenda: 6:30 p.m. The recording opens on the gavel at 0:00:04. The approved minutes close the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. and call the board meeting to order the same minute; closing activities 8:04 p.m. The recording’s length reconciles with the clock: 6:30 p.m. plus 1:33:20 is 8:03 p.m., against the minutes’ 8:04 p.m. close, so no material time is missing from the tape. The hearing closes on tape at 0:41:49 and the last words are at 1:33:12. No nonpublic session was held and none is recorded in the minutes.
Location
Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center, per the agenda and the approved minutes. The agenda and minutes both carry the district’s standing note that the meeting is “Audio Broadcasted on CCTV Channel 8”.
Recording
Cablecast show 15505 — “School Board Meeting 1/3/23”. Runs to 1:33:20 (the dialogue file’s last row ends there); 544 rows, 14,468 words. Coverage is complete: the tape is running before the gavel and after the last exchange.
Minutes
Approved minutes 1.3.24 CSB Public Hearing Agenda.pdf — approved, signed “Respectfully submitted by Noelle Kronberg, school board clerk”, and unusually full for this corpus: they run to four pages and record attendance for both sessions, the $406,634 gap, the tax-impact answer and every request the board made of the administration. They do not state the proposed budget total, and they do not state the default budget total.
Board composition
Seven seats, six members present. Present: Heather Whitney (chair), Frank Sprague (vice chair), Bonnie Miles, Whitney Skillen, Jennifer Gallagher, Arlene Hawkins. Absent: Candace Crawford — a member of the three-person Finance Committee that built this budget, and the member who fourteen days later moves the figure the board finally adopts. Whitney Skillen is recorded present and is never heard on the recording; six of the seven seats are represented in the room and five of the seven voices are audible.
The money
FY24 appropriated $34,880,311.71. FY25 proposed $36,313,407.97 — an increase of $1,433,096.26, or 4.11 per cent, a figure printed on the packet’s summary page and never spoken aloud at the hearing. FY25 default $35,906,774. Gap between them $406,634. Budget finally adopted 17 January 2024: $36,117,406.87.

Participants

Everyone in the record. Attendance and the spelling of every name come from the district’s approved minutes of 3 January 2024, which list both sessions’ rolls; roles come from the agenda masthead, which prints the board, the clerk, the student board members and the SAU 6 central-office administration. Segment and word counts are from the dialogue file (544 rows, 14,468 words). No member of the public spoke, so there are no citizens’-comment rows in this table — the approved minutes record “No members of the public present for comment” for the hearing and “None” for the board meeting’s comment period.
NameRoleParticipation
Mary HenryBusiness Administrator, SAU 6The dominant voice: 155 segments, 5,197 words, 35.9 per cent of everything said. She presented the whole budget and the whole default-budget derivation. She opens by placing herself in the year: “it’s the first time I built the Claremont budget” (0:01:44), and returns to that four times — “I wasn’t here for your meetings, so I don’t know how that all took place and transpired” (0:09:26), “This was uploaded before my time” (0:08:29), “I just don’t think they were allocated the way that they should have been allocated. So but again, I wasn’t here, so I can’t” (1:00:50). She was appointed on 11 May 2023 and started in early July 2023, so FY25 is her first budget cycle in Claremont. She is also the source of the two figures on which this whole page turns, at 0:29:01.
Michael TempestaSuperintendent, SAU 681 segments, 3,507 words, 24.2 per cent. He presented the Claremont Middle School schedule change, which is the only programme question the board pressed hard, and he defended it on staffing rather than on cost: “frankly, some of the difficulties we’ve had getting core, particularly math and science teachers. We haven’t had a full complement” (0:13:57). This is his last budget hearing. He was fired by the SAU 6 board eight days later, on the night of 11–12 January 2024, effective 12 January, after a nonpublic session; nothing on this recording anticipates it and nothing on it concerns his contract or his evaluation.
Heather WhitneyChair, Claremont School Board; member, Finance Committee82 segments, 1,510 words, 10.4 per cent. She gavels in (0:00:04), reads the agenda (0:00:53), closes the public hearing (0:41:49), runs the consent agenda (0:42:45), and adjourns (1:33:12). She also does the two things that most shape the record: she tells the board and the public that the Finance Committee would not endorse the budget (0:43:15), and she asks for the revenue side of the budget that the packet does not contain (1:23:22, 1:23:36). She is a member of the Finance Committee and answers as one when Gallagher puts a question to it (1:15:54).
Frank SpragueVice Chair, Claremont School Board; chair of the Finance Committee94 segments, 1,218 words, 8.4 per cent. He asked the tax-impact question (0:29:51), the question about what the sheet’s “Alternative support programs” line is (0:39:03), the question about adopting the default outright, which he put on the record for the audience rather than for himself — “I want everybody to hear it” (0:44:47) — and, for twenty minutes, the questions about the $688,426.17 unallocated reduction that produced the meeting’s only decision (1:01:371:06:31). His own account of his background here is the Stevens social-worker story at 1:14:12; the corpus holds at least five different versions of that background in his own words and this page quotes only the one he gave on this night.
Jennifer GallagherMember, Claremont School Board; chair, Curriculum Subcommittee and Ad Hoc Disruptive Behaviors Subcommittee51 segments, 1,081 words, 7.5 per cent. The most systematic questioner of the programme content: the teachers’ union and the schedule (0:37:58), the removal of three behavioural support specialists (0:40:34), the $212,000 special-education movement on the summary page (0:59:39), where social workers are deployed and whether the existing model works (1:07:18, 1:11:46), and whether smaller classes actually change outcomes (1:16:18). She frames every one of them as a budget-efficiency question: “is there any way to balance the budget even more by being more efficient” (1:08:59).
Mike KoskiAssistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, Innovation & Assessment, SAU 645 segments, 1,076 words, 7.4 per cent. Took the middle-school staffing history from the superintendent at 0:21:31, explained the professional-development coaches moving off ESSER (0:55:130:56:06), gave the class-size research answer (1:18:40), and closed the meeting with the SAU job-fair announcement (1:32:18).
Arlene HawkinsMember, Claremont School Board; chair of the SAU 6 board17 segments, 547 words, 3.8 per cent, almost all of it in one block near the end (1:19:251:20:35): elementary field trips, an elementary instructional coach, professional development for the paraprofessionals who are replacing the behavioural support specialists, and the New England League of Middle Schools. She also supplies the meeting’s clearest statement of why the $688,426.17 matters — “More credibility to have that correctly allocated” (1:06:36) — and thanks the Finance Committee for the hours it put in (1:31:33).
Bonnie MilesMember, Claremont School Board; chair, Capital Improvement Subcommittee11 segments, 200 words, 1.4 per cent — but she is the only member who carries the previous meeting’s public comment into this one. At 0:48:20 she raises what the CMS teachers said on 20 December, and at 0:52:05 she names one of them and states the objection in the teacher’s terms: “They would get less classroom time for a time in classes, and that was a big concern.” Her closing sentence is the meeting’s plainest: “how they feel is important to us. But of course what happens to the children in the classes and the structure is, is more so” (0:52:31).
Whitney SkillenMember, Claremont School Board; chair, Policy SubcommitteeRecorded present in both rolls in the approved minutes and never heard on the recording. The dialogue file records no segment for her. A single token “Whitney” appears inside another speaker’s segment at 1:28:06; it is unresolved and is not evidence that she spoke. Heather Whitney and Whitney Skillen sit on the same board, which makes that token the highest-risk name collision on this recording; this page attributes it to nobody.
Noelle KronbergSchool Board ClerkOne segment, eight words — the roll call at 0:00:43: “Here, here. Jennifer Gallagher, present. Eileen Hawkins here.” “Eileen” is the recognizer’s rendering of Arlene The roll comes through as a single merged segment and does not audibly name all six members; the approved minutes carry the authoritative list. She was appointed Claremont School Board clerk on 15 November 2023, six weeks before this meeting, and she signs these minutes and the 20 December minutes the board approved here.
Unidentified administratorCentral-office or special-services administratorA male voice that takes the floor for four segments at 0:39:180:40:04 to answer the vice chair’s question about the “Alternative support programs” line when the business administrator falters: “I, I can speak”, then “That’s that’s, the autism program. One room and then another room, which is behavior focused” and “Called the pride program. Years ago, when we started that, that’s it. Lived under a different budget code.” The content is the special-education portfolio and Ben Nester is listed on the agenda masthead as Director of Special Education, but nothing on this recording names the voice and this page does not name it. The same cluster carries a further unattributed line at 1:30:57.
Candace CrawfordMember, Claremont School Board; member, Finance CommitteeAbsent. Recorded absent from both rolls in the approved minutes. She is one of three members of the Finance Committee that produced this budget, so the hearing presented a budget that a third of its authors were not present to explain. She returns two days later at the 5 January Finance Committee session, where she puts the choice to her colleagues as “are you okay with the 36 million 318. Or do you want to see that reduced to 36188?”, and on 17 January she moves the budget the board adopts.
Nicole Bouchard; Kylee PlummerStudent Board MembersPrinted on the agenda masthead. Neither appears in the recording or in the minutes’ rolls, and no student voice is heard. the district’s own 20 December minutes name the second student member as “Alex Barney” instead — see the appendix
Ben Nester; Jeff Small; Angela VivianSAU 6 central office — Director of Special Education; Director of Technology; Human Resource DirectorPrinted on the agenda masthead as the central-office administration. None of the three is named aloud on the recording and none is placed in the room by any record. Vivian’s office is credited at 1:32:18 — “HR is hosting a job fair” — but by Koski, not by her.

Agenda

An official agenda was posted and is in the packet: 1.3.24 CSB Public Hearing Agenda.docx.pdf. It carries two agendas on one page — the public hearing, then the board meeting — each with clock times. Quotations in the third column marked as agenda text are from that document, not from the recording. Scheduled clock times are left as plain text; a timestamp is a link into the recording. The single most important thing to read off this table is item IV.A of the board meeting: the posted agenda told the public the board would take up “Fiscal 2025 Budget Approval” at 7:15 p.m., and the board did not approve a budget on this night. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell to read the full text.

Taken upItemAgenda text / disposition
6:30 p.m.
0:00:04
Hearing I. General Business — Secretary Roll Call of AttendanceAgenda: “6:30 PM General Business — a) Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members (Board Members who arrive after the meeting begins will be noted as ‘present’ at the point in the agenda at which they arrive)”. On tape the chair gavels in — “I’m calling the January 3rd, 2024 Claremont School Board meeting and, public hearing meeting into order and all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance” — then “Secretary, would you call? Call, please” (0:00:36). The roll comes through as one merged twelve-second passage naming only some of those present. The approved minutes give the authoritative roll for both sessions: present Whitney, Sprague, Miles, Skillen, Gallagher, Hawkins; absent Crawford.
6:35 p.m.
0:00:53
Hearing II. Overview of Fiscal Year 2025 BudgetAgenda: “6:35 pm Overview of Fiscal Year 2025 Budget”. The chair reads the running order into the record: “Our first item on the agenda this evening is an overview of fiscal year 2025 budget by the Claremont School District administrative team, to be followed by an overview of the 2025 default budget. And then we will open the forum up to citizens comments for the public hearing section of this meeting.” The superintendent hands straight to the business administrator (0:01:17), who runs from 0:01:44 to 0:13:10 on the packet’s memo of changes, and the superintendent and assistant superintendent then take the middle-school schedule from 0:13:32 to 0:26:52. Nobody states the proposed budget total during this item. It is first spoken thirteen minutes later, inside the default-budget item.
6:40 p.m.
0:27:16
Hearing III. Overview of the 2025 Default BudgetAgenda: “6:40 pm Overview of the 2025 Default Budget”. This item is required: RSA 40:13, XI(a) provides that “The default budget shall be disclosed and presented for questions and discussion at the first budget hearing held pursuant to RSA 32:5 or RSA 197:6.” It was. The business administrator walks the derivation from the FY24 base at 0:27:30 through the reductions and contractual additions at 0:28:22 to the two totals and the gap at 0:29:01, and takes questions on the tax consequence (0:29:51) and on why the board does not simply adopt the default (0:44:47). The handout, though, had not been distributed: “Over default, which I didn’t pass out to you” and “I know you guys don’t have it in front of you yet”. The default budget appears in no document in the packet.
6:45 p.m.
not reached
Hearing IV. Citizens CommentsAgenda: “6:45 pm Citizens Comments — During this time, only questions and comments directly related to the budget will be heard”, then five bullet rules: raise your hand for recognition by the Board Chair; move to the podium; “State your name, ward, and then direct your comment(s) to the Board Chair”; “Only three (3) minutes will be given to each citizen”; a second turn of two minutes after everyone else has spoken. No member of the public spoke. At 0:41:49 the chair asks “Did you have any interest in, sir, in making a comment?” and then closes the hearing “because we have a vacant room”. The approved minutes record: “No members of the public present for comment, moving into the regular board meeting.” See flag 10.
7:00 p.m.
0:41:49
Hearing V. Closing of Public HearingAgenda: “7:00 pm Closing of Public Hearing”; the approved minutes record it at 7:13 pm, thirteen minutes late, which matches the tape. The chair: “I think we may want to officially close the public hearing… I’m going to officially close the public hearing. And if it’s okay with the board, we’ll just move on with the board agenda.” The statutory hearing therefore ran 40 minutes 56 seconds, from 0:00:53 to 0:41:49, and every question asked in it was asked by a board member or by the administration.
7:03 p.m.
0:42:14
Board I–II. Call to order; General Business; Agenda amendments; Approval of minutes of 20 December 2023Agenda: “7:03 PM Call to order Claremont School Board Meeting” and “7:05 PM General Business… Agenda- Amendments & Approval / Approval of Minutes from December 20, 2023”. On tape there is no separate call to order: the chair carries straight on. At 0:42:45 she runs both items together: “I would like to move to, the consent agenda, which is essentially, requesting if there’s any amendments to the agenda and approval of the minutes as written. Is there any request for changes to the agenda or changes to the minutes as written? Seeing none. We’ll close that part of the meeting.” No motion, no second, no vote. The approved minutes record “No changes, amendments, or corrections; consent to approve both the agenda and minutes” — while the district’s own agenda of 20 December labels the same item “Consent Agenda (vote required)”. See flag 3.
7:10 p.m.
0:42:45
Board III. Citizens CommentsAgenda: “7:10 PM Citizens Comments”. Disposed of in one sentence: “And we have no citizens citizens here to comment, so we will bypass that as well.” the repetition is the recognizer’s The approved minutes record “None”. Between the two agendas the posted schedule allots twenty minutes of public-comment opportunity — 6:45 to 7:00 and 7:10 to 7:15 — against the thirty-minute floor in RSA 189:74. See flag 9.
7:15 p.m.
0:43:15
Board IV.A. Fiscal 2025 Budget ApprovalAgenda: “7:15 PM Discussion/Action Items — A. Fiscal 2025 Budget Approval”. No budget was approved. The chair explains why, at 0:43:15: “the budget subcommittee or the finance subcommittee at this time didn’t feel like we could officially endorse the budget as proposed. We felt that we needed to scrutinize it a little bit more, ask some more questions, discuss some more align items.” “align items” is the recognizer’s rendering of line items She then sets the schedule that actually governs: a Finance Committee meeting “Friday at 10:00” (0:43:40) and a return to the board “on the 17th” (0:44:18), when “we’ll be ready to present a budget to the group”. The item ran an hour, from 0:43:15 to 1:32:14, and produced exactly one decision, taken by consensus rather than by vote: that the business administrator would reallocate the $688,426.17 line before Friday (1:06:31).
8:30 p.m.
1:32:18
Board V. Closing ActivitiesAgenda: “8:30 PM Closing Activities”; the approved minutes record 8:04 pm, twenty-six minutes early. The only item is the assistant superintendent’s job-fair notice: “HR is hosting a job fair here at the tech. January 13th. Two Saturdays from now, nine to noon” (1:32:18, 1:33:04). The chair adjourns without a motion — “There’s no objection to adjourning there” (1:33:12) — and the approved minutes record “Consent to adjourn”.

Discussion timeline

Chronological, from the dialogue file. Times are the transcript’s own start seconds, rendered from the same number the link seeks to, so text and link cannot disagree. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording. 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; repeated stutters are sometimes condensed; nothing else has been smoothed and no missing word is supplied. Quotations from the agenda, the minutes, the packet or a statute are labelled as such in the sentence that carries them. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell to read the full text.

TimeTopicWhat was saidFlags
0:00:04Call to order, Pledge, rollWhitney: “I’m calling the January 3rd, 2024 Claremont School Board meeting and, public hearing meeting into order and all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.” The Pledge is led from the floor at 0:00:21. The chair then calls for the roll (0:00:36), and the clerk’s reading arrives as one merged segment: “Here, here. Jennifer Gallagher, present. Eileen Hawkins here” (0:00:43). Six of seven members were present per the approved minutes; Candace Crawford was absent.
0:00:53The chair sets the order — and the hearing beginsWhitney: “Our first item on the agenda this evening is an overview of fiscal year 2025 budget by the Claremont School District administrative team, to be followed by an overview of the 2025 default budget. And then we will open the forum up to citizens comments for the public hearing section of this meeting.” This is the moment the statutory hearing opens; it closes 40 minutes 56 seconds later at 0:41:49.POSITIVE
0:01:17The superintendent hands the budget to the business administratorTempesta: “So thank you. Put a lot of time into this and we really appreciate the the feedback from the Finance Committee as well throughout this. And I’m going to hand it over to Mary, who has really put together some nice summary documents and also a general overview that she wants to open up. So I’ll come in for the, the scheduling piece and the other pieces as, as needed, but okay.” He speaks for 22 seconds and does not return to the budget as a whole; his own material is the middle-school schedule.
0:01:44How this budget was built — and whose first it isHenry: “First, I want to say it’s the first time I built the Claremont budget, and I want to thank everybody on the administrative team, the board, the staff and everybody else for their assistance, especially Frank, who has all of his knowledge, a wealth of knowledge that is definitely very beneficial when you’re trying to go back and figure out what happened in the past.” The process (0:02:09): the administrative team, then the principals individually, then the Finance Committee “on several occasions”. And the caveat that frames everything after it (0:02:33): “I want to make sure that everybody understands that this is not the final budget. It is up to the school board to determine the final budget that will be brought to the taxpayers during the deliberative session.”OBSERVATION
0:02:56Benefit and contract increasesHealth insurance up 8.8 per cent for paraprofessionals, maintenance and secretaries, 5.7 per cent for teachers; dental up 4.7 per cent for all (0:02:56, 0:03:21). Contract wage increases, from the packet memo: year 2 of the teachers’ contract $573,097, year 3 of the Claremont Administration Association $51,736, year 3 of the paraprofessional contract $109,376. Henry ties the last of these to the warrant (0:03:48): “we’re near three are going into year three of the paraprofessional contract, which per the warrant was 109,376. These items will be on the default budget as well as items being added in.”
0:04:14School by school — three social workers added, eight behavioural support specialists removedA social worker at each of Disnard, Maple Avenue and Bluff at $91,696 apiece, and a reading specialist at Maple at $110,534. Against them, behavioural support specialists come out: one at Disnard, three at Maple, three at Bluff, one at Stevens. Henry corrects herself live on the Maple figure (0:04:47): “We removed two or, excuse me, three behavioral support specialists. Around 127,500.” The packet memo carries the same slip in print — “Removed two (3) Behavior Support Specialists. Total ($127,500.00)” the ‘two (3)’ is the district’s and $127,500 is three at $42,500. She also states her costing rule: “when I budget for these people, I’m budgeting them with a two person health plan. I try to go in the middle and hope one falls on either side.”
0:05:46Claremont Middle School — the reductionsHenry (0:06:08): “We’re going to reduce math by 0.6. We currently have 4.6 positions in math. Reduce two English teachers six is currently what we have. Reduce three social studies teachers. We currently have seven reduced one guidance counselor. We currently have three. We removed two campus monitors previously funded by Esser.” Esser is ESSER, the federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief fund Added at CMS: one science position (already open), a campus monitor / assistant athletic director, and an ARC coordinator to parallel Stevens. She flags the item as the one the superintendent will take: “Seems is the big one” ‘Seems’ is CMS.
0:06:38The ESSER cliff, named out loudHenry: “And all these next ones that I’m going to list were funded by Esser. We remove two academic deans, one English teacher and three behavioral support specialist. I do want to say though, I say reduce and I say remove, but we have openings within the district, and I want to make sure people are aware that it’s more of a it’s a restructure.” And (0:06:59): “I don’t want people to panic, to think we’re not going to have a job, because that’s not what we’re saying here.” The approved minutes render the same point as “Positions that were reduced/removed are more of a ‘restructuring’ due to other open positions in the district.”POSITIVE
0:07:57The technical centre — a health teacher and an open guidance postHenry: “The total cost of salary and benefits that’s in the budget is $96,621, and the cost for the supplies to start the program in the budget are 3000. We also still have an open position from fiscal year 24 budget for career guidance counselor. The total cost of that with salary benefits is 92,284.” The health course is picked up again by Gallagher at the very end of the meeting (1:27:06).
0:08:29The $688,426.17 line — first appearanceHenry: “We had a line item that was labeled board voted expense reductions. It was reduction of $688,426.17 sitting on the budget. So it’s it is funds that have not been allocated back to lines that they probably belonged. This was uploaded before my time.” Then (0:09:49): “So it’s really skewing some of our district wide numbers because that’s where it ended up getting put. So again, like I said, I’m not sure where the allocation belonged. But your bottom line budget is what you voted.” And (0:10:09): “These reductions did not get allocated across the salary lines.” The packet memo gives the account: 100.40.1100.113.5.00000, a district-wide regular-instruction salary line.MEDIUM
0:10:09Positions moved off ESSER onto the general budgetA board-certified behaviour analyst at $109,521 (0:10:090:10:28; Sprague supplies the term at 0:10:26: “Board certified analyst”). Professional-development coaches at $208,388 (0:11:46). Against them, two ESSER-funded administrative posts come out — a staff accountant and a grant specialist — and the district-wide substitute line drops $125,000 “based on previous and current year expenses” (0:11:16). Henry also corrects a coding error out loud (0:10:28): the ESL teacher moves from district-wide regular salaries to ESL salaries, “This should be a function, a 1260 function, which is for state reporting.”POSITIVE
0:12:23A secretary who was budgeted in the wrong entityHenry: “District wide year round secretary is not in the fiscal year 24 budget, but it is in this year’s. It should have been in 24. Again, this is one of those things that Frank had some great information for me, that it was budgeted in the saw last year and it should have been budgeted or anyways, it belongs in Claremont.” ‘the saw’ is the SAU Cost $86,479 per the packet memo. This is the example the vice chair returns to an hour later to argue that the $688,426.17 double-counts (1:03:47).MEDIUM
0:13:32The middle-school schedule — the only programme fight in the budgetTempesta opens on staffing, not savings (0:13:57): “And frankly, some of the difficulties we’ve had getting core, particularly math and science teachers. We haven’t had a full complement.” He works from the packet’s social-studies slide (0:14:43), gives the enrolment — “There’s a total of 332 students now in the regular ed classes” (0:15:18) — and reaches the English department (0:17:29): “we currently have six teachers in the English department. We we would only need four at those staffing levels. And there’s still the same. And if you look across the current class sizes 17.78. Okay. And that’s with 18 sections.” The packet slide states the same in print: “Reduce 2 teachers ELA (6)… Class size 17.78 (18) to 16 (20)”.
0:19:18Handoff to the assistant superintendent: three years of failing to staff the scheduleTempesta: “And I’ll give you the numbers and then I’ll let Mr. Kosky talk about it” Kosky is Koski. Koski (0:21:31): “with this schedule and the number of teachers needed to fill the schedule, we haven’t been able to fully staff the schedule for the past three years. Unfortunately, the trend for new teacher hires is not going in the right direction. And so, some creative adjustments have had to be made.” And the plain version (0:22:26): “Because I, I just don’t see us being able to hire more teachers next year. When for the past three, really since since Covid, we haven’t been able to hire enough staff.” The packet’s CMS position table is the documentary version: science falls from 5 teachers in 2022-23 to 3 in 2023-24, with “Online classes - VLACS/Edgenuity” filling the gap.
0:22:40The chair puts the trade in one sentenceWhitney: “So are you saying that the schedule that is proposed would allow more students to be in front of a teacher?” Koski: “Yes.” Whitney: “Versus having to get their education virtually or online?” Koski (0:22:56): “if we were to, for example, this year, if we were to can keep this year schedule, we would need to hire two math and two science teachers.” The comparison with Stevens follows at 0:24:240:26:32: Stevens is moving to a seven-period day, its core teachers already teach six content classes, and the proposal puts CMS core teachers at five content classes plus one enrichment.
0:27:16The default budget — the handout nobody hadHenry: “Over default, which I didn’t pass out to you? Sure. Sorry.” Then (0:27:30): “I’m just going to go over it quickly. I know you guys don’t have it in front of you yet, but, this is a quick, where I’m at so far with the default. I don’t know of any big one time purchases within last year’s budget that would impact default. So what I did is I took the approved budget for fiscal year 24, the 34,880,312.” That base is right: the packet’s summary page prints FY24 appropriated as $34,880,311.71. Copies are handed round mid-item (0:28:01): “Does everybody have a mess up? Oh, I got some extras.”POSITIVE MEDIUM
0:28:22The default derivationHenry: “So the total reductions from the fiscal year 24 budget would be $3,445,245. So then what I do is I added in the increased items that would go into to contractually obligated the bond payment for fiscal year 25, the teacher contract of year two health insurance increases the expense. The Claremont Administration Association third year of their contract or and the support staff third year of their contract, for a total addition of 4,471,000.” The additions figure as rendered is short: the net she states next requires $4,471,707, and $4,471,707 − $3,445,245 = $1,026,462 exactly.MEDIUM
0:29:01The sentence the whole hearing turns onHenry, verbatim: “So the net increase or decrease which should increase is 1,000,026 for 62. The next thing I do is I take. So our projected default budget would be 35,000,960 774, but the proposed budget is 36 million. The one we have in front of us that I spoke about earlier is 36,000,313 408, which means right now our proposed budget is 406,634 over default.” Read as spoken: net increase $1,026,462; default, as the transcript renders it, 35,960,774 [$35,906,774]; proposed $36,313,408; gap $406,634. The correction is proved twice inside this one passage. $34,880,312 + $1,026,462 = $35,906,774. And $36,313,408 − $35,906,774 = $406,634, the gap she states in the same breath; the transcript’s own figure would give $352,634 and match nothing. The recognizer agrees: that numeral carries confidence 0.65, the lowest in the sentence, against 1.00 on every other figure in it.MEDIUM OBSERVATION
0:29:34What a default vote would meanHenry: “So currently if they if if default is voted, there will be a 406,634. We will have to look for that money to find it to cut the budget, to reach default.” She restates it later (0:46:22): “that default budget is going to stay at what it is right now. The 35 million. Unless I find something that I have missed, which I will go back through again, the budget to see if there’s any other one time expended. But that number is not going to change. The only number that’s going to change on this is going to be your budget number.”
0:29:51The tax question — and two answers that cannot both be rightSprague: “So could you just. I’m sorry. Just for everyone’s information. How much is that on the. Is 406,000 on the tax rate? What is that sense per?” ‘sense per’ is cents per Henry: “Let me pull up my spreadsheet, Frank, because I want to make sure I have it right. Okay. Didn’t we say it was. Is it $0.08?” Whitney: “It’s roughly eight.” Sprague: “It’s eight.” Henry (0:31:06): “So it would be so yeah $0.08 per thousand. So times that.” Sprague: “32.” Henry (0:31:13): “Yeah. Would be $32 on 100,000.” She never finds the sheet: “I can’t believe I can’t find it” (0:31:33). The approved minutes settle it as “Would be approximately 32 cents per thousand”.OBSERVATION
0:32:05The revaluation — who now carries the billHenry: “Residential went up by 42%. Commercial went up by 23%. So again what that means is the residential burdens more of that increase or the increase.” Sprague, unprompted (0:32:29): “I was told Walmart’s taxes were reduced by a quarter of a quarter of $1 million.” Henry on the knock-on to state aid (0:32:53): “Higher property values means more statewide education, property tax that you will be told you have to pay out of that. So adequacy aid may go down based on your increase in your property values.” The approved minutes record the exchange as “Mary Henry discussed property tax impacts and potential future impacts as well as assessed values”.
0:33:19“You held 420” — the retained fund balanceHenry: “This year we only returned $316,566 back to the taxpayers on unassigned fund balance. You held 420.” And on the prior year (0:33:56): “If we look at this year’s or excuse me, fiscal year 23, which was just happened, we gave back 1.2 million $85,605. That is huge.” Her own view (0:34:31): “I personally don’t like to give back a lot of money, and it’s because when we budget, we want to budget for what we need”, and (0:34:46): “We’re not your bank. We want you to get your money now, not later.” Nothing at this hearing tells the board or the public what the district must do before it may spend the retained $420,000; the business administrator raises that on 17 January.OBSERVATION
0:35:12SWEPT, the county, and the amounts actually raisedHenry: “Again, your sweat tax, that’s another thing that played a big role in statewide education, property tax” ‘sweat tax’ is SWEPT, the statewide education property tax, “And last year they decided to let people have a break and they lowered it. Good and bad. But you went from 975,000 having to be raised to 1.3 million.” And (0:35:34): “looking at the town, they went up, you’re raising 12,653,000 last year, 11,000,793 the previous year, 11,000,322. You also had a $300,000 increase on your county tax.” Rates (0:36:52): “the current school rate is $14.15” and “the state school rate is $1.19”. Her conclusion (0:37:21): “your tax rate dropped, but you’re still raising the same amount.”HIGH
0:37:58Has the union seen the schedule?Gallagher: “Has the teachers union had a chance to review and respond to the schedule? And if they haven’t. Are we contractually obligated to discuss it with them because of something in their contract about the schedule that I. That’s not, like, clear to me. And and if it’s not obligated, should we have the conversation anyway.” Tempesta (0:38:20): “we are sending them the schedule. We have a meeting with them next week. It has to be. There’s nothing we feel everything in here meets the language. But if the if they view it as a change. They we would have to impact bargain that.” The approved minutes: “the district believes the changes meet the language in the current contract and won’t need to be negotiated”.
0:39:03A line on the summary sheet nobody at the table can nameSprague: “Just a clarifying question on this, on this sheet about halfway down. Yep. Alternative support programs. I’m wondering what is that?” Henry: “That’s the autism program. And the, Oh. Hang on.” An unnamed administrator takes over (0:39:18): “I, I can speak”, then “That’s that’s, the autism program. One room and then another room, which is behavior focused” and “Called the pride program. Years ago, when we started that, that’s it. Lived under a different budget code” and “We reduced it by one room which included the staff and the teacher.” The line falls 69.78 per cent on the packet’s summary page, from $368,430.35 to $111,321.90.
0:40:34Three behavioural support specialists out of the middle schoolGallagher (0:40:56): “And like, what is our plan with the removal of three behavioral support specialists?” Tempesta (0:41:06): “This is something that the finance committee identified as a as something we wanted to work on. And so we’re, we’re getting rid of those and we’re, we’re replacing them with paraprofessionals. Okay. So, so that there’s only, there’s one group, and then we focus on the one group and make that, that contract more robust, less turnover.” Gallagher (0:41:35): “Is it the intention to have all 11 positions replaced with professionals.” Koski and Tempesta together: “Absolutely.” The approved minutes record the same answer.
0:41:49The hearing is closed — with nobody having spokenWhitney: “I think we may want to officially close the public hearing. Did you have any interest in, sir, in making a comment? Yes. Yeah. So I’m going to I’m going to because we have a vacant room. I’m going to officially close the public hearing. And if it’s okay with the board, we’ll just move on with the board agenda.” The approved minutes record the item as “No members of the public present for comment” and close the hearing at 7:13 pm. The whole passage sits inside one diarized cluster, so the page cannot say who said “Yes.”OBSERVATION
0:42:45The consent agenda — the 20 December minutes approved without a voteWhitney: “So I would like to move to, the consent agenda, which is essentially, requesting if there’s any amendments to the agenda and approval of the minutes as written. Is there any request for changes to the agenda or changes to the minutes as written? Seeing none. We’ll close that part of the meeting. And we have no citizens citizens here to comment, so we will bypass that as well.” No motion, no second, no vote. What was approved by silence includes the 20 December minutes recording a 50-year seal of a two-and-a-half-hour nonpublic session and a budget motion with no dollar figure in it.MEDIUM MEDIUM
0:43:15The Finance Committee will not endorse the budgetWhitney: “And moving into discussion and action items. Mr. Sprague will chime in if he feels appropriate, but, the budget subcommittee or the finance subcommittee at this time didn’t feel like we could officially endorse the budget as proposed. We felt that we needed to scrutinize it a little bit more, ask some more questions, discuss some more align items.” The posted agenda had noticed “A. Fiscal 2025 Budget Approval” for 7:15 p.m. She then sets the real schedule (0:43:40, 0:44:18, 0:44:40): the Finance Committee meets “Friday at 10:00”, the board returns “on the 17th”, and “we’ll be ready to present a budget to the group at that time”.OBSERVATION
0:43:40Every finance meeting televised — “pop some popcorn”Whitney: “I want to remind the board and to communicate to the public as well that this year we are televising, recording and televising all of our finance subcommittee meetings for complete and utter transparency. So we do encourage the community members to pop some popcorn.” And (0:44:18): “the board two can take time and view that. And so when we come back on the 17th, you may have had some of the questions that you thought you had answered by watching those, those recordings, those riveting recordings.” Hawkins confirms it works, at the end of the night (1:31:33): “those televised meetings were so helpful to be able to watch and to see and to feel like we’re knowing what’s happening.”POSITIVE
0:44:47“Why don’t we just” adopt the default?Sprague sets it up (0:44:47): “so, Mary, can I just I want to ask a quick question that I know the answer to, but I want to I want everybody to hear it.” Then (0:44:56): “so one of the things that people ask is, okay, so if there’s a $406,000 difference between the default and between the regular budget, why don’t we” — the sentence continues into Henry’s answer (0:45:09): “It’s there as a, I want to say a safety net for the district to say that we have contractual obligations that we have to meet, and that’s what we’re adding back in. We’re taking away the one time expenditures, but adding in the things that we know we have to pay no matter what.” And (0:45:32): “Sometimes they do come close. And sometimes I’ve had default budgets be more than a regular budget.”POSITIVE
0:45:39Does the default move when the budget moves?Sprague: “But it is a moving target, is it not? So if we if we make reductions.” The sentence completes two segments later (0:45:46): “They’re mirrored in the default budget as well. So we try to move closer to it. But as we move closer to it it’s moving farther away from us.” Henry corrects him twice (0:45:54, 0:46:22): “If you lower down your budget amount, it’s going to bring that. Say you drop a by $100,000, it’s going to lower it down to 306” and “that default budget is going to stay at what it is right now.” On contracts (0:46:44), Sprague: “if we go there, all of our negotiated agreements become null and void”; Henry: “Not not the current ones that are in place. So the teacher’s contract. Right. But any new ones? Well, let me but those are separate Warren articles” ‘Warren articles’ is warrant articles.
0:47:53The chair asks the board what to scrutinizeWhitney: “I’m I’m interested on what the board feels that the subcommittee should be really focusing on and what questions that you’re, like, churning around in your head right now that you want us to learn fourth, through the administration and have a really fleshed out answer to, what’s the kind of sticking out for you?” ‘learn fourth’ is the recognizer’s rendering of draw forth or bring forth; the sense is not recoverable and no word is supplied This is the hinge of the second hour: from here to 1:21:52 the board is briefing its own three-member committee on what to cut and what to protect, in public, on camera, two days before that committee meets.POSITIVE
0:48:20Bonnie Miles carries the teachers’ objection into the hearingMiles: “The teachers that were here last week. Last time we were here. What they had to say. And so and then I’m looking at, unless I’m getting this wrong, but if I’m looking at the schedule and what’s happening, which is not what the teachers wanted, how that’s do they how’s this going to work play out. Are we going to lose teachers because of that?” She names one of them (0:52:05): “They would get less classroom time for a time in classes, and that was a big concern. And I remember the last one was Rebecca Duska” — the district’s own 20 December minutes name that Ward 1 speaker “Rebecca Vendesco”. Her closing point (0:52:31): “how they feel is important to us. But of course what happens to the children in the classes and the structure is, is more so.”
0:51:31The chair states the board’s burden of proof to the publicWhitney: “So it sounds to me, Bonnie, that you would like us to make sure that we come to the board with a clear explanation of why this is, well, academically benefit our students, not just for parity reasons, but other reasons”, then “Correct me if I’m wrong” (0:52:01). Later, on the social workers (1:15:36): “But to your point, we’re gonna have to justify that to the community.” Koski quantifies the schedule trade at 0:52:49: “I think it’s 6 or 7, maybe eight minutes difference between the two schedules as to amount of time in class”, then “every student will have a teacher in every class” (0:53:10).
0:54:10The professional-development coaches move onto the tax baseGallagher: “the one area where I just see a major number that I’m a major, not a major increase, a large increase, PD support.” Then (0:54:30): “I know that we’re moving the PD coaches from Esther to the general budget, which is causing this increase right here” ‘Esther’ is ESSER and (0:55:04): “Are there other things that we need to be thinking about now that we have to accept this 208,000 expense under the general budget?” Koski (0:55:46): “We do have an open position for a third. It was Esser funded, but that money is running out and we didn’t want to stretch the budget, increase too much and and ask for a third position.” The packet summary page shows the line at $208,388.83 against $0 in FY24.POSITIVE
0:56:41Where the least experienced teachers areWhitney: “which of our schools have the most, junior teachers…” Koski (0:57:11): “Right now, the middle school has our youngest, least experienced staff.” Sprague pushes back toward the elementary schools (0:57:18), and Koski names the constraint on state help (0:58:13): “There’s rumored state money that we haven’t seen it yet.” Hawkins returns to this an hour later and asks for an elementary coach to be funded (1:19:44).
0:59:39The $212,000 on the special-education lineGallagher, whose question arrives in four clipped segments from 0:59:35, ends it (0:59:39): “Summary page, the special education line item, what is accounting for the $212,000 increase?” The packet’s summary page shows special education falling, not rising: $8,305,293.13 to $8,093,124.57, a decrease of $212,168.56, or −2.55 per cent. Henry’s answer ties it straight to the unallocated line (0:59:53): “that I think that some of that money should have been allocated in there. And it’s all sitting in regular instruction under district wide.” And (1:00:50): “I just don’t think they were allocated the way that they should have been allocated. So but again, I wasn’t here, so I can’t.”MEDIUM
1:01:37Twenty minutes on $688,426.17 — the only decision of the nightSprague: “so the 688,000, it’s on the bottom of the bottom district under district wide changes. So is that that’s still in the budget that number.” Henry (1:01:49): “it’s basically a blank line. It gets added back in because it’s a negative sitting in the other one not allocated up through the lines. Right. So it’s basically there’s nothing there to offset it.” Sprague names the risk (1:03:06): “there could be a quarter of a million over here that that’s in both places.” His worked example is the Disnard secretary (1:03:47): “I’m going to use the secretary of Disney example where she was budgeted last year at half time. Yep. It got fixed. Yep. In the Disney hard lines. But the money.” He closes it at 1:04:39 — “What I’m suggesting is you already did that. I’m going to go back to the secretary of Disney again. You fixed it. It’s it’s in this year’s budget.” — and 1:04:50: “Yes, but it’s still in the 688.” ‘Disney’ in the transcript is Disnard elementary schoolMEDIUM
1:03:19The business administrator asks permission before touching itHenry: “if the board wants me to I’ll do that. But I would never go back and make that kind of an adjustment to a budget without asking you permission to do so first, because it’s 688,000. I would go back and look, and I’m not going to spend a lot of time. I’m going to tell you that right now, because I could spend hours and go down that rabbit hole.” And the point that matters most (1:04:24): “in reality, though, you’re not, you’re not. You’re not changing your bottom line. You’re still not changing your bottom line. All you’re doing is reallocating the credit across the debits.” So the reallocation cannot be where the $196,001.10 came from.OBSERVATION
1:04:20The vice chair states the goal: get close to the defaultSprague: “Because I’m thinking we can get a lot closer to the default number if we do that.” And, after Henry’s correction (1:05:41): “I would like based on what you said tonight, if we can get as close to that, the default number without really affecting the budget in any way.” This is the only statement at the statutory hearing of where the board intends to take the number, and it is what makes the reduction adopted on 17 January something the public was told about here, in direction if not in amount.OBSERVATION
1:06:31“I think we have consensus” — a decision without a motionWhitney: “I think we have consensus. If nobody objects, we can document everyone.” Hawkins (1:06:36): “More credibility to have that correctly allocated. And we should be.” Henry (1:05:51): “So what I’ll do is I’ll work on that and hopefully I can have it done for Friday’s meeting.” The approved minutes record it as “Mary Henry will amend and reallocate the ‘board voted expense reductions for FY24’ item for Friday” — with no mover, no seconder and no vote, because there was none. Henry adds that her predecessor’s stand-in saw the same thing (1:06:40): “And Dave Jack actually looked at it for me when we were both working together, and he just looked at me and tossed his hands in the air.”MEDIUM
1:07:18Three social workers — a $428,053.80 lineGallagher: “Where do we currently have social workers employed in the district?” Tempesta (1:07:22): “We we have a social worker at the high school. The middle school. And that’s it.” Gallagher (1:07:28): “And so the three that we’re hiring are to put one in every school.” Her efficiency question (1:08:34): “is it according to, like, what we know or like best practices and standards to have one social worker per elementary building and does that will they have a similar caseload as the middle school and elementary social workers?” Tempesta concedes there is no benchmark (1:09:24): “So in terms of comping it out in a like community, I don’t think we’ve gotten to that.” On the packet’s summary page the social-worker line rises from $72,500.47 to $500,554.27 — 590.42 per cent, the largest percentage movement in the budget.HIGH
1:11:05What a social worker does that a guidance counsellor cannotWhitney: “there’s a difference between the way a guidance counselor would manage situations versus the social workers can extend into the community and actually be engaged more with the family to create a wraparound support system.” Gallagher tests the existing model (1:11:46): “is the operational model we’re using for social work in the middle school and high school currently working for our families” — the same segment ends “like is the system working as intended in the middle school and high school?” Tempesta names the incumbent (1:12:21): “I can’t say enough about Courtney Porter, who’s our who’s our longest.”
1:14:12The vice chair’s own account of why it worksSprague: “So when I, was it Stevens, I was able to negotiate a three day a week social worker through Doctor Bissell over Orion House. And, it was, I have to say, it was it was pretty much triage, rather than any real standard kind of plan.” And (1:15:04): “it was unbelievable to have that layer of triage to come in and allow guidance counselors to actually do guidance things rather than reacting to crisis.” the corpus records at least five different versions of Frank Sprague’s own history at Stevens in his own words; this page quotes only the one he gave on this night Whitney draws the political conclusion (1:15:36): “But to your point, we’re gonna have to justify that to the community.”
1:15:41What is still holding the Finance Committee back?Gallagher, to the committee: “what are the areas that you’re still closely scrutinizing that are holding you back from feeling fully confident?” Whitney answers as a committee member (1:15:54): “For me, it’s fleshing out the seems schedule and really trying to parse out the benefit of that academic benefit of that” ‘seems’ is CMS. Sprague answers for himself (1:16:05): “The, the, the Frugal Yankee is making sure that this is” — continuing at 1:16:10 — “That every line”. Two of the three committee members answer; the third, Crawford, is absent.OBSERVATION
1:16:18Does a class of 16 beat a class of 18?Gallagher: “is there a clinical significance to reducing class size from 18 to 16 or 17 to 16, like instead you have statistical significance and then you have clinical significance where it’s like it may not be meaning in the stats, but it’s meaningful in the doctor’s office.” Tempesta (1:16:50): “It’s less meaningful the higher you go up. So it’s more meaningful in an elementary setting that is a middle school setting. I think it’s negligible.” He then corrects the framing outright (1:18:00): “I just I want to be clear. We’re not trying to reduce the class size at the school” and (1:18:05): “we’re trying to have the certified teachers teach more students. Currently they all teach about 50, 50, 56 students. Now they would be up around 80 or 90 students.”
1:18:40The one research answer on the recordKoski: “And to kind of get your statistical. Yeah statistics statistical question. There’s a window of between 12 and low 20s that has no impact. Okay. Below 12 and above that low 20s number is when you start to see impact okay.” No study, author or source is named for that window, here or anywhere in the packet, and no board member asks for one. Whitney frames why it was asked (1:19:02): “I think that you were pointing that out just because there was issues. People have been talking about class size.”OBSERVATION
1:19:25Arlene Hawkins’s four asksField trips (1:19:25): “One has to do with the elementary field trips. I, I have not, I’m not. I’d like to make sure that that’s in there, if possible, because of an earlier conversation that we had about schools inequity.” An elementary coach (1:19:44). Professional development for the paraprofessionals taking over behaviour support (1:20:05): “I noticed that we have removed some support and replacing them with paraprofessionals, and I believe that Paras are fabulous support for a classroom. I also believe we need to provide professional development as to the role and strategies for people working at all of the levels.” And middle-school identity (1:20:35): “as a former middle school teacher, I am going to ask about not the class sizes, but just making sure that we are maintaining the middle school focus.”
1:21:34The grants that do not appear in the budgetKoski: “a lot of our professional development is funded by title two grant monies, which is separate from the local budget. So it even though we’ve reduced it in the local budget, there’s still a large pot of money for professional development.” Whitney immediately asks for the whole picture (1:21:59): “Is there any way we can get an overview? Of what? Everything. Not just dollars that are being spent from local dollars, but so we can see what the supports are that are being provided.” Henry gives the aggregate from memory (1:23:01): “This year for fiscal year 24, we have just over $1 million in title one money and just over half a million in Ida” ‘Ida’ is IDEA “we still get 1.7 million in funds from grants.”HIGH
1:23:22The chair asks for the revenue side — and is told it will be e-mailedWhitney: “So can we get a breakdown of what we get from the state overall to not just.” Henry: “You mean just from the, are you talking about adequacy? Oh, yeah. Yeah, there’s there’s a sheet for that. I can send you the spreadsheet” (1:23:27). Whitney makes it explicit (1:23:36): “Where they actually what the whole what the actual budget looks like. Not just, but we spend not necessarily what we bring in us.” Henry (1:23:44): “So I’ll get you the estimated that we have for fiscal year 25, and I’ll get you fiscal year 24 spreadsheet.” A revenue sheet exists. It was not in the packet, was not before the board, and was not before the public at the statutory hearing.HIGH
1:23:50How the public and the board are told to reach the committeeWhitney: “if you think of anything that you want us to kind of hammer down on or focus on, please just email one of the members of the subcommittee”. Taken with the invitation to watch the recordings (0:43:40) this is the whole of the participation route offered on the night: no member of the public was in the room, and the alternative offered is e-mail to a three-member subcommittee.OBSERVATION
1:24:42A detour: the middle-school bathroomsHenry: “it’s probably spending money though, which is not a good time to talk about that, but it was just an improvement that I thought that we could have used it. One of the schools, because, other parents come here for games and it’s the, the middle school.” She contrasts it with what she saw at Stevens (1:25:49): “I couldn’t believe what I saw. It was the most beautiful hotel.” She marks it as off-topic herself (1:26:44): “And this is off the budget, but I was bugging me to say it.” The approved minutes record it as “Discussion regarding updating the entryway bathrooms at the middle school”. No figure is attached and no action follows.
1:27:06The health course at the technical centreGallagher: “What’s the general topic for the health position health course?” Tempesta (1:27:14): “we spoke about that. I think Doctor Herzog one want it to be a general one.” Alex Herzog, director of the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center His case for it (1:27:36): “I had the opportunity to meet someone from Dartmouth-Hitchcock, the head of respiratory Patrick, and at a recent event and, he was really saying you can’t go wrong because you’re hired instantly in that field.” Whitney (1:28:26): “An associate’s degree will will start you at about 70 grand in almost any of those professions, out of the technical college, up the road.” The position costs $96,621 plus $3,000 of supplies.
1:29:02The board has not seen the bell schedule it is being asked to fundGallagher: “Is there, like, a am I missing the proposed, like, actual schedule for the middle school? Like, not just the changes, but like, what the Bell schedule would look like.” Tempesta (1:29:11, 1:29:19): “they the last time they, they proposed a, a five total classes doing for one less” and “when I spoke to them, I just said, well, you could make one. And at one point Frank said, well just tell me what you want to make.” The approved minutes list it as an outstanding item: “Discussion of bell schedule that reflects the proposed changes at the middle school”. No bell schedule is in the packet.
1:30:47A subcommittee meeting that did not happenWhitney: “Jen, did you have a Disruptive Behaviors committee meeting today?” Gallagher (1:30:51): “Did, but I was actually at my doctor’s office. Sorry.” An unattributed voice (1:30:57): “We canceled because Jen is so.” A noticed subcommittee meeting of a public body was cancelled the same day; nothing on this recording says whether the cancellation was noticed, and the district’s Drive folder for the Ad Hoc SAU Exploratory subcommittee, like its three sister folders, holds no files at all.OBSERVATION
1:31:07Unified arts, and thanks to the committeeHawkins (1:31:15): “Are there still consideration of two periods a day of the arts?” and (1:31:26): “So that students would get two periods a day of the year.” The approved minutes record it as “Question regarding unified arts offerings”. Then (1:31:33): “I just want to thank the people who are on this finance committee because of the hours that you have put in, along with the administrative team. But those televised meetings were so helpful to be able to watch and to see and to feel like we’re knowing what’s happening.”POSITIVE
1:32:18Closing activities — a job fair, and adjournment by consentKoski: “HR is hosting a job fair here at the tech. January 13th. Two Saturdays from now, nine to noon”, repeated for the record at 1:33:04: “Nine to noon. Saturday, January 13th.” Henry: “And we send notices home with the kids” (1:32:56); Tempesta: “Robo calls and the whole” (1:32:59). The chair adjourns (1:33:12): “There’s no objection to adjourning there. No journey.” ‘No journey’ is the recognizer’s rendering of no adjourning or an equivalent The approved minutes record “Consent to adjourn” at 8:04 PM. The last words on the tape are Sprague’s at 1:33:15: “The snow plow on today.”MEDIUM

Items flagged for review

Flags are a reviewer’s aid, produced by reading the recording and the packet against the New Hampshire and federal law in force on 3 January 2024. 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. Vintage matters especially here: RSA 32:5 was amended by 2025, 144:1, effective 30 August 2025, so every quotation of it on this page is from the codification whose source note ends “2021, 134:3, 4, eff. Sept. 21, 2021” — and in that text the paragraph numbering differs from today’s: the hearing requirement is at ¶I, the disclosure duty at ¶II, the gross-basis requirement at ¶III and the comparative columns at ¶IV. Where no verified rule supports a concern it is graded OBSERVATION and labelled as such. Severity tracks legal grounding, not importance.

HIGH The budget put before the public at the statutory hearing had no revenue side at all — and the board chair had to ask for one

What the statute requires. RSA 32:5, III, in the text in force on 3 January 2024, provides: “All appropriations recommended shall be stipulated on a ‘gross’ basis, showing anticipated revenues from all sources, including grants, gifts, bequests, and bond issues, which shall be shown as offsetting revenues to appropriations affected. The budget shall be prepared according to rules adopted by the commissioner of revenue administration under RSA 541-A, relative to the required forms and information to be submitted for recommended appropriations and anticipated revenues for each town or district.” The requirement is not that revenues be mentioned; it is that anticipated revenues be shown as offsetting revenues to the appropriations affected.

What was actually before the meeting. The packet holds two budget documents. The Budget Summary FY25 runs from “1100) Regular Instruction” to “Total Budget” and contains no revenue line. The Updated Claremont School District Budget 12.20.23 is 55 pages of line items, every account in fund 100 and in an expenditure location from 10 to 40; a text search of the whole document for Revenue, Revenues, Adequacy, Receipt, Income, Fund Balance, Estimated and SWEPT returns zero occurrences of every one of them. Neither the budget memo nor the presentation deck carries a revenue figure, and the approved minutes record none.

The board noticed. At 1:23:22 the chair asks “So can we get a breakdown of what we get from the state overall to not just”, and at 1:23:36 spells out what she means: “Where they actually what the whole what the actual budget looks like. Not just, but we spend not necessarily what we bring in us.” The business administrator’s reply establishes that the document exists (1:23:44): “So I’ll get you the estimated that we have for fiscal year 25, and I’ll get you fiscal year 24 spreadsheet.” The revenue schedule was therefore prepared — it was simply not in front of the board or the public at the hearing the statute requires. The same gap runs through the discussion: the assistant superintendent tells the board at 1:21:34 that professional development is “funded by title two grant monies, which is separate from the local budget”, and the aggregate grant figure the public gets is a spoken recollection (1:23:01): “we still get 1.7 million in funds from grants.”

Why it is graded HIGH, and its limits. This is a binding requirement about the form of the very document recommended at the very hearing, and the record establishes the absence from the district’s own documents rather than from a failure to find them. Two things temper it and are stated here for fairness. Revenues were discussed orally — adequacy aid, the statewide education property tax, the amounts raised in each of the last three years (0:32:050:37:21) — so this is not a hearing at which revenue went unmentioned. And the district’s MS-27 filing with the Department of Revenue Administration, which does carry estimated revenues, is a separate later document that is not in this packet and was not examined for this page; nothing here says the district failed to compute its revenues, only that it did not show them to the public alongside the appropriations they offset.

Sources: RSA 32:5, III (2023 codification — gross basis, anticipated revenues shown as offsetting revenues to appropriations affected; source note ends 2021, 134:3, 4); Budget Summary FY25 (packet); Updated Claremont School District Budget 12.20.23 (packet); approved minutes, 3 January 2024.

MEDIUM A $688,426.17 expense reduction parked in one salary account, never distributed to the lines it reduced — which is the column RSA 32:5 requires the public to be able to compare against

The facts, from the district’s own documents. The packet memo names the account: 100.40.1100.113.5.00000, “Board Voted Expense Reductions for FY24 ($688,426.17) decrease should have been allocated out to the salary and benefit lines that it belonged.” The line-item budget shows that account carrying ($688,426.17) in the FY23-24 column and $0.00 in the FY24-25 column, a movement of $688,426.17 or (100.00) per cent. So a board-voted reduction of the FY24 appropriation sits, whole and undistributed, in a single district-wide regular-instruction salary line rather than against the functions it actually reduced.

What the business administrator said about it. At 0:08:29: “It was reduction of $688,426.17 sitting on the budget. So it’s it is funds that have not been allocated back to lines that they probably belonged. This was uploaded before my time.” At 0:09:49: “So it’s really skewing some of our district wide numbers because that’s where it ended up getting put.” At 0:10:09: “These reductions did not get allocated across the salary lines.” And, asked directly why the special-education line moves by $212,000, at 1:00:50: “I just don’t think they were allocated the way that they should have been allocated. So but again, I wasn’t here, so I can’t.”

Why that matters legally. RSA 32:5, IV requires the budget to carry comparative columns — “Appropriations voted by the previous annual meeting” and “Actual expenditures made pursuant to those appropriations” alongside what is recommended. The comparison is the mechanism by which a voter can see what changed and why. Here the FY24 column against which every FY25 line is compared contains a $688,426.17 negative in the wrong place, so the FY24 figure printed beside each affected line is not the appropriation for that line. The vice chair identified the practical consequence at 1:03:06: “there could be a quarter of a million over here that that’s in both places” — that is, a reduction counted once in the lump and again in an individual line already corrected. The business administrator agreed she could not rule it out.

Mitigation, stated plainly. The bottom line is not in doubt: “your bottom line budget is what you voted” (0:09:49), and the reallocation the board asked for is expressly bottom-line-neutral (1:04:24): “All you’re doing is reallocating the credit across the debits.” The condition originates in FY24, before the current business administrator arrived in July 2023, and she raised it herself, unprompted, in the first ten minutes of the hearing rather than leaving it to be found. A board member put the right test on it at 1:06:36: “More credibility to have that correctly allocated.”

Sources: RSA 32:5, IV (2023 codification — comparative columns); Claremont School Board Budget Memo 1.3.24 (packet); Updated Claremont School District Budget 12.20.23 (packet).

MEDIUM Every act of this meeting was taken by consensus rather than by motion, so the minutes name no mover, no seconder and no vote — including the approval of the previous meeting’s minutes and the one budget decision of the night

What happened. Three things were disposed of. The agenda and the 20 December minutes were approved by silence (0:42:45): “Is there any request for changes to the agenda or changes to the minutes as written? Seeing none. We’ll close that part of the meeting.” The reallocation of the $688,426.17 line was directed the same way (1:06:31): “I think we have consensus. If nobody objects, we can document everyone.” And the meeting ended the same way (1:33:12): “There’s no objection to adjourning there.” The approved minutes faithfully record all three as consent: “consent to approve both the agenda and minutes”, “Mary Henry will amend and reallocate the ‘board voted expense reductions for FY24’ item for Friday”, and “Consent to adjourn”.

The rule, correctly dated. RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes to include “the names of members who made or seconded each motion”. That clause has been in force since 2018, 244:1, effective 1 January 2019 — it is not, as is sometimes assumed, a recent addition — so it bound this board. The paragraph was separately amended by 2023, 188:1, effective 3 October 2023, which is the codification that applies to a January 2024 meeting; the further requirements added by 2025, 112:1 (start time, end time, who produced the minutes) do not apply and are not raised here.

The honest reading. A public body may act by unanimous consent, and where no motion is made there is no mover to record; the minutes are accurate. The concern is what the public record then contains: on a night at which a budget of $36,313,407.97 was before the board, no member is recorded as having proposed, seconded or voted for anything at all. Two features sharpen it. The district’s own practice treats these as votes — its agenda of 20 December labels the identical item “Consent Agenda (vote required)”, and on that night the same items carried named movers and seconders. And the decision taken by consensus here was not trivial: it directed the business administrator to redistribute $688,426.17 across the FY25 budget document before the Finance Committee met two days later, on a figure she said she “would never go back and make that kind of an adjustment to a budget without asking you permission to do so first” (1:03:19).

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (mover/seconder clause in force from 2018, 244:1, eff. 1 Jan. 2019; paragraph as amended 2023, 188:1, eff. 3 Oct. 2023); approved minutes, 3 January 2024; draft minutes, 20 December 2023 (packet).

MEDIUM The board approved, without amendment, minutes recording a 50-year seal of nonpublic minutes with no statutory finding on the record — three months after the law began requiring those minutes to be reviewed within ten years

What was approved here. The 20 December 2023 minutes, approved at 0:42:45 with no correction, record a nonpublic session entered at 6:39 p.m. under RSA 91-A:3, II(a) and (c) and left at 9:08 p.m. — two hours twenty-nine minutes — followed by: “Frank Sprague made a motion to seal the minutes of the non-public session for 50 years, Heather Whitney seconded; roll call vote taken by Noelle Kronberg, all present voting yes.” The mover, seconder and method are all recorded, which is more than many minutes in this corpus manage.

What is missing. RSA 91-A:3, III allows minutes to be withheld only where the body determines by a recorded two-thirds vote that divulgence would adversely affect the reputation of a person other than a member of the body, render the proposed action ineffective, or pertain to terrorism. The minutes record the vote; they record no such determination and no numeric tally. With five members present, “all present voting yes” satisfies two-thirds arithmetically, so the defect is the absent finding, not the majority.

And the ten-year point. RSA 91-A:3, IV was added by 2023, 189:1, effective 3 October 2023 — eleven weeks before that seal. It requires a public body, absent an adopted review procedure, to review sealed minutes and vote by majority whether the RSA 91-A:3, III circumstances still apply, and provides that the review “shall occur no more than 10 years from the last time the public body voted to prevent the minutes from being subject to public disclosure”. A 50-year seal is not thereby unlawful, but the label overstates the period for which the board may leave those minutes unexamined by a factor of five, and nothing in either set of minutes shows the board adopting a review procedure or fixing a review date. (Care is owed on the source: 2023, 189:1 amended RSA 91-A:3 and is the origin of ¶IV; 2023, 188:1 amended RSA 91-A:2. Both took effect 3 October 2023 and are easily crossed.)

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, III and IV (¶IV added 2023, 189:1, eff. 3 Oct. 2023); draft minutes, 20 December 2023 (packet); approved minutes, 20 December 2023.

MEDIUM The two totals the whole hearing existed to disclose appear in no document anywhere — and the only record of the default budget is one spoken sentence in which the recognizer transposed it

What the law required to be disclosed. RSA 32:5, II: “All purposes and amounts of appropriations to be included in the budget or special warrant articles shall be disclosed or discussed at the final hearing.” RSA 40:13, XI(a): “The default budget shall be disclosed and presented for questions and discussion at the first budget hearing held pursuant to RSA 32:5 or RSA 197:6.”

What the written record holds. The proposed total, $36,313,407.97, appears in the packet on the summary page and as the grand total of the line-item budget. The default budget appears in no packet document at all — the business administrator opened the item by saying so (0:27:16): “Over default, which I didn’t pass out to you?” and (0:27:30): “I know you guys don’t have it in front of you yet.” And the approved minutes state neither total. They record only the difference: “Currently the proposed budget is $406,634 more than the default budget.” So do the 20 December minutes that sent the budget here: “Frank Sprague made a motion to move the budget forward to the hearing phase, Jennifer Gallagher seconded… Vote on the motion: unanimously approved” — with no dollar figure in the motion. A citizen reading every set of minutes in this sequence would never learn either number.

The one place the default budget survives, and what is wrong with it. At 0:29:01 the transcript reads: “So our projected default budget would be 35,000,960 774, but the proposed budget is 36 million. The one we have in front of us that I spoke about earlier is 36,000,313 408, which means right now our proposed budget is 406,634 over default.” The default figure as rendered, $35,960,774, is a 906/960 transposition of $35,906,774, and the sentence proves its own correction twice. The FY24 base she gave at 0:27:30 is $34,880,312; the net increase she gave one clause earlier is $1,026,462; $34,880,312 + $1,026,462 = $35,906,774. And $36,313,408 − $35,906,774 = $406,634, the gap she states in the same breath, while the transcript’s own figure would give $352,634 and match nothing. The recognizer agrees: that one numeral carries confidence 0.65 and a 2.28-second duration, against confidence 1.00 on “774”, on “36,000,313” and on “406,634”. $35,906,774 is also the default budget printed on the March 2024 ballot and read into the record at the 3 February 2024 deliberative session. This page quotes the figure as the transcript has it and brackets the correction; it does not silently repair the number.

Why MEDIUM and not higher. Both totals were disclosed orally and both were open to question, which is what ¶II and XI(a) ask for on their face; the vice chair questioned the default at 0:44:47 and 0:45:39 and got answers. The concern is durability, not concealment: the district’s permanent public record of its own statutory budget hearing contains neither of the two numbers the hearing was held to present, and the default budget for FY25 exists in the public record of this meeting only as a machine transcription of one sentence.

Sources: RSA 32:5, II (2023 codification — purposes and amounts disclosed or discussed at the final hearing); RSA 40:13, XI(a) (default budget disclosed and presented for questions at the first budget hearing); approved minutes, 3 January 2024; approved minutes, 20 December 2023; dialogue file and the diarized transcript’s word-level confidences.

OBSERVATION The board adopted a budget $196,001.10 lower fourteen days later, with no further hearing — which RSA 32:5, I expressly contemplates, and which this hearing foreshadowed in direction but never in amount

The arithmetic. On 20 December 2023 the board moved $36,313,407.97 to the hearing phase. That is the figure disclosed here. On 17 January 2024 Candace Crawford — absent from this hearing — moved “The school board approve a budget for fiscal year 25 of $36,117,406.87”, which is $196,001.10 less. No second public hearing was held between the two, and none was required to be.

Why that is lawful, stated first. RSA 32:5, I reads: “The governing body, or the budget committee if there is one, shall hold at least one public hearing on each budget, not later than 25 days before each annual or special meeting, public notice of which shall be given at least 7 days in advance, and after the conclusion of public testimony shall finalize the budget to be submitted to the legislative body.” The statute puts finalisation after the hearing, not at it. Read with ¶I, ¶II’s duty to disclose “all purposes and amounts” at the final hearing cannot mean that the figure is fixed there; it targets purposes and amounts that were never put to the public at all. A reduction distributed across lines already walked through at the hearing is the case ¶I is written for. And the voters get a further bite: under RSA 40:13 the deliberative session of 3 February 2024 could amend the figure on the floor.

What this hearing did and did not tell the public. It told them the direction. The chair said the Finance Committee “didn’t feel like we could officially endorse the budget as proposed” (0:43:15); the business administrator opened with “this is not the final budget. It is up to the school board to determine the final budget” (0:02:33); the vice chair said what he was aiming at (1:05:41): “I would like based on what you said tonight, if we can get as close to that, the default number without really affecting the budget in any way.” It did not tell them the amount, and none of the $196,001.10 was decided here: the only decision taken was the reallocation, which the business administrator said twice changes nothing (1:04:24): “You’re still not changing your bottom line.” The reduction was worked out at the Finance Committee session of 5 January, where Crawford put the choice as “are you okay with the 36 million 318. Or do you want to see that reduced to 36188?” against her own benchmark “I multiply the 34,000 times 1.0375. I get 36188” — and the board then went below even that, landing at 3.55 per cent over FY24 rather than 3.75.

Sources: RSA 32:5, I (2023 codification — hearing 25 days out, 7 days’ notice, budget finalised after public testimony); RSA 40:13 (official ballot referendum; first session may amend); Budget Summary FY25 (packet); project dialogue files for the Finance Committee session of 5 January 2024 and the board meeting of 17 January 2024.

OBSERVATION Two numbers were given to the public that the record cannot support — a tax impact that differs fourfold depending on which sentence you read, and a class-size research finding with no source

The tax impact. The vice chair asked the question a taxpayer would ask (0:29:51): “Is 406,000 on the tax rate? What is that sense per?” The business administrator could not find her sheet — “Let me pull up my spreadsheet, Frank, because I want to make sure I have it right. Okay. Didn’t we say it was. Is it $0.08?” — and later, “I can’t believe I can’t find it. I think it usually could put my finger right on those things” (0:31:33). Two answers went onto the record in eight seconds. At 0:31:06: “So it would be so yeah $0.08 per thousand.” At 0:31:13: “Yeah. Would be $32 on 100,000.” These cannot both be true. $32 on $100,000 is 32 cents per thousand, four times eight cents; eight cents per thousand would put the figure at $8 on $100,000. The approved minutes take the second: “Would be approximately 32 cents per thousand”. That is the arithmetically coherent one — it is the figure that follows from $32 per $100,000 — but the public in the room, had there been any, heard the other one first and heard it agreed to by two board members (“It’s roughly eight”, “It’s eight”). No rule requires a tax-impact statement for an operating budget, which is why this is an observation rather than a flag against a statute; it is recorded because the tax rate is the number the hearing exists to let people react to.

The class-size window. Asked whether moving a class from 18 to 16 changes anything, the assistant superintendent answered with a research claim (1:18:40): “There’s a window of between 12 and low 20s that has no impact. Okay. Below 12 and above that low 20s number is when you start to see impact okay.” No study, author, jurisdiction or date is named for that window here or anywhere in the seven-document packet, and no board member asked for one. The claim is doing real work in the record: it is the answer to the only question anyone asked about whether the schedule change harms students. This page reports it as the speaker’s characterization, not as a finding.

Sources: approved minutes, 3 January 2024; dialogue file. No rule is cited because none applies; both items are recorded as observations.

OBSERVATION The public heard the $406,634 gap to the default budget but never heard the $1,433,096.26 increase over the current year — the larger number by more than three times

The packet’s summary page prints both, in the same row: FY24 appropriated $34,880,311.71, FY25 proposed $36,313,407.97, increase $1,433,096.26, 4.11%. A text search of the dialogue file for 4.11, percent and 3.75 returns nothing: neither the percentage increase nor the dollar increase over the current year is spoken at any point in ninety-three minutes. What is spoken, repeatedly, is the $406,634 gap to the default — at 0:29:01, 0:29:34, 0:29:51 and 0:44:56. Those are different questions: the gap to default measures what a “no” vote would cost the schools, while the increase over FY24 measures what a “yes” vote would cost the taxpayer.

This is an observation, not a defect. RSA 32:5, II requires amounts to be “disclosed or discussed”, and the increase was disclosed — it is in the packet document that was on the table and is in the district’s public Drive folder. It is recorded because a member of the public watching this hearing on Channel 8, with no packet in front of them, would have come away knowing the gap to the default and not knowing the year-over-year increase. The comparison surfaces two days later at the 5 January Finance Committee session, where Crawford derives a 3.75 per cent benchmark from the teachers’ contract and works out $36,188,324 from it.

Sources: RSA 32:5, II (2023 codification); Budget Summary FY25 (packet); dialogue file.

OBSERVATION Twenty minutes of public-comment opportunity were scheduled against a thirty-minute statutory floor — and nobody came, so nothing turns on it

The rule. RSA 189:74, in force since 2022, 333:1, effective 6 September 2022, requires a school board to “provide the opportunity for the public to comment on school district matters at a meeting of the school board held under RSA 91-A:2” and provides that “The public comment period shall be for no less than 30 minutes.” Emergency meetings and meetings held solely for nonpublic session are excepted; neither exception applies here.

What the agenda scheduled. The hearing agenda allots 6:45 to 7:00 p.m. — fifteen minutes — and the board-meeting agenda 7:10 to 7:15 p.m. — five minutes. Twenty minutes in total, against a thirty-minute floor.

Why this is graded as an observation and nothing more. The statute’s text does not settle whether the thirty minutes is a floor on the opportunity offered or on elapsed time, and this page does not assert a violation on an unsettled reading. Decisively, nobody was turned away. The room was empty: the chair offered the floor at 0:41:49 and closed the hearing “because we have a vacant room”, the approved minutes record “No members of the public present for comment” and “None”, and the chair offered a substitute route at 1:23:50: “please just email one of the members of the subcommittee”. Where nobody attends, a scheduled fifteen minutes and a scheduled thirty minutes produce the same public comment: none.

A related record gap, noted here rather than as its own flag. The chair asks at 1:30:47 whether the Ad Hoc Disruptive Behaviors subcommittee met that day; it had been cancelled. RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) defines “public body” to include “[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” — the trailing clause is the operative one and is often quoted truncated. All four of the district’s subcommittee Drive folders (Capital Improvement, Claremont Policy Sub Committee, Curriculum Committee, Ad Hoc SAU Exploratory Subcommittee), created 27 October 2022, hold no files at all, so no notice, agenda or minutes for any board subcommittee is published there. The Finance Committee is the exception that proves the point, and it is covered by flag 15.

Sources: RSA 189:74 (2022, 333:1, eff. 6 Sept. 2022 — 30-minute public comment period); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (subcommittees are public bodies); agenda, 3 January 2024; approved minutes, 3 January 2024.

OBSERVATION The chair offered the floor to a man in the room, the transcript records “Yes. Yeah.”, and the hearing closed — a discrepancy this page cannot resolve and a reader should check against the video

What the transcript has. At 0:41:49, in one unbroken passage: “I think we may want to officially close the public hearing. Did you have any interest in, sir, in making a comment? Yes. Yeah. So I’m going to I’m going to because we have a vacant room. I’m going to officially close the public hearing.” The word-level record shows “comment?” ending at 2519.22 s, “Yes.” beginning 0.09 s later at confidence 1.00 and lasting 0.43 s, “Yeah.” a second after that at confidence 0.64, then a 1.44-second gap before the chair resumes with “So”. That shape — a sub-second fragment separated from the preceding words by about ninety milliseconds — is the signature this project’s notes record for a different speaker’s onset being clipped into a neighbouring cluster.

What the minutes have. “No members of the public present for comment, moving into the regular board meeting.”

Why this page does not decide it. The whole passage sits inside a single diarized speaker cluster, and this diarizer is documented in the project’s own notes as absorbing short off-microphone responses into a neighbouring speaker’s segment — so “Yes. Yeah.” may be an answer from the floor swallowed into the chair’s turn, or may be the chair’s own filler as she reads the room. The phrase “because we have a vacant room” and the minutes both point the same way, and the most likely reading is that the person addressed was staff or crew rather than a member of the public. But the page cannot say who said “Yes”, and it will not guess. The whole exchange lasts under two seconds, and it is the only moment in ninety-three minutes at which anyone in the room was offered the floor; a reader with two minutes can settle it from the video at 0:41:49.

Sources: dialogue file and the diarized transcript’s word-level timings and confidences; approved minutes, 3 January 2024.

OBSERVATION The $420,000 of retained fund balance was mentioned only as a tax-rate footnote — the rule that it cannot be spent without its own noticed public hearing was raised two weeks after this one

What was said here. At 0:33:19, in the middle of the tax-rate discussion: “This year we only returned $316,566 back to the taxpayers on unassigned fund balance. You held 420.” Nothing further is said about the retained money, and the approved minutes fold it into “historical amount that had to be raised/was returned”.

The rule. RSA 198:4-b, II, last amended 2020, 38:25 and therefore stable for this meeting, lets a district retain year-end unassigned general funds up to 5 per cent of the current fiscal year’s net assessment, and provides that “Prior to expending retained general funds, the school board shall hold a prior public hearing”, notice of which must be published in a newspaper at least seven days beforehand.

Why it is an observation. Nothing was expended, so nothing was done wrong. This is recorded because the statutory budget hearing is the natural place for a district to tell its voters that it is holding $420,000 of their money and what it must do before using it, and that did not happen. The district got there on its own: at the meeting of 17 January 2024 the same business administrator tells the board “I would suggest that the board look at that 420,000 and having a public hearing, which is what you need to do to be able to use that money that you held from fiscal year 23 to help offset the tax rate this year.” That is the correct statement of the rule, made fourteen days after this hearing.

Sources: RSA 198:4-b, II (2023 codification; last amended 2020, 38:25, eff. 27 Sept. 2020); RSA 198:4-b at gc.nh.gov; project dialogue file for the board meeting of 17 January 2024.

POSITIVE The hearing was held thirty-one days before the annual meeting’s first session, and the default budget was disclosed and genuinely questioned — both statutory duties met

Timing. RSA 32:5, I requires the hearing “not later than 25 days before each annual or special meeting”. Claremont School District votes under RSA 40:13, so the annual meeting’s first session is the deliberative session; the district fixed it for 3 February 2024, snow date 10 February, which falls in the window RSA 40:13, III sets for a first session. From 3 January to 3 February is 31 days — six clear days inside the limit, and 69 days before the 12 March ballot. The date was also announced in open session on 20 December, fourteen days ahead, and printed in the approved minutes of that meeting under “Future Dates”. One limb is not verifiable from the record: ¶I also requires public notice of the hearing “at least 7 days in advance”, and no posted notice for this hearing exists in the packet folder. Its absence from a packet is not evidence it was not posted; the point is simply that the seven-day notice cannot be confirmed from the documents the district published.

Default-budget disclosure. RSA 40:13, XI(a) requires that “The default budget shall be disclosed and presented for questions and discussion at the first budget hearing held pursuant to RSA 32:5 or RSA 197:6.” It was, and not perfunctorily. The business administrator walked the derivation in public: the FY24 base at 0:27:30, total reductions of $3,445,245 and the contractual additions at 0:28:22, the resulting totals and the gap at 0:29:01. She then took three separate lines of questioning on it — the tax consequence (0:29:51), why the board does not simply adopt the default (0:44:47), and whether the default moves when the proposed budget moves (0:45:39). The last of these produced a correction of a board member’s standing misunderstanding, on camera (0:46:22): “that default budget is going to stay at what it is right now.” The one blemish is documentary: the handout had not been circulated, and no default-budget document is in the packet — see flag 5.

Sources: RSA 32:5, I (2023 codification); RSA 40:13, III and XI(a) (2023 codification; section last amended 2019, 192:2, eff. 10 July 2019); approved minutes, 20 December 2023.

POSITIVE The comparative columns the statute requires are there, and there are more of them than it asks for

RSA 32:5, IV requires the budget to show appropriations voted by the previous annual meeting, actual expenditures made pursuant to them, and what is now recommended. The packet’s line-item budget carries four historical columns plus two derived ones on every one of its 55 pages — “Actual Exp FY 21-22”, “Actual Exp FY 22-23”, “Budget FY 23-24”, “Proposed FY 24-25”, “Increase -Decrease” and “Percentage Increase - Decrease” — down to individual object codes, and it is timestamped “Printed: 12/20/2023”. The summary page repeats the same six columns at function level, so a reader can move between the overview and the detail. Both were published in the district’s public Drive folder before the hearing.

Two qualifications, for accuracy. The FY24 column is headed “Budget” and “Appropriated” rather than estimated expenditures, so it answers the first limb of ¶IV and not the second for the current year; and that same column is the one distorted by the unallocated $688,426.17 discussed in flag 2. The form is right. What is in one cell of it is not.

Sources: RSA 32:5, IV (2023 codification — comparative columns); Updated Claremont School District Budget 12.20.23 (packet); Budget Summary FY25 (packet).

POSITIVE The administration surfaced its own inherited accounting problems at the hearing, unprompted, instead of letting them be found

Three corrections were volunteered from the table before any board member asked. The $688,426.17 unallocated expense reduction, raised in the first ten minutes with the plain admission “This was uploaded before my time” and “it’s really skewing some of our district wide numbers” (0:08:29, 0:09:49). An ESL teacher miscoded to district-wide regular salaries and moved to the right function (0:10:28): “This should be a function, a 1260 function, which is for state reporting.” A district-wide year-round secretary budgeted in the wrong entity (0:12:23): “it was budgeted in the saw last year and it should have been budgeted or anyways, it belongs in Claremont.” A fourth, the Title I split on a social worker moving from a 90/10 allocation to 100 per cent general fund, is in the packet memo and is described at 0:07:26.

None of these was flattering to the office presenting them, all three predate the current business administrator’s arrival in July 2023, and each was described in enough detail for a board member to test it — which the vice chair proceeded to do for twenty minutes. When the board asked for the largest of them to be fixed she set the condition that it not be done quietly (1:03:19): “I would never go back and make that kind of an adjustment to a budget without asking you permission to do so first.” That is the behaviour a public budget process is supposed to produce.

Sources: Claremont School Board Budget Memo 1.3.24 (packet); dialogue file. Recorded as good practice, not as compliance with any rule.

POSITIVE Every Finance Committee working session was televised and archived that year, and a board member says on the record that it worked

The chair, at 0:43:40: “I want to remind the board and to communicate to the public as well that this year we are televising, recording and televising all of our finance subcommittee meetings for complete and utter transparency. So we do encourage the community members to pop some popcorn.” And at 0:44:18: “the board two can take time and view that. And so when we come back on the 17th, you may have had some of the questions that you thought you had answered by watching those, those recordings.” A subcommittee is a public body under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) and so must be noticed and minuted, but nothing in RSA 91-A requires a public body to broadcast or record its meetings. Doing it for every working session of the committee that builds the budget goes well beyond the statutory minimum, and the corpus bears it out: the finance sessions of 30 November and 1, 6, 13 and 18 December 2023 all have recordings.

It is not a substitute for the records the law does require, and the page says so: the 13 December session, the last before the budget went to the full board, has no agenda, no packet and no minutes in any district share — see the companion page for that meeting — and a recording is not minutes. But the practice had a measurable effect on this meeting. Arlene Hawkins, who does not sit on the committee, at 1:31:33: “those televised meetings were so helpful to be able to watch and to see and to feel like we’re knowing what’s happening. And the questions that you have developed and asked have been very helpful and informative.” The second hour of this meeting is the board briefing its own committee, in public, two days before that committee met.

Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d); RSA 91-A:2, II; dialogue file.

POSITIVE The ESSER cliff was planned for a full budget cycle before it arrived, position by position, in public

The deadline. ARP ESSER (ESSER III) funds had to be obligated by 30 September 2024, with a regulatory liquidation date of 28 January 2025 absent an approved extension — the mechanism being the Tydings period at 20 U.S.C. §1225(b), under which federal education formula funds remain available for obligation one additional fiscal year. FY25 was the first Claremont budget with no ESSER money behind it.

What this budget does about it. The packet’s presentation deck states the policy as a board budget priority: “‘Sunset’ additional staff funded by Federal ESSER positions… Evaluate and fund positions still necessary for the academic, social-emotional, and overall well-being for students”, noting that the programmes “were funded outside the local budget by using Federal ESSER Funds that sunset at the end of September, 2024” at an estimated additional FY25 impact of $0.00 because the retained ones were already built into school budgets. The hearing then went through it line by line: positions kept and moved onto the tax base — a board-certified behaviour analyst at $109,521 and professional-development coaches at $208,388 (0:10:090:11:46) — and positions let go: two academic deans, an English teacher, three behavioural support specialists, two campus monitors, a staff accountant and a grant specialist. The business administrator named the trade for the public at 0:06:38: “all these next ones that I’m going to list were funded by Esser”, with the caution that it is “more of a it’s a restructure”. The assistant superintendent applied the same discipline to a post he wanted (0:55:46): “It was Esser funded, but that money is running out and we didn’t want to stretch the budget, increase too much and and ask for a third position.”

Nine months before the obligation deadline, the district could name every ESSER-funded position, say which it was keeping and at what cost, and defend the choice in open session. That is not the common pattern in this corpus.

Sources: 20 U.S.C. §1225(b) (Tydings Amendment); U.S. Dept. of Education, Updated Technical FAQs for Liquidation Extensions, 9 January 2024 (ARP obligation deadline 30 Sept. 2024; regulatory liquidation date 28 Jan. 2025); Claremont School District Budget Presentation UPDATE 1.3.24 (packet); Claremont School Board Budget Memo 1.3.24 (packet).

Appendix — source files

Official and public sources

Project files

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

Laws and rules cited on this page