Claremont School Board — March 20, 2024 | The organizational meeting, and the year’s roster

Participants

Everyone in the record. Attendance and the spelling of every board name come from the district’s **approved minutes of 20 March 2024**; roles come from the agenda masthead, which prints the board, the school board clerk, the two student board members and the SAU 6 central-office administration. Segment and word counts are from the dialogue file (709 rows, 18,134 words). Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell to read the full text.
Name	Role	Participation
Heather Whitney	Chair, Claremont School Board (re-elected at this meeting); member, Finance Committee	208 segments, 6,168 words, 34.0 per cent — a third of everything said. She takes the gavel at 0:01:59 and runs the rest of the night. She puts the vice-chair nomination (0:02:02), thanks the board for the chair’s office — “And thank you for the privilege of letting me serve as chair again. It’s it’s really a privilege” (0:02:46) — disposes of the consent agenda without a vote (0:04:18), opens and closes citizens’ comments inside half a minute (0:04:18 to 0:04:43), moves the SAFE grant herself (0:07:55), moves the tuition agreements herself (1:16:13), reads out every subcommittee appointment (1:24:35 onward), introduces and moves the by-laws (1:29:16, 1:40:07), and adjourns by consent (2:09:02). She is not Whitney Skillen, a different member of this board whose first name is Whitney and who was absent.
Chris Pratt	Interim Superintendent, SAU 6 — presides over the election of officers	76 segments, 3,154 words, 17.4 per cent. Board policy BDA makes the superintendent the presiding officer of an organizational meeting “during and until the election of a Chairperson”, and he does exactly that: he calls the meeting to order (0:00:04), frames the business — “This is the first the vote for reorganization that we need to vote on a chair and a vice chair” (0:00:32) — opens nominations, speaks in the discussion, puts the question, and hands over with “Here’s your gavel” (0:01:58). He then gives a superintendent’s report he says is thirty-two pages long (0:11:16), and later intervenes in the by-laws debate to argue for a two-year chair term: “board chairs can, you know, they can make a break, a superintendent or an office” (1:54:23). See flag 16.
Christine Baker	Principal, Bluff Elementary School	74 segments, 2,222 words, 12.3 per cent. The first of two elementary principals, introduced at 0:27:23 after the chair notes that “Miss Miss Lewis is unable to attend”. Her presentation runs 0:27:33 to 0:41:07: the school’s mission statement, the DESSA social-emotional screener — “31% of our students are showing gaps in one or more of the competencies” (0:29:07), “31% is the equivalent of 55 students in our school” (0:29:55) — monthly culture assemblies, a school chant she wrote, biweekly data meetings, and the food-security work: “We have grocery bag, we have between 40 and 50 grocery bags that go home with students every week to help support food needs” (0:32:26). Her slide deck is not in the packet (flag 10).
Mark Blount	Principal, Maple Avenue Elementary School	58 segments, 2,214 words, 12.2 per cent. The second principal, introduced at 0:46:51. His is the only principal’s report actually in the packet. He sets out the two school goals — “it’s focused 100% on literacy and math, and that our expectation is that students are going to make 100% gains” (0:48:30) — the biweekly Academic Data Team structure he facilitates himself, the data sources, and then answers the chair on the third-grade decline (1:09:32). On attendance he is blunt: “Sure is. And there’s a direct correlation” (1:02:49).
Candace Crawford	Claremont School Board member (re-elected 12 March 2024); Finance, Capital Improvement and SRVRTC Visioning committees	97 segments, 1,581 words, 8.7 per cent. She nominates Frank Sprague as vice chair (0:02:09), questions both principals at length, and is the only member to take the by-laws apart clause by clause — on section 3 (1:45:54), the clerk’s duties (1:48:37), the appendices (1:49:52) and the two-thirds majority, which she moves to strike: “may I make, a motion to amend the policies to remove reference to the two thirds majority” (1:52:16). She also makes the night’s sharpest public point, on attendance: “I’m frustrated to hear you say that, but I also think it’s extremely important for the public to hear that attendance is an issue” (1:03:41).
Mary Henry	Business Administrator, SAU 6	19 segments, 658 words, 3.6 per cent. Her financial update opens with an apology that the document never reached the board’s folders: “You guys don’t have a copy of this in your in your folder. I apologize for that” (1:20:07). The figures therefore exist only as speech: “we had $669,000 left” at the end of February (1:20:59), a year-end surplus “right around a million, maybe a little bit more” (1:21:34), a spending pause in mid-April, and interest income year to date of $63,000 (1:23:37). She also intervenes in the by-laws debate to defend the two-thirds threshold (1:55:34).
Frank Sprague	Vice chair, Claremont School Board (re-elected at this meeting); chair, Finance Committee; NHSBA delegate; joins Capital Improvement; steps down from SRVRTC Visioning	33 segments, 553 words, 3.0 per cent. He nominates Heather Whitney for chair — “To nominate Heather Whitney. Continue as chair” (0:00:51) — and speaks for her: “I will say that she’s done an exemplary job. She’s been a terrific leader” (0:01:01). In the SAFE-grant discussion he reports on the Capital Improvement Committee’s visit to Maple Avenue (0:08:26), and returns to it later with the custodian story (1:07:31) — the two turns that put a subcommittee meeting on the record (flag 3). He seconds the by-laws motion (1:40:24).
Arlene Hawkins	Claremont School Board member; chair of the SAU 6 joint board; Policy subcommittee; Curriculum Committee representative	53 segments, 522 words, 2.9 per cent. She asks the one question that establishes the SAFE money is not yet in hand — “Has this funding been.” / “Already granted to us or we’re still pending the state approval.” (0:10:31) — moves the lead-remediation grant (1:12:40) and has to be helped to word it (1:13:41), seconds the tuition agreements with “I’ll second” (1:16:33) the minutes name no seconder for that motion, and presses the Goshen agreement on which district is party to it (1:18:13). She chairs the SAU 6 board while Whitney chairs this one, so “the chair” means different people depending on which body is meeting.
Mike Koski	Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, Innovation & Assessment, SAU 6	34 segments, 517 words, 2.9 per cent. He presents both grants. On the SAFE grant: “So this is a grant to secure school buildings, provide surveillance cameras, harden entryways” (0:05:37), and the sentence that ties the money to the minutes — “We have to send in the minutes from this meeting to the state and then the the funds will become available” (0:10:38). On lead he interrupts his own item to reassure the board: “If we run that water from those sinks, the lead amount disappears… So just so children are safe. Nobody’s getting lead poisoned from water in the school” (1:12:44). He and the superintendent both describe the standard as parts per million; the district’s own exhibit and the statute say parts per billion (flag 12).
Michael Petrin	Claremont School Board member, returning (elected 12 March 2024); rejoins the Policy subcommittee, joins SRVRTC Visioning	26 segments, 204 words, 1.1 per cent. His first words back on the board are “So I’m new we’re back again” (0:09:32). He asks the SAFE grant’s only forward-looking question, about recurring software and key-fob costs (0:09:36); recalls the city’s earlier lead work — “We had a lead committee. Charlene Lovett headed it up” (1:14:21); and asks how tuitioned-in students would be assigned to schools (1:17:29). He was off this board for a year and is the only member whose seat changed hands at the election.
Jeff Small	Director of Technology, SAU 6	5 segments, 145 words, 0.8 per cent. Called on twice during the SAFE-grant hearing. He describes the fob and camera work (0:06:50) and answers Petrin on recurring cost: “anytime you had a camera, you have to buy a license in. The license is as good as the camera, so there’s no renewal cost on that” (0:09:57).
Bonnie Miles	Claremont School Board member; chair, Capital Improvement Committee; SRVRTC Visioning	6 segments, 96 words, 0.5 per cent — the least of any member present. She answers the roll (0:03:09), confirms she raised the unlocked-doors point on the Maple Avenue visit (0:08:45), and speaks once at length about the art teacher seen on that visit (1:08:05). The approved minutes credit her with seconding three separate motions — the vice-chair nomination, the SAFE grant and the NHSBA delegate — and the recording carries none of them (flag 5).
Noelle Kronberg	School Board Clerk	17 segments, 90 words, 0.5 per cent. She calls the roll after the officers are elected (0:03:04) and reads each motion back before the vote at the chair’s request: “The motion to accept $462,328 from the Safe grant to be applied as presented by Mr. Kosky” (0:10:56) and “A motion to accept the lead remediation grant” (1:14:53) — the second of which contains no amount. She produced both sets of minutes. The by-laws under debate would rewrite her office’s duties and cite the district clerk’s election statutes as their authority (flag 9).
Whitney Skillen	Claremont School Board member; chair, Policy subcommittee — absent	No segments. Recorded absent in the approved minutes and never heard. She is nonetheless the subject of two decisions taken in her absence: she is continued as chair of the Policy subcommittee, and she comes off the Capital Improvement Committee, the chair explaining that “her obligations will not allow her to attend the number of meetings that are required” (1:25:31). The speech recognizer renders her name three different ways inside forty seconds — Miss Gillen, Miss Whitney Scullin, Miss Whitney Gillan — and a fourth in the roll call.
Unidentified	Voices this page will not name	3 segments, 10 words, 0.1 per cent. One of them matters: the single word that seconds the nomination of Heather Whitney as chair (0:00:56) cannot be separated from the room, and this page does not name it. The approved minutes say Arlene Hawkins seconded. The other two are a suggestion of a Google form during the retreat scheduling (2:03:37) and a closing remark after the gavel (2:09:13).

Agenda

An official agenda was posted and is in the packet: CSB Agenda 3.20.24.docx (3).pdf the doubled extension and the “(3)” are the district’s own file name, posted to Drive on Friday 15 March 2024. Quotations in the third column marked as agenda or minutes text are from those documents, not from the recording. Scheduled clock times are left as plain text; a timestamp is a link into the recording. Three things to read off this table. The consent agenda is headed “Consent Agenda (vote required)” and no vote was taken on it. Items 5 and 6 — the delegate and all five subcommittees — are headed “(Nomination/Vote)” and no vote was taken on any of them. And item 7, the by-laws, is headed “(Vote)”; the vote actually taken was to put the question off to the next meeting. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell to read the full text.

Taken up	Item	Agenda text / disposition
6:30 p.m. 0:00:04	I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (Chris Pratt)	Agenda: “I. 6:30 PM Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (Chris Pratt)”. On tape, from the interim superintendent: “Like to call to order the Claremont School Board reorganization and general meeting. I’ll stand for the of allegiance.” the transcript drops a word from the Pledge of Allegiance
6:35 p.m. 0:00:32	II.a Election of Board Officers — Chair	Agenda: “II. 6:35 PM Election of Board Officers (Chris Pratt) a) Chair”. Pratt: “This is the first the vote for reorganization that we need to vote on a chair and a vice chair. Once those positions are voted on, bill, take over the meeting from there. So at this time, I’d like to open up nominations for Voyager.” “Voyager” is the speech recognizer’s rendering of “the chair”; “bill” of “we’ll” Sprague nominates Whitney (0:00:51); one unidentified voice seconds (0:00:56); Sprague, then Pratt, speak in support; the question is put at 0:01:50 and the gavel handed over at 0:01:58. Approved minutes: “Frank Sprague nominated Heather Whitney, Arlene Hawkins seconded”; “Voice vote taken: all present voting in favor”. See flag 5.
0:02:02	II.b Election of Board Officers — Vice Chair	Agenda: “b) Vice Chair”. Whitney, now in the chair: “Now we’re going to be looking for nominations for vice chair. Oh, geez. Okay. Candy.” Crawford: “I nominate Frank Sprague. Vice chair.” (0:02:09). The chair’s next words are “A second now. Discussion.” (0:02:14) and she then speaks for the nominee herself. Question put at 0:02:46. Approved minutes: “Candace Crawford nominated Frank Sprague, Bonnie Miles seconded”; “Discussion: Bonnie Miles and Heather Whitney both spoke in support”. Bonnie Miles is not audible anywhere in this item. See flag 5.
6:40 p.m. 0:03:04	III. General Business — Secretary Roll Call of Attendance	Agenda: “Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members (Board Members who arrive after the meeting begins will be noted as ‘present’ at the point in the agenda at which they arrive)”. The roll is taken after both officers have been elected. It survives as: “Heather Whitney.” / “Present. Sprague.” / “Miles.” / “Here.” / “Beneath. Skilling. Eileen Hopkins. Here and here. Michael. Peter.” / “Here.” “Beneath. Skilling” is Whitney Skillen, “Eileen Hopkins” is Arlene Hawkins, “Michael. Peter.” is Michael Petrin Candace Crawford is not audible in the roll at all, though the minutes record her present and she speaks 97 times. The approved minutes give the authoritative roll: present Whitney, Sprague, Miles, Hawkins, Crawford, Petrin; absent Skillen. The chair then welcomes the returning members (0:03:17).
0:03:45	III. Consent Agenda (vote required) — 1. Amendments and Final Approval of board agenda; 2. Minutes Approval, March 6, 2024	Agenda: “Consent Agenda (vote required) 1. Amendments and Final Approval of board agenda 2. Minutes Approval- March 6, 2024”. The chair reads the rule and then disposes of it: “Is there anyone who wishes to make a motion to move an item for the consent agenda? Seeing no one looking to make a motion. The items on the consent agenda are approved.” (0:04:18). No motion, no second, no vote. Minutes: “No discussion, consent agenda approved”. The document approved is the 3.6.24 draft minutes in this packet — which contain a mislabelled vote (flag 18). See flag 1.
0:04:18	III. Citizens Comments	Agenda: “Citizens Comments”, with no rules printed. The chair states the scope and closes it in one breath: “Now we’re moving on to citizens comments. We will now open the floor to non-agenda items citizens comments per policy BEDH. Is there anyone who is present wishing to speak this evening?” then “Seeing none, we’re going to close citizens comments” (0:04:43). Nobody spoke; the period ran about twenty-five seconds. Minutes: “Citizens Comments- none”. See flag 13.
0:04:43	III. Student Board Member Report — Nicole Bouchard & Kylee Plummer	Agenda: “Student Board Member Report-Nicole Bouchard & Kylee Plummer”. Chair: “We have no student board member report this evening”. Minutes: “not present”. RSA 189:1-c requires at least one nonvoting student member from each public high school; the district names two.
6:45 p.m. 0:04:43	IV. Public Hearing — Appropriation for Unanticipated Funds, SAFE Grant Round 3, $462,328 (Exhibits A–B), Mike Koski (Vote to accept)	Agenda: “Appropriation for Unanticipated Funds Per NH RSA 198:20-b,III, the Claremont School Board will conduct a hearing regarding unanticipated revenue SAFE Grant, Round 3 funds awarded in the amount of $462,328. (Exhibits A-B) Mike Koski, Assistant Superintendent (Vote to accept)”. The chair reads the citation aloud as “RSA 198 colon 20-B, a Roman numeral three” (0:04:43) and states the amount (0:05:11). Koski presents (0:05:37); Small answers on technology (0:06:50); Pratt thanks the principals (0:07:19). Public invited at 0:07:55 — nobody speaks. Chair moves it herself and appears to second it herself in the same breath (0:07:55). Discussion: Sprague on the Maple Avenue visit, Crawford, Petrin, Hawkins. Clerk re-reads the motion (0:10:56); “All in favor, say aye. Seeing none opposed, the motion passes” (0:11:06) — no count. See flags 5 and 11.
7:00 p.m. 0:11:06	V. Closing of Public Hearing	Agenda: “V. 7:00 PM Closing of Public Hearing”. Chair: “the motion passes and we’re closing the public hearing”. The minutes head this “V. 6:42 PM”, replacing the agenda’s scheduled times with actual ones throughout — which is how the record shows the meeting running eighteen minutes ahead of its own clock at this point.
7:05 p.m. 0:11:16	VI. Superintendent Report	Agenda: “VI. 7:05 PM Superintendent Report”. Pratt opens “I have to apologize. Initially, I said the report was 33 pages long. It’s only 32” and gives highlights by school and department, ending with his own professional development and a new social-media account. The thirty-two-page report itself is not in the packet (flag 10). Board questions follow on assessment naming (0:19:30), the enrolment chart (0:24:05), the report’s structure (0:24:32) and third-grade data (0:25:29). Disposition: no vote.
7:10 p.m. 0:26:59	VII.1 Elementary School Principals Presentation (Discussion) (Exhibit C) — Christine Baker, Bluff & Mark Blount, Maple Ave	Agenda: “1. Elementary School Principals Presentation (Discussion) (Exhibit C) Christine Baker, Bluff Elementary & Mark Blount, Maple Ave Elementary”. Ran 0:26:59 to 1:11:23 — forty-four minutes, the longest item of the night by a wide margin, on an agenda that had asked for “Brief, 10 minutes per principals” quoted from the 6 March minutes. Exhibit C is the Maple Avenue report only; Bluff’s deck is not in the packet. Disposition: no vote.
1:11:26	VII.2 Lead Remediation Project (Discussion/Vote) (Exhibit D–E) — Michael Koski	Agenda: “2. Lead Remediation Project (Discussion/Vote) (Exhibit D-E) Michael Koski, Assistant Superintendent”. Exhibit E is not in the packet. Koski presents (1:11:34); the chair asks what the motion should say and is told “just to accept the grant. It has to be in the meeting minutes tonight and we’ll send that in” (1:12:27). Hawkins moves (1:12:40, restated 1:13:41); Sprague asks “Is there a number?” and gets none (1:13:56); Crawford seconds (1:14:01); Petrin recalls the city’s lead committee (1:14:07). Clerk reads back: “A motion to accept the lead remediation grant” (1:14:53). Carried on a voice vote, no count (1:14:58). See flags 2 and 12.
1:14:58	VII.3 Tuition Agreements (Vote/Sign) — a. Croydon (Exhibit F) b. Goshen (Exhibit G)	Agenda: “3. Tuition Agreements (Vote/Sign) Chris Pratt, Interim Superintendent a. Croydon (Exhibit F ) b. Goshen (Exhibit G)”. Neither Exhibit F nor Exhibit G is in the packet, so the agreements the board voted to accept “as written” and to sign are not in the public record. Pratt introduces them (1:15:10); the chair moves them (1:16:13); Hawkins seconds, “I’ll second” (1:16:33); Sprague asks whether counsel vetted them and is told the previous superintendent had it done “through Matt Upton” (1:16:43). Carried, “the motion passes unanimously” (1:19:58) — no count taken. The approved minutes record no seconder. See flags 5 and 10.
1:19:58	VII.4 Business Office Financial Update (Discussion) — Mary Henry	Agenda: “4. Business Office Financial Update (Discussion) Mary Henry, Business Administrator”. No exhibit was listed and none was distributed: “You guys don’t have a copy of this in your in your folder. I apologize for that” (1:20:07). Content: February year-to-date, encumbrances, the surplus estimate, the April spending pause, and interest income. Disposition: no vote. Minutes: “Mary Henry noted that there isn’t much to report this month due to the timing of the last report”.
1:23:14	VII.5 Appointment of NHSBA Delegate (Nomination/Vote)	Agenda: “5. Appointment of NHSBA Delegate (Nomination/Vote)”. On tape the chair nominates and seconds: “Do we need a nomination? I nominate Frank Sprague to be this delegate. I’ll second him. Okay. Do we have any objection to Frank Sprague maintaining his position as New Hampshire school board? No. Seeing rejection.” (1:25:05) “Seeing rejection” is the recognizer’s rendering of “seeing no objection” Approved minutes: “Arlene Hawkins nominated Frank Sprague to continue in the position, Bonnie Miles seconded; no objection”. No vote was taken. See flags 1 and 5.
1:25:31	VII.6 Appointment of School Board Sub-Committee Chairs/Members (Nomination/Vote) — a) Capital Improvement b) Finance c) Policy d) Curriculum e) SRVRTC Visioning	Agenda: “6. Appointment of School Board Sub-Committee Chairs/Members (Nomination/Vote)” with the five committees lettered a–e. The chair reads each in turn — Capital Improvement (1:25:31), Finance (1:26:26), Policy (1:26:54), Curriculum representative (1:27:32), SRVRTC Visioning (1:28:20) — and closes each with a formula: “Is there any objection to Bonnie Miles maintaining her position as chair? Frank Sprague joining the committee and Miss Crawford staying on the committee, seeing no objections. The membership will be as stated.” Five appointments, no motions, no seconds, no votes. Minutes: “no objections” against every one. This is the roster that governs the rest of the year and it is confirmed by the approved minutes of 17 April and 15 May. See flag 1.
1:29:16	VII.7 Approval of the Claremont School Board By-Laws (Vote) (Exhibit H) — presented by Heather Whitney	Agenda: “7. Approval of the Claremont School Board By-Laws (Vote) (Exhibit H) Presented by Heather Whitney”. Exhibit H is twenty pages and reached Drive on 18 March, two days before. The chair explains what by-laws are (1:29:16), gives the drafting history including the ad hoc committee (1:30:18), moves adoption (1:40:07), Sprague seconds (1:40:24), and Crawford takes the document apart. At 2:01:28 the chair converts her own motion: “I would like to… amend my motion to approve, if a, a friendly amendment to, move the motion to be addressed at our next meeting”. Carried on “All in favor say aye” (2:01:56). The by-laws appear on neither the 17 April nor the 15 May agenda. See flags 7, 9 and 15.
8:20 p.m. 2:02:11	VIII. Other Business — set dates for the District Strategic Goal Retreat and the Board Goals Setting Retreat	Agenda: “Set dates for Claremont School District Strategic Goal Retreat and Claremont School Board Goals Setting Retreat”. The chair proposes weekend dates in May or June (2:02:49); Crawford suggests a scheduling poll (2:03:31) and agrees to run it (2:03:59). No date was fixed at the meeting. Minutes: “Board members should respond to Doodle Poll for a May retreat”. The 17 April minutes fix it: “Board retreat will be May 11 from 10:00-11:00 at the Teal Lantern”. See flag 19.
8:25 p.m. 2:04:50	IX. Future Dates / Future Agenda Items	Agenda: seven lettered items, including “March 27th-29th SREB Site Visit” and “April 3, 2024 Claremont School Board Meeting, Review of Pre-Populated Agenda and Financial Calendar, SREA Evaluation Progress Update, Presentation of ESSER balance and suggested allocation.” On tape the chair walks the SREB visit (2:04:50), the May assessment results and the promised public forum (2:05:28), and then the complaint about election publicity raised before the meeting by two members (2:05:53). The 3 April meeting has no packet folder, no recording section and no minutes in this project’s sources (flag 15).
8:30 p.m. 2:09:02	X. Adjournment	Agenda: “X. 8:30 PM Adjournment”. Chair: “Is there any objection to, concluding the meeting? Seeing no objection to adjourn. Thank you everybody.” Minutes: “Adjourned at 8:39”. No motion, no second, no vote — consistent with this board’s practice on adjournment, which the 6 March, 17 April and 15 May minutes all record as “Consent adjournment”.

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. Single-word transcript items are set in italic rather than quotation marks. Quotations from the agenda, the minutes, a packet document, a board policy 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.

Time	Topic	What was said	Flags
0:00:04	The interim superintendent opens the reorganization	Pratt: “Like to call to order the Claremont School Board reorganization and general meeting. I’ll stand for the of allegiance.” Board policy BDA, adopted 2 June 2004, requires exactly this: the organizational meeting “shall be called to order by the Superintendent, who shall preside during and until the election of a Chairperson.” Nobody else is on the recording before the Pledge.	OBSERVATION
0:00:32	Nominations opened for chair — before the roll is called	Pratt: “This is the first the vote for reorganization that we need to vote on a chair and a vice chair. Once those positions are voted on, bill, take over the meeting from there. So at this time, I’d like to open up nominations for Voyager. I’d like.” “Voyager” is the recognizer’s rendering of “the chair”, a garble this project has recorded before on this board; “bill” is “we’ll” Attendance has not yet been taken. The agenda puts the roll call at item III, after both elections.	MEDIUM
0:00:51	Sprague nominates Whitney; one voice seconds	Sprague: “To nominate Heather Whitney. Continue as chair.” A single voice answers at 0:00:56 with one word. That voice cannot be separated from the room and this page does not name it; the approved minutes say Arlene Hawkins seconded. Pratt then says “Second. Any discussion?” (0:00:57).	MEDIUM
0:01:01	Discussion on the chair: the vice chair, then the superintendent	Sprague: “Yes. I’d like to say she. I will say that she’s done an exemplary job. She’s been a terrific leader. And, I’d like to see her good work continue.” Then the interim superintendent, at length: “So there are many, pieces that have been put into action, moving us forward. And I think with her continuing as chair, we will continue to move forward” (0:01:14), and “she’s been very supportive in regards to the superintendent and our offices and the transparency and the reaching out and making checking in and stuff has been phenomenal” (0:01:27). The approved minutes name three speakers in support — Sprague, Hawkins and Pratt. The dialogue file separates only two voices here.	OBSERVATION
0:01:50	The chair is elected on an uncounted voice vote	Pratt puts it in eight words: “All in favor? I opposed graduations.” the recognizer’s rendering of “opposed? abstentions” — the same garble this project has recorded elsewhere on this board No count, no roll, no announced tally. Minutes: “Voice vote taken: all present voting in favor; Heather Whitney will serve as chair”. Gavel handed over at 0:01:58: “Here’s your gavel.”	MEDIUM
0:02:02	Vice chair: nominated by Crawford, and the second is unclear	Whitney: “Now we’re going to be looking for nominations for vice chair. Oh, geez. Okay. Candy.” Crawford: “I nominate Frank Sprague. Vice chair.” (0:02:09). The chair’s next words are “A second now. Discussion.” and she goes straight on to speak for the nominee: “I think there’s a lot of experience. He’s done this before… He also talks me off the ledge” (0:02:14). The question is put at 0:02:46 with “All in favor, say aye”. The approved minutes record Bonnie Miles as the seconder and as a speaker in support; neither is audible.	MEDIUM
0:03:04	The roll call — after the officers are already elected	The clerk reads names and gets partial answers: “Heather Whitney.” / “Present. Sprague.” / “Miles.” / “Here.” / “Beneath. Skilling. Eileen Hopkins. Here and here. Michael. Peter.” / “Here.” The approved minutes supply the authoritative version: six present, Whitney Skillen absent. Candace Crawford does not appear in the roll on tape at all, though she is recorded present and speaks 97 times. *This board answers Present* and Here interchangeably*, and the chair is the one who answers Present*.
0:03:17	The new board is welcomed — and no oath is administered on the record	Whitney: “I would like to welcome reelected or new board members as you were appointed. Miss Crawford and Michael Patron back to the board. And both are experienced and can hit the ground running.” “Michael Patron” is Michael Petrin throughout this recording That is the meeting’s entire treatment of the 12 March election. No election results are reported, no oath of office is administered on tape, and no district office other than the board is mentioned — which matters because the board’s power to fill district-office vacancies under RSA 197:26 runs only “until the next annual meeting of the district”, and that meeting had just been held.	MEDIUM
0:03:45	The consent agenda is approved with no motion and no vote	Whitney reads the rule — “All items on the consent agenda will be accepted or approved without discussion. Unless a motion is made to move a specific item to the regular agenda” — and then disposes of it: “Is there anyone who wishes to make a motion to move an item for the consent agenda? Seeing no one looking to make a motion. The items on the consent agenda are approved” (0:04:18). The district’s own agenda heads the item “Consent Agenda (vote required)”. Nobody moves anything, nobody seconds, no vote is taken or declared. The items were the final agenda and the 6 March minutes.	HIGH
0:04:18	Citizens’ comments open and close in about twenty-five seconds	Whitney: “We will now open the floor to non-agenda items citizens comments per policy BEDH. Is there anyone who is present wishing to speak this evening?” Then, at 0:04:43: “Seeing none, we’re going to close citizens comments.” Nobody was present to speak and nobody was turned away. Policy BEDH, which she cites by name, says in one place that “The Board will provide a minimum of thirty minutes in total to hear all public comments under RSA 189:74” and in another that the chair “will close the public comment period after there is no response”. She applied the second.	MEDIUM
0:04:43	The public hearing opens on $462,328 of SAFE grant money	Whitney reads the authority aloud — “This public hearing portion is for the appropriation of unanticipated funds for New Hampshire. RSA 198 colon 20-B, a Roman numeral three” — and the amount at 0:05:11: “Round three funds awarded in the amount of $462,328.” She also sets out the order of business she intends to follow: presentation, public comment, board comment, motion. The paragraph she cites is the right one, and it carries a notice requirement as well as a hearing requirement.	MEDIUM
0:05:37	What the SAFE money buys, and why it has to be spent fast	Koski: “So this is a grant to secure school buildings, provide surveillance cameras, harden entryways basically secure, make the campuses more secure. Each building applied for their own needs and receive the funds. I believe everything we applied for was accepted.” And the timetable: “We need to expend these funds this year. So it’s going to be a ramped up process.” At 0:06:10: “It took a long time for the state to approve them. And so we found out the end of February.” Small adds the technology detail at 0:06:50 and Pratt thanks the principals at 0:07:19.
0:07:55	The chair moves the grant — and appears to second her own motion	Whitney: “Is there anyone that’s a Claremont resident that would like to speak to the public hearing? Nope. Seeing none, I would like to make a motion to accept, 460 $482,328 03623 $462 328 of the Safe grant to be applied as described per Michael Kosky. Is there a second for that motion? I’ll second that a second. The motion. Is there any discussion?” the recognizer stumbles badly over the figure; the amount in the agenda, the exhibits and the minutes is $462,328 The approved minutes record Bonnie Miles as the seconder. No other voice is audible between the call for a second and the discussion.	MEDIUM
0:08:26	A subcommittee reports a meeting nobody noticed	Sprague, in the grant discussion: “I had the opportunity to tag along with, Bonnie, Bonnie and Candy and I went to Maple, and Mr. Holt was quite familiar with what he was going to be doing. Bonnie, I’m going to quote you. And you were wondering about the possibility of people leaving doors unlocked.” Miles confirms at 0:08:45. Sprague continues at 0:08:46: “I have a lot of confidence after, especially after talking to Mr. Holt, because he had a very good sense of, at least at Maple of how that money would be used quite specifically.” Bonnie Miles chairs the Capital Improvement Committee and Candace Crawford is a member; on the day of the visit the committee had three members. Crawford returns to the same visit at 1:05:02 and names it: “as part of the capital improvements”.	HIGH
0:10:31	Hawkins establishes that the money is not yet in hand	Hawkins: “I just have a quick question. Has this funding been.” / “Already granted to us or we’re still pending the state approval.” Koski: “Right. We have to send in the minutes from this meeting to the state and then the the funds will become available” (0:10:38). That single answer ties $462,328 to the production of these minutes — which were not posted for another twenty-seven days. Both packet exhibits are still headed as pending: Exhibit A says “Pending Governor’s Council Approval January 10, 2024” and Exhibit B is headed “NOT APPROVED - NO GUARANTEE OF AWARDS - PENDING FISCAL AND GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL APPROVAL”.	MEDIUM
0:10:46	The grant is accepted; the clerk reads the motion back	Whitney: “Any more, any more discussions on the board? Okay. I’d like to call the question. All in favor of if you wouldn’t mind while reading the motion?” The clerk reads it: “The motion to accept $462,328 from the Safe grant to be applied as presented by Mr. Kosky” (0:10:56). Whitney: “All in favor, say aye. Seeing none opposed, the motion passes and we’re closing the public hearing” (0:11:06). No count. The board’s draft by-laws would require this read-back: “If a motion on the floor is debated, the clerk shall read the motion back prior to the official vote.” Here the practice runs ahead of the document.	GOOD PRACTICE
0:11:16	The superintendent’s thirty-two-page report, which is not in the packet	Pratt: “I have to apologize. Initially, I said the report was 33 pages long. It’s only 32.” He then reads highlights: an eighth-grade transition night at Stevens, a shelter-in-place drill on 20 February counted toward the year’s ten, a new automotive enrichment block and a dental clinic at the middle school, the SREB consultancy at the technical centre, and department reports. On staffing (0:18:06): “we are in the process of hiring a new director of human resources”; and (0:18:50) “Special education and director of student service hiring community has nominated candidate that will be going to the school board.” “hiring community” is “hiring committee” The report itself is not in the packet folder, so the board’s primary information document for the month is not public.	MEDIUM
0:22:04	The superintendent takes the district onto social media	Pratt: “I started, I signed up and I have a page. So what I’m trying to do is, you know, pretty much bring anyone who chooses to, to follow me and what I’m doing, try to bring you into the day to day operations of what a superintendent does.” He is explicit about students: “There are no kids in the hall and stuff. Anytime I’m doing this stuff, we’re not videotaping kids or anything like that” (0:22:40). An official account created and announced without any board policy discussion; the account name he gives is garbled on the recording and this page does not reproduce it.
0:26:59	Two elementary principals present; a third is absent	Whitney: “We are going to receive presentations from two of our elementary school principals this evening. Unfortunately, Miss Miss Lewis is unable to attend.” Melissa Lewis, principal of Disnard Elementary The item was scheduled in the 6 March minutes as “Brief, 10 minutes per principals”; it ran forty-four minutes.
0:29:07	Bluff Elementary: a third of the school flagged on a social-emotional screener	Baker: “the results of that is that 31% of our students are showing gaps in one or more of the competencies and require some instruction interventions”, and at 0:29:55 “31% is the equivalent of 55 students in our school”, of whom “63% of the 55 students need work in that area” on relationship skills (0:30:23). These are school-level percentages of a 175-pupil school stated in open session; this page reproduces no smaller cell and no individual. At 0:38:05 she says of a linked grade-level data sheet “Don’t know if I can click on this link here”, and at 0:38:39 the transcript reads “And then you dig into and I will click on these because it has the student names”. Nothing in the record shows the sheet being displayed. the sense of that sentence is plainly I won’t click on these; the recognizer records will and this page does not supply the missing negation	GOOD PRACTICE
0:32:26	Forty to fifty grocery bags a week, out of 175 students	Baker: “We have grocery bag, we have between 40 and 50 grocery bags that go home with students every week to help support food needs. We’re supporting kids who have experienced trauma, so making them feel safe and accepted here at school.” Crawford does the arithmetic aloud at 0:44:26: “you said you have about 50 bags of groceries that go home once a week, and that’s 50 out of 175 students”, then “That’s a high percentage” (0:44:37). Hawkins asks what happens in summer (0:44:40) and gets no firm answer; she then asks how families are connected to outside agencies (0:45:04), and Baker names the district social worker and the school’s guidance counsellor (0:45:18).
0:45:42	The chair asks both principals what policies the board should write	Whitney: “One of the main charges that the school board has is to write policy. And so knowing that there’s a lot of challenges still with discipline and behaviors in the school, if you are going to ask the school board for specific policies that you would find helpful to be universal, to help, standardize how we manage disruptive behaviors, what would the top policies be if we were going to prioritize that?” She repeats the request to Baker at 1:08:39 and asks for it in writing to the superintendent, “because it was a priority of the board to initiate policies that helped to support the administrators at the school level to help manage disruptive behavior” (1:08:47). The board’s Ad Hoc Disruptive Behaviors Committee existed to do this work and is not on tonight’s subcommittee list.	MEDIUM
0:46:51	Maple Avenue: the only principal’s report actually in the packet	Whitney introduces “Mister Mark blunt from Maple Avenue Elementary” Mark Blount. He thanks “title one teacher, Sean Herzog” for a Math Fiesta night held the same evening (0:47:13) Shawn Herzog in district documents — a different person from Alex Herzog, the technical centre’s director, then sets out the school’s two goals: “it’s focused 100% on literacy and math, and that our expectation is that students are going to make 100% gains” (0:48:30). His Academic Data Team account — biweekly, principal-facilitated, 30 to 45 minutes — matches Exhibit C almost line for line.
1:02:49	Attendance: the night’s bluntest exchange	Crawford: “You mentioned you talk about attendance. Is attendance an issue at all?” (1:02:36). Blount: “Sure is. And there’s a direct correlation… when when we don’t have kids in our classrooms and in front of teachers and in front of other professionals delivering services, there’s a adverse effect when it comes to academic growth”, and it is “not not only an issue, probably at Maple, but all of our schools across the entire district”. Crawford turns it outward at 1:03:41: “I’m frustrated to hear you say that, but I also think it’s extremely important for the public to hear that attendance is an issue”, and at 1:04:12 “Getting the students to be in the classroom is is step one.”
1:05:02	The Maple Avenue visit, described again — and named	Crawford: “I guess a week and a half ago. Bonnie Miles and Frank Sprague and I went on a tour of Maple Avenue as part of the capital improvements. And honest to the school look terrific.” She goes on for four more turns — the cleanliness (1:05:30), the student artwork (1:06:24), and “We were there at 5:00 at night, and we saw at least five staff members still working at their desks” (1:06:54). Sprague adds that he tracked down the custodian afterwards to pass on the committee’s thanks (1:07:31), and Miles describes the art teacher’s room (1:08:05). Three separate members describe a site visit by the Capital Improvement Committee for which no notice, agenda or minutes exists anywhere. The 6 March minutes show the visit being arranged, with the board reasoning about the wrong body’s quorum: “No more than 3 can attend or it would be considered a quorum”.	HIGH
1:11:26	The lead-remediation grant — presented without a figure	Koski: “this is a grant from the state of New Hampshire through the federal government for removing lead from drinking water and any points in across the school district. We have believed 8 or 9 places where when we test, turn on the tap, cast the water that immediately comes out and test that for lead that we need to remediate” (1:11:34). And the mechanism, again: “Once we get approval from the board tonight, we’ll send those minutes in and we’ll be eligible to get reimbursed” (1:11:59). Exhibit D says eight outlets, at the middle school and the technical centre only, above “the allowable 5 parts per billion”, most already replaced. The chair asks what the motion should say and is told “just to accept the grant. It has to be in the meeting minutes tonight and we’ll send that in” (1:12:27).	HIGH
1:12:44	“Parts per million”, twice, for a standard set in parts per billion	Koski: “If we run that water from those sinks, the lead amount disappears. And so, because we know where they are, we’re not using the first water that comes out of the tap. So just so children are safe. Nobody’s getting lead poisoned from water in the school.” Pratt: “It’s the parts per million. A very small” (1:13:14) and “it’s a small parts per million that we’re talking about. But it’s, it’s still there. So it has to be remediated” (1:13:17). Koski again at 1:14:34: “It’s probably some old lead solder that would still leave parts per million in the drinking water.” *The action level in RSA 485:17-a, and in the district’s own Exhibit D, is 5 parts per billion* — a thousandfold difference.** No board member corrects it.	MEDIUM
1:13:56	“Is there a number?” — and there is not	Hawkins moves the grant (1:12:40) and, after Koski’s interruption, has to be walked through the wording: “So I move that we accept. Except for.” / “The lead remediation” / “Grant?” (1:13:41 onward). Then Sprague: “Remediation grant? Is there a number?” Hawkins: “Yeah. No. For that.” (1:13:58). Crawford seconds (1:14:01). The clerk reads the motion back as “A motion to accept the lead remediation grant” (1:14:53) and it carries on a voice vote at 1:14:58. No amount is stated by anyone, printed in any exhibit, or recorded in either set of minutes.	HIGH
1:14:07	Petrin remembers the city’s lead work	Petrin: “Mike Patron is here. Didn’t we address lead in the schools several years ago?” and “We had a lead committee. Charlene Lovett headed it up” (1:14:21). Crawford corrects the scope: “She did it in the city more” (1:14:25). Petrin: “Than I thought it was. New schools. I can’t believe we still have led three even trace levels” (1:14:27). Charlene Lovett was then mayor of Claremont; the committee described is the city’s, not the district’s
1:15:10	Tuition agreements with Croydon and Goshen — neither text is public	Pratt: “it’s my understanding that Goshen is a to continue. Working with the school district and Croydon is new to the table in regards to, wanting to, tuition their kids to, to Claremont”, and “there’s no surprise language in here” (1:15:37). The chair moves them (1:16:13); Hawkins seconds (1:16:33); Sprague asks whether counsel vetted them and Pratt says the previous superintendent “embedded it all through Matt Upton” (1:16:43) “embedded” is “vetted”. The chair on price: “And it looks like it’s across the board. 16,000” (1:16:57). She asks how many pupils it might bring and Pratt has no figure: “I did at the at the time, but giving you right now would just be a guess” (1:17:07). Exhibits F and G are not in the packet.	MEDIUM
1:18:13	Which district is actually party to the Goshen agreement	Hawkins: “The tuition agreement for Goshen is for Claremont and Unity. So it’s the saw that is that this agreement applies to am I correct?” “the saw” is the SAU The chair works it out on the record at 1:19:01: “unity is coming from is as an saw six school Goshen is a sore 102 school and Croydon is an Saw 99 school… So it’s an agreement between the Claremont School District and the Unity School District, which happens to be an Saw sixth district, and the Goshen School District”. Hawkins had already made the operative point at 1:18:44: “Well the s a you doesn’t have schools.” A board voting to bind two districts to a contract it cannot read.	MEDIUM
1:20:07	The financial update that never reached the folders	Henry: “You guys don’t have a copy of this in your in your folder. I apologize for that. I mean Chelsea it came through email.” The figures therefore exist only on the tape: “as of the end of February, we had $669,000 left” with much of the rest encumbered (1:20:59); a year-end surplus “right around a million, maybe a little bit more” (1:21:34); purchase orders being combed and purchasing about to close (1:21:44); and Pratt setting the cut-off — “say no more spending unless it’s an absolute necessity right around the week of April 17th” (1:22:21). At 1:23:37 she adds interest income year to date, and at 1:23:52 explains the money-market move: “the money comes in and goes back out so that it’s all 100% insured”.	MEDIUM
1:23:14	The chair explains how she assembled the year’s committees	Whitney: “We have two sections of the nomination and approval process for our, standing subcommittees and standing New Hampshire School Board Association delegate.” Then at 1:24:06: “So I have reached out to the board, on a personal level for some folks and requested, preferences via email”, and at 1:24:35: “So I’m planning on making these nominations with the hope that the board will approve these nominations, as the individuals really would like to stay on these days or maintain their positions on these, on these committees”. The preferences were canvassed off the record by email, which is how the chair could present a finished slate; nothing about that canvass is in any district document.	HIGH
1:25:05	NHSBA delegate: the chair nominates and seconds	Whitney: “Do we need a nomination? I nominate Frank Sprague to be this delegate. I’ll second him. Okay. Do we have any objection to Frank Sprague maintaining his position as New Hampshire school board? No. Seeing rejection. No. I’ll just. So you know, Frank is going to carry the torch for us next annual meeting.” “Seeing rejection” is “seeing no objection”; “Frank’s Greg” at 1:24:35 is Frank Sprague The approved minutes give this to two other members: “Arlene Hawkins nominated Frank Sprague to continue in the position, Bonnie Miles seconded”. The agenda headed the item “(Nomination/Vote)”. No vote was taken.	HIGH MEDIUM
1:25:31	Capital Improvement: Miles stays chair, Sprague joins, Skillen steps off in her absence	Whitney: “We currently have Bonnie Miles as chair. Frank Sprague is requesting to join the committee. And miss Candy Crawford is also a member of the committee… Miss Gillen, is finding that her obligations will not allow her to attend the number of meetings that are required.” Miss Gillen is Whitney Skillen, who is absent tonight Then the formula, at 1:25:59: “Is there any objection to Bonnie Miles maintaining her position as chair? Frank Sprague joining the committee and Miss Crawford staying on the committee, seeing no objections. The membership will be as stated.”	HIGH
1:26:26	Finance: unchanged, and the chair is on it	Whitney: “Would Frank Sprague as chair, Miss Candace Crawford as a member, and myself, Heather Whitney as a member. We all served on that committee last year, and we worked well together. And, is there any objection to the membership of that subcommittee remaining the same? Seeing no objection. Committee membership remains the same.” Three of seven members — one short of a board quorum — sitting as the committee that builds the district’s budget.	HIGH
1:26:54	Policy: Skillen continues as chair, Petrin rejoins	Whitney: “Miss Whitney Scullin would like to stay as chair. She’s done an outstanding job leading the charge and developing systems that are facilitating speedy approval process. And Miss Hawkins has invested a ton of time on this. Mr. Peterson has experience on the subcommittee and would be an an asset.” Then at 1:27:32: “Seeing new. No objection. Subcommittee chair will be Miss Whitney Gillan. Members will be Arlene Hawkins and Hawkins and Michael Patron.” within forty seconds the recognizer produces Miss Gillen, Miss Whitney Scullin and Miss Whitney Gillan for Whitney Skillen, and Mr. Peterson and Michael Patron for Michael Petrin	HIGH
1:27:32	Curriculum: Hawkins named the board’s representative	Whitney: “Next is to ask for a representative for the curriculum committee. We I did spoke speak to Miss Hawkins, and with her experience as an educator, she would be an excellent representative from our board. The meetings are not frequent” — at which Koski interjects “We’ll try to be more regular” (1:28:11). Closed at 1:28:20: “Seeing no objection or going to have Miss Arlene Hawkins be our curriculum committee representative?” This seat had been Jennifer Gallagher’s, and she chaired the committee; she left the board eight days earlier.	HIGH
1:28:20	SRVRTC Visioning: Sprague out, Petrin in	Whitney: “We currently have, Miss Bonnie Miles, Miss Candice Crawford as members”, then “Mr. Frank Sprague would like to step down, and that would leave a room for Mr. Michael Patron to step into that position. Mr. patron has had a long standing interest in the success of the technical center and has been a vocal champion in the past. So I think he would be an excellent condition” (1:28:51) “an excellent condition” is “an excellent addition”. Closed at 1:29:16: “Seeing no objections. The memberships are as stated.” That completes the 2024–25 roster, on six consecutive dispositions and no votes.	HIGH
1:29:16	The by-laws: what they are for	Whitney: “bylaws serve as a board operating manual. They cover specific duties and roles of officers, committees, election procedure, internal communication, quorum requirements, how meetings should be conducted, and agendas developed”, and at 1:30:18 the distinction she builds the night’s argument on: “Policy is altered by simple majorities. Bylaws are altered by board super majorities.” The board’s adopted policies BDA, BDB and BDE already cover the organizational meeting, the officers and the committees, and BDB fixes officer terms at one year — the point the draft by-law would change.	MEDIUM
1:30:18	An ad hoc committee that exists in no other public record	Whitney: “In 2022, the Parliamentary and Procedure AD Hoc Committee was formed. It was composed of two board officers and an saw officer” — and, continuing at 1:30:47 — “The superintendent and the Business administrator. The subcommittee was developed to address the lack of organizational structure at the board administrative level, most notably the absence of curriculum oversight, financial oversight, sporadic communications with the board on critical items, insufficient agenda preparation.” Its output, on her account (1:31:14): “The subcommittee created the pre-populated agenda. The new board member onboarding procedure and manual… Facilitated and improved the Saw six website… We also prepared guidelines and initiated the policy review of public communication at board meetings prior to suspension of the subcommittee’s activity.” This committee appears in no agenda, no packet and no set of minutes anywhere in this project’s sources.	HIGH
1:31:53	Where the by-laws came from — and the district’s two answers	Whitney: “It reviewed the Manchester School Committee bylaws as a reference document for formulation of the Claremont School Board bylaws. Matt Upton, our school district attorney, cited Manchester as a district that had done great work creating structure and policy. And for that reason, we used the Manchester bylaws as a model.” The 20 March minutes agree: “School district’s attorney recommended Manchester By-Laws as a model, so the committee did so”. The 6 March minutes say something different about the same document: “Taken and adapted from the NHSBA by-laws”. At 1:32:27 she describes the editing: “Frank did a lot of revision at the beginning. I did some tough chips at the end. Miss Hawkins was invited to really scrutinize the document”.	OBSERVATION
1:33:29	The contested clause: one-year or two-year officers	Whitney: “There were some notable changes. One was it was edited. But I have to push back on the complete edit, the suggestion that the way that the Manchester School Committee’s bylaws read was to extend the term for both the vice chair and the chair, on some conversation that we had, very superficially, I think with Arlene at one point, there was great opposition to that.” Her compromise (1:34:23): “you could remove the officer with a two thirds or supermajority, which is five out of seven of the Claremont School Board members”. Exhibit H shows the edit on its face: paragraph 1.03 carries both “a term of one year” and “two years unless the term is interrupted by election results, resignation or officer removed by 2/3 majority (5 of 7) vote”. Adopted policy BDB says one year.	MEDIUM
1:40:07	The chair moves her own document, to open debate	Whitney: “Can I open the can I open it. And then we can just do it like official? So, I would like to make a motion to accept the Claremont School Board bylaws for 2024 to 2025, as written. Is there any second?” Sprague: “I’ll. Second.” (1:40:24). She had explained the tactic at 1:38:18: “So I will make a motion to, to to accept it. That will open the discussion. There can be motions made. To amend this… There can be motions to be made to lay it on the table.” This is the only motion of the night whose mover and seconder the minutes and the recording agree on.
1:45:54	Crawford: why is SAU business in a Claremont board document?	Crawford: “So so section three, I’m wondering why we can’t eliminate section three altogether since, the Claremont, it’s the s a you who handles the superintendent and the staff hiring. It’s not the Claremont School Board.” And at 1:48:01: “I think that’s one place where using the Manchester model is not applicable to here, because the Manchester is a is a school board as well as an s a you we’re, we’re a a unified.” Whitney concedes it could be amended (1:48:21). Chapter 3 of Exhibit H does read on SAU business — election of the superintendent and assistant superintendents, and the SAU board’s majority vote.
1:48:37	The clerk’s duties, the cost of them, and the wrong statutes	Crawford: “Down at 43403, the duties of the clerk. I know that a lot of stuff that was listed as the clerk I. Already done by our administrative assistants and, and if it’s number the clerk, we’re going to have to pay. Sorry. That person for doing all that work, when in fact it’s already being done by staff.” “43403” is paragraph 4.03 Whitney: “we we don’t necessarily have to assign those duties, but those are cover. Those are duties covered within the RSA that details” (1:49:14). The two statutes Exhibit H cites for paragraph 4.03 — RSA 671:20 and RSA 671:25 — are about the school district clerk preparing and delivering election ballots, and cover none of the ten duties listed.	MEDIUM
1:50:38	Crawford moves to strike the two-thirds threshold	Crawford: “the final comment is I threw out where it refers to the two thirds majority. I really have a problem with that. I think simple majority is fine.” Then the motion, at 1:52:16: “may I make, a motion to amend the policies to remove reference to the two thirds majority”, restated at 1:52:31 as “Wherever there’s a” / “Reference to a two thirds majority, replace it with a simple majority.” The chair never puts it, and it is nowhere in either set of minutes. Whitney answers substantively instead (1:52:37, 1:53:21) and the meeting moves on.	MEDIUM
1:53:57	The interim superintendent argues for a two-year chair term	Pratt: “I just want to, you know, my opinion on the, one versus two years and stuff. And I’m basing this solely on my current board chairs is that I, I personally would like it would support, you know, a two year”, and at 1:54:23: “at any level in education, stability is so important. And I think, board chairs can, you know, they can make a break, a superintendent or an office, like I’m basing it just on my current voyages right now.” “my current voyages” is “my current chairs” He hedges at 1:54:55: “currently I want to see a 3 or 4 year, but… my two current chairs, I may not always be current board chairs in two years might be too long for for some.” He is an interim superintendent two months from the decision on his permanent appointment, arguing about the tenure of the officers who help make it. Crawford answers him directly at 1:59:57: “I hear what you say, Superintendent Pratt, that you love your current board chair, and I quite agree with you, but the the the critical piece is that is current.”	OBSERVATION
1:55:34	The business administrator argues the other way	Henry: “I just want to comment on the two thirds majority. And the reason why that exists is because if you get a new board member, or if you get two new board members, and all of a sudden there’s a change in opinion on who should be the chair, that two thirds majority makes it. I guess you want to call it more fair.” Whitney pushes back: “And I’m going to push back is very divisive. I’ve seen it in other situations” (1:56:23), and then the exchange on Robert’s Rules at 1:56:30: “Robert’s rules requires two thirds, but we don’t follow Robert’s Rules. We. We don’t. Because the chair doesn’t vote in Robert’s Rules.” Two SAU employees intervened in a debate about how the board constitutes itself; no member objected.	OBSERVATION
1:58:31	Should it take a supermajority to elect a chair?	Whitney: “Should we actually elect in a chair with two thirds to ensure that there is not a four three to be truly a split board? Should we require to. To eliminate that divisive sense? Because if we’re like, for me to have a supermajority is the least divisive way. So, you know, that’s kind of what happens at the Senate level.” Crawford’s position, at 2:00:18: “We concurred that with our unanimous vote tonight for the chair. And I think putting in putting it in two, two years and putting a two thirds majority to remove complicates it even more… so it’s one or the other, but not both.” “Our unanimous vote tonight” is the only characterisation of the officer votes anyone gives; no count was taken at either election.	MEDIUM
2:01:04	The clock ends the debate	Whitney: “It should be one year. We are 830, so, I don’t think we’re going to have enough time to beat this. Not beat it, but to address it with.” Crawford: “I think it’s a really important document” (2:01:21). At 2:01:28 the chair converts her own motion: “What I would like to do is to amend my motion to approve, if a, a friendly amendment to, move the motion to be addressed at our next meeting.” It carries at 2:01:56 on “All in favor say aye” — no second, no count. Exhibit H’s own paragraph 2.09 defines a friendly amendment as one offered by another member; paragraph 2.07(d) provides the motion actually used here, to postpone to a certain time.	MEDIUM
2:02:11	Two retreats, to be scheduled by poll	Whitney: “we do need to set dates for the Claremont School District strategic goal retreat and the Claremont School board goal setting retreat. Mr. Pratt is going to give a presentation, I think, at our second meeting in April to go over how to use a Swot analysis”, and at 2:02:49: “normally we do this on Saturdays and Sundays, because folks work… It would be one day for the administrative team because the school board, I think we can do our own retreat for our own personal board goals.” Crawford offers to run the poll (2:03:31, 2:03:59). No date, time or place was fixed on the record. The 17 April minutes fix it as 11 May at a restaurant. A board retreat is a meeting of a quorum of a public body.	OBSERVATION
2:05:53	Two members bring a complaint about how the election was advertised	Whitney: “Miss Myles brought to me at the beginning of the meeting before the meeting started. And Miss Crawford as well, there was community comment that there was not enough, advertising and promotion of the school board budget vote or the candidates that were running for the school board positions.” Her answer (2:06:29): “I did address some of those questions on what’s up Claremont, and did review what our past practice had been… And we did no more, no less than we have in the past. That being said, in the past there have been contested races.” Hawkins adds (2:07:58): “people didn’t even know it was Election Day.” Crawford: “Citizens need to take some responsibility for, knowing that it’s the second Tuesday of March every year” (2:08:34). The complaint reached the board privately before the meeting rather than through the citizens’ comment period that had just closed empty.	MEDIUM
2:09:02	Adjournment by consent	Whitney: “Is there any objection to, concluding the meeting? Seeing no objection to adjourn. Thank you everybody.” The minutes give the clock time the tape does not: “Adjourned at 8:39”. The last business the board actually completed was the appointment of its committees; the by-laws, its stated reason for the item, went to a meeting that did not take place.	MEDIUM

Items flagged for review

Flags are a reviewer’s aid, produced by reading the recording and the district’s seven-document packet against the New Hampshire and federal law in force on 20 March 2024, and against the board’s own adopted policies. They are not findings of violation and they are not legal advice. Each card names the rule it rests on, and says plainly where the rule is a board policy rather than a statute. Four vintages matter here. RSA 91-A:2 was amended by 2023, 188:1, effective 3 October 2023, so the 2023 codification governs and the 2025, 112:1 additions (start time, end time, name of the person who produced the minutes) are not applied. RSA 198:20-b, III carries a $20,000 threshold from 2023, 38:1, effective 18 July 2023 — before that date the figure was $5,000, and this meeting is on the current side of the line. RSA 671:20 is quoted in its 1979, 321:1 form; the ballot-printing paragraph added by 2025, 281:1 did not exist. And RSA 194:23-f is the 2022, 195:2 text, not the 2024, 69:1 amendment. Where no verified rule supports a concern it is graded OBSERVATION and labelled as such. Severity tracks legal grounding, not importance.

HIGH The board constituted five public bodies and named a delegate for the year without taking a single vote — on an agenda that said “(Nomination/Vote)” and against its own adopted policy

What the board’s own rule requires. Board policy BDE, Committees and Delegates, first read 7 April 2004, adopted 2 June 2004 and reviewed 19 December 2018, is one sentence long: “Standing and special committees and delegations shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the Board and approved by vote of a majority of the Board.” The district’s live policy index lists it as current. This is a board policy, not a statute; no New Hampshire statute requires a school board to vote on committee appointments.

What the agenda promised. Item VII.5 is headed “Appointment of NHSBA Delegate (Nomination/Vote)”. Item VII.6 is headed “Appointment of School Board Sub-Committee Chairs/Members (Nomination/Vote)” and lists five committees, a–e. The consent agenda earlier in the same document is headed “Consent Agenda (vote required)”.

What happened. Seven separate dispositions, none of them a vote. The consent agenda: “Seeing no one looking to make a motion. The items on the consent agenda are approved” (0:04:18). The delegate: “Do we have any objection to Frank Sprague maintaining his position… Seeing rejection” (1:25:05). Capital Improvement: “seeing no objections. The membership will be as stated” (1:25:59). Finance: “Seeing no objection. Committee membership remains the same” (1:26:26). Policy: “Seeing new. No objection” (1:27:32). Curriculum: “Seeing no objection” (1:28:20). SRVRTC Visioning: “Seeing no objections. The memberships are as stated” (1:29:16). The approved minutes record the same thing in the same words — “no objection” or “no objections” against every one.

Why it matters more here than at an ordinary meeting. Each of the five subcommittees is a public body in its own right under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d), whose definition reaches “any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto”. This is the meeting that brings them into existence for the year, fixes who chairs them, and puts three of seven members on the Finance Committee that builds a $36 million budget. It is also the meeting at which two members were added to committees and one removed — Whitney Skillen, in her absence. Nothing about the appointments was contested; the objection is that the board’s own rule provides a way of making them and the board did not use it.

Not a one-off. This project’s pages for 20 December 2023 and 17 January 2024 record the same consent-agenda defect on the same “(vote required)” heading. The draft by-laws under debate on this very night would relax the rule rather than fix it: paragraph 1.04 reads “The chair shall appoint, with board consent, all standing committees”, and the by-laws’ consent-agenda appendix provides that items “will be moved,en masse, by consent (absence of objection)”.

Sources: board policy BDE, Committees and Delegates; CSB Agenda 3.20.24; approved minutes, 20 March 2024; Exhibit H, draft by-laws; RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d).

HIGH The board accepted a lead-remediation grant with no dollar amount anywhere — so neither branch of RSA 198:20-b, III can be satisfied or even tested

What the statute requires. RSA 198:20-b, III, in the text in force from 18 July 2023, splits on amount. III(a): “For unanticipated funds in the amount of $20,000 or more, the school board shall hold a prior public hearing on the action to be taken. Notice of the time, place, and subject of such hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the relevant municipality at least 7 days before the meeting is held.” III(b): “For unanticipated funds in an amount less than $20,000, the school board shall post notice of the funds in the agenda and shall include notice in the minutes of the school board meeting in which such funds are discussed.”

What the record contains. No figure. The agenda item reads “2. Lead Remediation Project (Discussion/Vote) (Exhibit D-E) Michael Koski, Assistant Superintendent” and notices no funds. Exhibit D, the grant request signed by the maintenance director and dated 28 February 2024, carries no amount. Exhibit E, cited on the agenda and in both sets of minutes, is not in the packet folder. On tape Sprague asks for the number outright — “Is there a number?” (1:13:56) — and gets “Yeah. No. For that.” The clerk’s read-back is “A motion to accept the lead remediation grant” (1:14:53). The minutes record the motion, the seconder and the voice vote, and no amount.

Why that is a defect on either branch. If the grant is $20,000 or more, III(a) required a prior public hearing with seven days’ newspaper notice; none was held or noticed, and the board had just held such a hearing for the SAFE grant an hour earlier, so it plainly knew the mechanism. If the grant is under $20,000, III(b) required notice of the funds in the agenda and in the minutes; the agenda notices a project, not funds, and the minutes carry no amount either. The board took an action whose lawfulness turns on a number that no document in front of it contained.

What the money was for. Exhibit D says it plainly: “This grant application is to recover the cost of replacement fixtures at outlets that tested higher than the allowable 5 parts per billion. Currently there are 8 outlets requiring remediation between the Claremont Middle School and the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center.” Reimbursement, in other words, for work largely already done — “Most of these outlets have already had the fixtures replaced”.

Limits. A reimbursement grant may well be under $20,000, in which case only the lighter branch applies. This page does not assert which branch governs, because the record does not permit it. That is the finding.

Sources: RSA 198:20-b (2023 codification; source note ends 2023, 38:1, eff. July 18, 2023); Exhibit D, Get The Lead Out grant request; agenda; approved minutes.

HIGH The Capital Improvement Committee met off the record, and three members described the meeting on tape

What the statute requires. RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) defines a “public body” to include “Any legislative body, governing body, board, commission, committee, agency, or authority of any county, town, municipal corporation, school district, school administrative unit, chartered public school, or other political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto.” RSA 91-A:2, I makes a “meeting” the convening of a quorum of a public body to discuss or act on a matter within its jurisdiction, and requires notice posted in two places or published at least 24 hours in advance; ¶II requires minutes, open to inspection within five business days.

What happened. On 6 March the committee’s chair told the board a site visit was being arranged: “Mr. Holt is available next week at 4:30 to show Maple Ave School… Will schedule for Wednesday; Frank Sprague and Candace Crawford will join Bonnie Miles” (6 March minutes). On 20 March three members describe what happened. Sprague: “I had the opportunity to tag along with, Bonnie, Bonnie and Candy and I went to Maple, and Mr. Holt was quite familiar with what he was going to be doing… I have a lot of confidence after, especially after talking to Mr. Holt, because he had a very good sense of, at least at Maple of how that money would be used quite specifically” (0:08:26, 0:08:46). Crawford: “Bonnie Miles and Frank Sprague and I went on a tour of Maple Avenue as part of the capital improvements” (1:05:02). Sprague again, on passing on the committee’s view: “I told him that the Capital Improvement Committee was extremely impressed with his work” (1:07:45). Miles describes the classrooms (1:08:05).

Why the quorum reasoning in the 6 March minutes is the wrong reasoning. “No more than 3 can attend or it would be considered a quorum” is the arithmetic for the seven-member board, whose quorum is four. It is not the arithmetic for the Capital Improvement Committee, which on that date had three members — Miles as chair, Crawford, and Whitney Skillen — and whose quorum is therefore two. Miles and Crawford attended. The committee had a quorum, discussed capital-improvement priorities with the maintenance director, and formed a view it later reported to the board. No notice, agenda or minutes for that meeting exists in the district’s packet share, in the Claremont Meeting Minutes share, or in the four district subcommittee folders, all of which this project has verified as empty.

Which limb of the severity rule. The unmitigated one: a public body met, nothing on the record explains the absence of minutes, and the board’s own by-law draft (paragraph 1.11) says subcommittee chairs are “responsible for setting meetings, creating agendas, assigning a minutes recorder and ensuring that agendas and minutes are submitted to the executive assistant and the Superintendent to be posted appropriately”. The practice and the proposed rule are already at odds on the night the rule was to be adopted.

It continues. The 17 April approved minutes record the same committee reporting another visit — “Met with Mr. Holt to look at the bathrooms near the gyms at CMS and SHS” — again with no minutes filed. The 15 May minutes record the Finance committee starting to file: “Minutes from the committee meeting have been shared to the Drive; will be added to the website under committees.”

Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d); RSA 91-A:2, I and II (2023 codification); approved minutes, 6 March 2024; approved minutes, 17 April 2024; approved minutes, 15 May 2024; Exhibit H, draft by-laws, ¶1.11.

HIGH The by-laws were written by an ad hoc committee that appears in no agenda, no packet and no set of minutes — the chair’s spoken account is the only public record of it

What was said. Introducing the document, the chair gave the committee’s origin, composition, remit and output in three consecutive turns. Origin and composition (1:30:18, 1:30:47): “In 2022, the Parliamentary and Procedure AD Hoc Committee was formed. It was composed of two board officers and an saw officer” — “The superintendent and the Business administrator.” Remit: “The subcommittee was developed to address the lack of organizational structure at the board administrative level, most notably the absence of curriculum oversight, financial oversight, sporadic communications with the board on critical items, insufficient agenda preparation, and and formalizing when board goals and district strategic goals should be set.” Output (1:31:14): “The subcommittee created the pre-populated agenda. The new board member onboarding procedure and manual… Facilitated and improved the Saw six website… We also prepared guidelines and initiated the policy review of public communication at board meetings prior to suspension of the subcommittee’s activity.”

Why that is a public body. A committee of the school board, whatever it is called, is a public body under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d)’s trailing clause. On the chair’s own description it contained two board officers — in a seven-member board, the chair and the vice chair — plus the superintendent and the business administrator, a four-member body of which the two board members are a majority. It met over some period from 2022, produced the board’s standing agenda template, its onboarding manual, a website reorganisation, and the twenty-page governing document in front of the board on this night.

What exists in writing. Nothing. It is in no agenda in this project’s sources, in no packet folder, and in no set of minutes — the 20 March minutes reduce the whole account to “so the committee did so”, without naming it. The only other appearance anywhere in this corpus is the chair’s self-introduction at the 3 February 2024 deliberative session, where she described herself as chair of the “parliamentary Procedure ad hoc committee” with Frank Sprague a member. The two accounts are seven weeks apart and are the entire public record of a committee that wrote the board’s rules.

And it does not survive into this year. No Parliamentary Procedure committee appears in the 2024–25 subcommittee list read into the record at this meeting, and none is mentioned in the 17 April or 15 May minutes. The chair’s own words describe its activity as suspended. It was never dissolved on the record either, and the draft by-laws it produced provide, at paragraph 1.08, that special committees “shall be dissolved upon providing a final report to the CSB” — a final report that does not exist.

Sources: the recording at 1:30:18–1:31:53; approved minutes, 20 March 2024; Exhibit H, ¶1.08; RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d); this project’s page for 3 February 2024.

MEDIUM The minutes name movers and seconders the recording does not support, and omit one the recording supplies

What the statute requires. RSA 91-A:2, II, in the 2023 codification in force from 3 October 2023: “The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes.” That clause has bound this board since 2018, 244:1, effective 1 January 2019. The duty is not merely to print two names; it is to record who actually moved and seconded.

The clearest contradiction — the NHSBA delegate. Approved minutes: “Arlene Hawkins nominated Frank Sprague to continue in the position, Bonnie Miles seconded”. Recording, in the chair’s own voice and unbroken (1:25:05): “Do we need a nomination? I nominate Frank Sprague to be this delegate. I’ll second him.” No other voice speaks between the item’s opening and its disposition.

The clearest omission — the tuition agreements. Approved minutes: “Heather Whitney makes a motion to accept the tuition agreements as written for both Croydon and Goshen as presented by Mr. Pratt”, followed straight by “Discussion:”. No seconder is named. On the recording Arlene Hawkins seconds audibly — “I’ll second” (1:16:33) — and the chair thanks her. The minutes record a seconder for every other motion of the night and not for this one.

Three weaker instances, reported for completeness. Chair election: minutes say “Arlene Hawkins seconded”; the tape carries one unidentifiable word at 0:00:56 and this page names nobody. Vice-chair election: minutes say “Bonnie Miles seconded” and that Miles spoke in support; the dialogue file gives the words “A second now. Discussion.” to the chair, and Miles is not audible in the item at all. SAFE grant: minutes say “Bonnie Miles seconded”; the chair, having moved it, says “Is there a second for that motion? I’ll second that a second” in one breath (0:07:55).

The pattern is the point. In four of five instances the minutes credit a second to Bonnie Miles or Arlene Hawkins where the tape carries the chair’s own voice or nobody identifiable. Bonnie Miles speaks six times in the entire meeting, 96 words, and the minutes credit her with seconding three motions. This page does not say the minutes are wrong: a second can be a nod, a raised hand or a word the microphone missed, and the clerk was in the room. It says the recording does not corroborate them, and that where the tape is clear — the delegate, and the tuition agreements — the minutes and the tape disagree in opposite directions.

A motion that is in neither. At 1:52:16 Candace Crawford moves “a motion to amend the policies to remove reference to the two thirds majority” and restates it. It was never seconded, never put and never declared, and it appears in neither the draft nor the approved minutes.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2023 codification); approved minutes, 20 March 2024; draft minutes, 20 March 2024; the dialogue file.

MEDIUM The minutes were not open to inspection within five business days — and two grants were waiting on them

What the statute requires. RSA 91-A:2, II: minutes “shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting”.

The arithmetic. The meeting was Wednesday 20 March 2024. Five business days later is Wednesday 27 March 2024 — no New Hampshire legal holiday falls in between. Google Drive dates the creation of 3.20.24 draft CSB minutes to 16 April 2024 at 4:03 p.m. Eastern, filed in the 17 April packet folder — the nineteenth business day after the meeting, and the day before the meeting that approved them. The approved version was created in Drive on 29 April 2024.

Why it costs something here. Twice on this recording the assistant superintendent tells the board that money is waiting on these minutes. On the SAFE grant: “We have to send in the minutes from this meeting to the state and then the the funds will become available” (0:10:38). On the lead grant: “Once we get approval from the board tonight, we’ll send those minutes in and we’ll be eligible to get reimbursed” (1:11:59), and “It has to be in the meeting minutes tonight and we’ll send that in” (1:12:27). $462,328 of school-security money and an unstated lead-remediation reimbursement were both gated on a document that took twenty-seven days to appear. Nothing on the record says the district was late in sending the state its own extract; the point is that the public record of the vote was not available for four weeks.

Limits, stated plainly. Drive posting is not the statutory test. The statute asks whether the minutes were open to inspection — which could be satisfied at the SAU office before anything was uploaded. This project has no way to test that, and the Drive timestamp is evidence of publication, not of inspection. What can be said is that the district’s own public channel carried nothing for nineteen business days.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2023 codification); Google Drive file metadata for 3.20.24 draft CSB minutes (1) (4).pdf (createdTime 2024-04-16, 20:03 UTC) and 7. approved 3.20.24 CSB minutes.pdf (createdTime 2024-04-29, 13:09 UTC), read 2026-08-29.

MEDIUM Both officers were elected on uncounted voice votes taken before the roll call of attendance

The order. The agenda puts “II. 6:35 PM Election of Board Officers” ahead of “III. 6:40 PM General Business — Secretary Roll Call of Attendance”, and the meeting followed it. The chair was elected at 0:01:50 and the vice chair at 0:02:46; the clerk began the roll at 0:03:04. Attendance was therefore established on the record after the board had chosen its officers for the year.

Why that is more than housekeeping. RSA 91-A:2, I defines a meeting by the convening of a quorum. The minutes then certify each officer vote as “Voice vote taken: all present voting in favor” — a formula that depends on a roll not yet taken. A quorum was in fact present (six of seven), so nothing turns on it here; but the record of the year’s two most consequential internal votes rests on an attendance list compiled afterwards. The board’s own draft by-law, paragraph 2.05, states the ordinary sequence: “The chair shall commence the meeting at the hour appointed and the clerk shall call the roll.”

No count, either. Neither election produced a tally, a division or a roll-call vote. The chair’s question was “All in favor? I opposed graduations” (0:01:50) and “All in favor, say aye” (0:02:46). The only characterisation of the result anywhere is Candace Crawford’s, ninety minutes later: “We concurred that with our unanimous vote tonight for the chair” (2:00:18). Nothing in the law requires a counted vote for an officer election, and this board records a tally only when a member asks for one; the observation is that the minutes assert unanimity that no count established.

Sources: CSB Agenda 3.20.24; approved minutes; RSA 91-A:2, I and II; Exhibit H, ¶2.05.

MEDIUM The board elected two officers where its own adopted policy provides for three — and the agenda still calls the roll for a secretary who does not exist

What the policy says. Board policy BDB, Board Officers, first read 19 December 2018 and adopted 2 January 2019, opens: “Board officers will include a chairperson, vice-chairperson and secretary. Officers will be elected at the board’s re-organizational meeting following the school district annual meeting. Board officers will serve a one-year term, concluding at the re-organizational meeting the following year.” It anticipates the third office elsewhere too: “If the vice-chairperson or secretary resigns from the school board or from the respective office, the board will hold new elections for those offices,” and “The Secretary shall be responsible for Board correspondence when directed by the Chairperson.”

What happened. The agenda offered two offices, “a) Chair” and “b) Vice Chair”. Two were filled. No secretary was nominated, elected or mentioned, and neither set of minutes records the office. The same agenda nevertheless heads the attendance item “Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members” — standing language this board has carried for years, describing a duty discharged in practice by Noelle Kronberg, whose title on the masthead is School Board Clerk, a post the board appointed her to in November 2023 rather than elected her to.

What the draft by-laws would do about it. Exhibit H does not restore the secretary; it replaces the office. Chapter 4 is headed “DUTIES OF OFFICERS” and runs 4.01 Chair, 4.02 Vice-Chair, 4.03 Clerk — with no secretary anywhere in the document. It also proposes to change the term, striking “a term of one year” in favour of “two years unless the term is interrupted by election results, resignation or officer removed by 2/3 majority (5 of 7) vote”. That is directly contrary to adopted policy BDB, and no motion to amend BDB was made or contemplated on this record — a point nobody raised in a fifty-minute debate about the clause. The by-laws’ own paragraph 2.16 provides that state law and State Board rules take precedence over them; they say nothing about what happens when a by-law contradicts a policy the board has adopted.

Sources: board policy BDB, Board Officers (adopted 2 January 2019); board policy BDA, Board Organizational Meeting; agenda; Exhibit H, ¶¶1.03, 2.16 and ch. 4.

MEDIUM The draft by-laws assign the elected district clerk’s duties to a board-appointed clerk, cite two statutes that do not support them, and raise a pay question the board cannot answer for itself

What the document says. Exhibit H, paragraph 4.03: “Duties of the Clerk - per RSA 671:20 and RSA 671:25”, followed by ten lettered duties — keeping the record of proceedings, posting notices and agendas, keeping time during citizens’ comments, posting agenda materials, indexing the rules and policies, ensuring Right-to-Know compliance, providing administrative support, and “Oversees and facilitates the ballot/election process. Assist the District Moderator as needed. Coordinates recount sessions. Certify election results. Administers oaths of office as needed.”

What those two statutes actually say. RSA 671:20, “By School District Clerk” — in the 1979, 321:1 text in force on this date — is one sentence: “The school district clerk shall prepare ballots for school district elections in the same manner as town clerks for non-partisan town elections, as provided in RSA 669:23 and 669:24, except that the ballot shall be of a different color than any other ballot used at the election.” RSA 671:25, “Duties of Clerk of School District”, is one more: the clerk “shall prepare the official ballots for the school district as provided in RSA 671:20 and shall deliver the same to the town moderator before the opening of the polls at the town election.” Between them they cover ballot preparation and delivery and nothing else. They do not support minute-keeping, notice-posting, timekeeping, indexing, Right-to-Know compliance, recounts, certification of results or the administration of oaths.

And they are about a different office. The school district clerk is an elected district officer. The person the by-law addresses is the school board clerk, whom this board appointed in November 2023. That distinction has consequences the record does not resolve. Under RSA 197:26 — unamended since the 1942 revision — “The school board shall fill vacancies occurring on the board, and in other district offices, except that of moderator, until the next annual meeting of the district.” An appointment made under that section to fill a vacant district office expires at the next annual meeting, and Claremont’s next annual meeting — the 3 February deliberative session and the 12 March ballot — had just concluded. Nothing at this organizational meeting reports the result for any district office, re-appoints anyone, or administers an oath.

The pay question, and who may answer it. Crawford put it squarely (1:48:37): “a lot of stuff that was listed as the clerk I. Already done by our administrative assistants and, and if it’s number the clerk, we’re going to have to pay. Sorry. That person for doing all that work.” The chair’s answer was “those are duties covered within the RSA that details” (1:49:14). If the office is a district office, the board is not the body that fixes its pay. RSA 194:10, “Salaries of District Board and Officers”, unamended since 1927: “At its annual meeting each school district shall determine the salaries of its school board and other district officers, and the district clerk shall certify the same to the selectmen.” In an official-ballot district the annual meeting is the deliberative session plus the March ballot — not the board. This project has recorded the same board setting a clerk’s pay by its own vote on 1 November 2023.

Limits. Whether Noelle Kronberg holds the elected district-clerk office, filled by the board under RSA 197:26, or a purely internal post the board created for itself, cannot be settled from any document in this packet. The by-law is drafted as though it were the former; the agenda masthead calls it the latter. The board postponed the document without resolving it.

Sources: Exhibit H, ¶4.03; RSA 671:20 (1979, 321:1 — the 2025, 281:1 ballot-printing paragraph is not applied); RSA 671:25 (1997, 176:7); RSA 197:26; RSA 194:10.

MEDIUM Three exhibits cited on the agenda are not in the packet, and so is the superintendent’s report, one principal’s presentation and the financial update

What is missing, item by item. The agenda cites Exhibits A through H. The folder holds A, B, C, D and H. Exhibit E (lead remediation, cited “Exhibit D-E”), Exhibit F (the Croydon tuition agreement) and Exhibit G (the Goshen tuition agreement) are absent. Both sets of minutes cite the same lettering, so the omission is in the folder, not the agenda. Beyond the lettered exhibits: the thirty-two-page superintendent’s report discussed for half an hour is not in the folder; Christine Baker’s Bluff Elementary presentation is not in the folder (Exhibit C is the Maple Avenue report only); and the business office financial update was never distributed at all — “You guys don’t have a copy of this in your in your folder” (1:20:07).

Why the tuition agreements are the sharp case. Agenda item VII.3 is headed “Tuition Agreements (Vote/Sign)”. The board voted to accept them “as written” and the chair signed. The only description of their content on the public record is the superintendent’s assurance that “there’s no surprise language in here” (1:15:37) and the chair’s remark that the rate is “across the board. 16,000” (1:16:57). No term, no duration, no enrolment cap, no transportation clause and no termination provision is anywhere in the public record, and the superintendent could not say how many pupils were involved. Hawkins had to reason aloud from a document she could see and the public could not to work out which districts were parties (1:18:13).

What rule this engages. No statute requires a school board to publish its packet. The board’s own draft by-law, paragraph 2.10, would: “Any and all presentations by the administration to the board or any committee shall be contained in the agenda and made available to the public in its original format online so the public may download or access the information prior to or during board meetings.” It was not adopted. RSA 91-A:4 gives a right to inspect governmental records on request; it does not require proactive posting. The finding is therefore about the completeness of the public record of a vote, not about a breach.

Sources: agenda; packet folder 6. CSB 3.20.24, enumerated 2026-08-29; approved minutes; Exhibit H, ¶2.10.

MEDIUM RSA 198:20-b, III(a) wanted seven days’ newspaper notice of the SAFE grant hearing; the district’s own record shows five days

What the statute requires. RSA 198:20-b, III(a): for unanticipated funds of $20,000 or more the board “shall hold a prior public hearing on the action to be taken. Notice of the time, place, and subject of such hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the relevant municipality at least 7 days before the meeting is held.” The grant was $462,328, so the paragraph plainly applies, and the district cited it on its own agenda.

What can be dated. Google Drive dates the creation of the packet folder 6. CSB 3.20.24 and of the agenda inside it to Friday 15 March 2024 at 1:24 p.m. Eastern. The hearing was held on Wednesday 20 March. That is five days, not seven. The agenda is the only document in the record that states the time, place and subject of the hearing; no proof of publication, no newspaper notice and no affidavit appears in the packet, and neither set of minutes records that notice was given.

Limits, and they are real. Newspaper publication is a separate act from posting a packet to Drive and could have preceded it. The Eagle Times is the paper of general circulation in Claremont, and this project has not searched its archive. The correct statement is therefore that the district’s own record does not show compliance with a notice requirement its own agenda invoked — not that notice was omitted. The 24-hour posting requirement of RSA 91-A:2, I was comfortably met by the same posting.

Why it is worth checking. The consequence of a defective hearing is not academic: the funds are unanticipated money the board may only accept after the hearing the statute prescribes, and the assistant superintendent told the board the state would release the money on receipt of these minutes.

Sources: RSA 198:20-b, III(a); Google Drive metadata for the packet folder and CSB Agenda 3.20.24.docx (3).pdf (createdTime 2024-03-15, 17:24 UTC), read 2026-08-29; the agenda.

MEDIUM Lead above the action level at two schools, and nothing in the record about the notice to parents or the approved remediation plan that RSA 485:17-a requires

What the statute requires. RSA 485:17-a, “Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and Licensed Child Care Facilities” — in force from 2018, 4:18, eff. 1 July 2019, as amended by 2022, 325:1, eff. 8 July 2022, so today’s text is the text that governed this meeting. It sets the action level at lead “being removed to levels below 5 parts per billion”; requires schools to “test a minimum of 3 rounds for the presence of lead in drinking water at all outlets”, with sampling “completed between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2024”; and, on an exceedance, requires the school “within 5 business days, notify parents and guardians” and ensure “that the children are provided only drinking water that meets the standard”, then “implement a remediation plan, as approved by the department, within 180 days of notification”.

What the record says. Exhibit D, dated 28 February 2024: “We are currently in round three of the testing and remediation. This grant application is to recover the cost of replacement fixtures at outlets that tested higher than the allowable 5 parts per billion. Currently there are 8 outlets requiring remediation between the Claremont Middle School and the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center. Most of these outlets have already had the fixtures replaced and we are awaiting delivery of the remaining fixtures.”

What is absent. No date of the exceedance; no statement that parents and guardians were notified, or when; no department-approved remediation plan; and no mention of the 30 June 2024 sampling deadline, three months away. No board member asked about any of it. What the board was told instead was an operational reassurance: “because we know where they are, we’re not using the first water that comes out of the tap. So just so children are safe” (1:12:44). Flushing is a sensible interim measure; it is not the department-approved plan the statute names, and the record does not say whether one exists.

And the standard was misstated on the record, three times. “It’s the parts per million” (1:13:14); “it’s a small parts per million that we’re talking about” (1:13:17); “some old lead solder that would still leave parts per million in the drinking water” (1:14:34). The district’s own exhibit says parts per billion, and so does the statute. The difference is a factor of one thousand, and it runs in the direction of making the exceedances sound larger than they are while making the standard sound looser than it is. Nobody in the room corrected it.

Limits. Silence in a packet is not proof that notice was not given. The district may have notified parents in 2023 or earlier and may hold an approved plan. The finding is that a board voting on lead remediation was given none of it, and asked for none of it.

Sources: RSA 485:17-a; Exhibit D; the recording at 1:11:34–1:14:58.

MEDIUM Citizens’ comments lasted about twenty-five seconds, and the policy the chair cited says two different things about whether that is allowed

What the statute requires. RSA 189:74 (2022, 333:1, eff. 6 September 2022): a school board shall “provide the opportunity for the public to comment on school district matters at a meeting of the school board held under RSA 91-A:2. The public comment period shall be for no less than 30 minutes.” Whether the thirty minutes is a floor on the opportunity or on elapsed time is not settled by the text, and this project does not assert a violation where nobody was turned away.

What the board’s own policy says — both ways. Policy BEDH, Public Participation at Board Meetings, first read 17 May 2023 and adopted 6 September 2023, states in section B: “The Board will provide a minimum of thirty minutes in total to hear all public comments under RSA 189:74.” Four paragraphs later, in the procedures: “The Board Chair will close the public comment period after there is no response to the Board Chair’s vocal invitation to the audience to make a public comment during the specified comment period.” Those two sentences cannot both be applied to an empty room. The chair applied the second and closed at 0:04:43.

The scope was narrowed too. The chair opened “the floor to non-agenda items citizens comments per policy BEDH” (0:04:18). BEDH again says both things: its procedures paragraph 2 does confine the first period to “topics which are not listed on the agenda”, while its section B says “An individual may offer comments on agenda items or any other District matters” — and RSA 189:74 says “school district matters” without qualification. On 17 January the same chair widened the period to all items; on 20 March she narrowed it. The board’s own rule supports either, which is the defect.

And the one complaint that existed reached the board privately. At 2:05:53 the chair reports that two members had brought her, before the meeting, community comment that the election and the budget vote had been under-advertised. That is precisely the kind of matter the comment period exists for; it arrived instead through members, at the end of the night, with no member of the public present to speak to it.

Sources: RSA 189:74; board policy BEDH (adopted 6 September 2023), read in full 2026-08-29; the recording at 0:04:18 and 0:04:43.

MEDIUM The Ad Hoc Disruptive Behaviors Committee disappears from the board’s structure without being re-constituted or dissolved

What existed two weeks earlier. The approved minutes of 6 March 2024 list six subcommittees, the sixth being “f) Ad Hoc Disruptive Behaviors Committee- Chair Jennifer Gallagher”, and record its position: “Policy recommendations will be sent to the policy subcommittee and the two committees may merge for now… A new chair would need to be appointed, Whitney Skillen made some suggestions for a work flow between the two committees.” Jennifer Gallagher left the board six days later.

What happened on 20 March. The chair read five subcommittees and one delegate into the record. The Ad Hoc Disruptive Behaviors Committee was not among them, was not given a new chair, was not merged by any recorded act, and was not dissolved. It appears in no later agenda or minutes this project has read, including 17 April and 15 May.

Why it is not merely tidy-up. Disruptive behaviour was live business at this very meeting. The chair asked both principals what policies the board should write to “standardize how we manage disruptive behaviors” (0:45:42) and told Christine Baker to send suggestions to the superintendent “because it was a priority of the board to initiate policies that helped to support the administrators at the school level to help manage disruptive behavior” (1:08:47). The board kept the work and lost the committee. An ad hoc committee is a public body under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) while it exists; the record does not establish when, or whether, this one ceased to. The draft by-laws before the board that night provide that special committees “shall be dissolved upon providing a final report to the CSB” (¶1.08). No final report exists.

Sources: approved minutes, 6 March 2024; approved minutes, 20 March 2024; 17 April and 15 May approved minutes; Exhibit H, ¶1.08.

MEDIUM The by-laws were postponed to “our next meeting” — and the next meeting on the board’s own calendar did not happen

The motion. At 2:01:28 the chair moved to defer: “What I would like to do is to amend my motion to approve, if a, a friendly amendment to, move the motion to be addressed at our next meeting.” Carried at 2:01:56 on “All in favor say aye”, no second and no count. Minutes: “Heather Whitney makes a friendly amendment to her motion for it to be addressed at the next meeting; voice vote taken, all present voting yes”.

What “the next meeting” was supposed to be. The same agenda names it: “April 3, 2024 Claremont School Board Meeting, Review of Pre-Populated Agenda and Financial Calendar, SREA Evaluation Progress Update, Presentation of ESSER balance and suggested allocation.” The board’s draft by-law 2.01 puts regular meetings on “the first and third Wednesdays of the month”, and 3 April 2024 was a first Wednesday.

What the record shows instead. The district’s numbered packet sequence runs 6. CSB 3.20.24 straight to 7. CSB 4.17.24. There is no 3 April folder, no 3 April agenda, no recording and no minutes; the 17 April approved minutes take up “Minutes Approval- March 20, 2024” on their consent agenda, so no meeting intervened. The pre-populated agenda and the SREA evaluation update both moved to 17 April. The ESSER balance presentation appears on neither the 17 April nor the 15 May agenda. And the by-laws appear on neither.

Why it matters. The document deferred is the one that would have governed how this board conducts itself, and its own paragraph 1.02 says when it must be adopted: “The board shall adopt The Claremont School By-Laws at the organizational meeting. The organization meeting is the first meeting following Board elections.” The board postponed adoption past the only meeting its own draft allowed for it, to a meeting that did not occur, and this project has found no record of the item returning within the following two months.

Limits. This is a two-meeting search forward, not an exhaustive one; the by-laws may have been adopted later in 2024. What is established is that the deferral did not land where the board sent it. And the negative about 3 April rests on packet folders and minutes chains, not on a district statement that the meeting was cancelled — no such statement was found.

Sources: the recording at 2:01:28 and 2:01:56; agenda; approved minutes, 17 April 2024; approved minutes, 15 May 2024; Exhibit H, ¶¶1.02, 2.01, 2.09.

OBSERVATION The interim superintendent presided over the election of the board’s officers, spoke for the sitting chair, and later argued for a longer term for the office

The presiding is required. Board policy BDA, adopted 2 June 2004: the organizational meeting “shall be called to order by the Superintendent, who shall preside during and until the election of a Chairperson.” He did precisely that and handed over immediately — “Here’s your gavel” (0:01:58). Nothing about the presiding is irregular.

What is worth recording is the advocacy. In the chair election he spoke second and at greater length than the nominator (0:01:14, 0:01:27): “with her continuing as chair, we will continue to move forward… she’s been very supportive in regards to the superintendent and our offices”. Ninety minutes later, in the by-laws debate, he intervened unprompted on the length of the chair’s term (1:53:57, 1:54:23): “I’m basing this solely on my current board chairs is that I, I personally would like it would support, you know, a two year… board chairs can, you know, they can make a break, a superintendent or an office.” And at 1:54:55: “currently I want to see a 3 or 4 year”. The business administrator then argued the other side of the removal threshold (1:55:34).

Why it is worth flagging at all. On 20 March 2024 Christopher Pratt had been interim superintendent for ten weeks, appointed by the SAU 6 board on the night it terminated his predecessor, on terms still to be settled. His permanent appointment followed about two months later. Seven of the twelve SAU 6 board seats are held by members of this board, and the chair of this board is one of them. He is not a member of it: RSA 671:4 fixes a school board’s membership at its elected members, and RSA 189:1-c adds student members “in addition to the school board members authorized in RSA 671:4” — though policy BDB describes him as “an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Board”.

No rule was broken. Nothing prohibits a superintendent from speaking to a board about its own governance, and the discussion he joined was open, on camera, and answered on the record — Crawford disagreed with him to his face at 1:59:57. This is graded OBSERVATION because no verified rule supports a stronger reading. It is here because an organizational meeting is where a board decides who leads it, and the employee whose tenure that leadership affects took a position in both discussions.

Sources: board policy BDA and BDB; RSA 671:4; RSA 189:1-c; the recording as cited.

OBSERVATION The draft by-laws miscount the Right-to-Know exemptions, attach a quotation to the wrong section, and disagree with the minutes about where they came from

Appendix D counts eight and lists nine. The appendix opens: “RSA 91 -A:3 sets forth eight grounds upon which Board of School Committees may enter nonpublic session” and then enumerates nine, numbered (1) to (9). RSA 91-A:3, II in fact runs from (a) to (m) — thirteen lettered subparagraphs, of which (f) is repealed, leaving twelve live grounds. The appendix omits correctional-facility security, business-finance-authority applications and confidential commercial or financial information, and its compliance checklist drops a ninth ground it had just listed. A board relying on the appendix would be working from an incomplete list of the powers it is describing.

“RSA 189:1:c” carries a sentence from a different section. Paragraph 2.17 reads: “In accordance with RSA 189:1:c, student members of the CSB shall have all the rights of a regular school board member regarding school board business except the right to vote.” The section is real, and correctly identified in substance — RSA 189:1-c, “Student Member”, requires at least one nonvoting student member from each public high school — but it does not contain that sentence. The quoted rule, and the confidentiality exclusion the by-law pairs with it, are RSA 194:23-f, to which 189:1-c refers for powers and duties. The punctuation should also be a hyphen, not a colon.

“As per RSA 91-A:2” for holding an organizational meeting. Paragraph 1.01 opens “As per RSA 91-A:2 and Board policy BDA, The CSB shall meet for an organizational meeting on the first meeting following the annual election.” RSA 91-A:2 governs notice, minutes and the openness of meetings; it says nothing about organizational meetings or officer elections. The citation is inherited rather than invented: policy BDA lists RSA 91-A:2 as its statutory reference and uses it correctly, for a narrower purpose — “Every member shall be notified of the meeting for organization, in accordance with RSA 91-A:2.” The by-law carries the citation across and attaches it to the duty to hold the meeting.

Two district documents, two origins for the same by-laws. The approved minutes of 6 March 2024 record: “Taken and adapted from the NHSBA by-laws; Arlene Hawkins reviewed”. The approved minutes of 20 March record: “School district’s attorney recommended Manchester By-Laws as a model, so the committee did so”. The recording supports the second, in detail (1:31:53). Both sets of minutes were adopted by this board.

Sources: Exhibit H, ¶¶1.01, 2.17 and Appendix D; RSA 91-A:3, II; RSA 189:1-c; RSA 194:23-f (2022, 195:2 text); board policy BDA; approved minutes, 6 March 2024.

OBSERVATION The minutes approved without a vote on this night mislabel the operative vote in the previous meeting’s public hearing

What the consent agenda approved. The 6 March draft minutes, which the 20 March consent agenda accepted with no motion and no vote, and which the district then published in identical terms as the approved 6 March minutes.

The defect. The 6 March public hearing on transferring $420,000 from the retained fund balance ran: a main motion by Jennifer Gallagher, seconded by Whitney Skillen; an amendment by Candace Crawford to postpone, which failed on a named roll of one for, five against, one abstaining; a second amendment by Arlene Hawkins that failed for want of a second; and then a final vote. The minutes describe that final vote as: “Voice vote taken on the amendment: all voting in favor; the motion passes”. There was no amendment left alive to vote on. Both amendments had been disposed of, and the record itself says so two lines earlier — “amendment fails, return to original motion”. The vote must have been on the original motion.

Why it is worth noting on this page. The $420,000 transfer was the board’s answer to the community on the tax impact of the FY25 budget, taken at a public hearing eight days before the district vote. The single sentence recording what the board actually voted on names the wrong question, and it was approved without discussion or vote by a board that had just lost the member who moved it. The same minutes also print the seconder’s surname as “Whitney Skilen”.

Sources: 3.6.24 draft minutes (in this packet) and 6. approved 3.6.24 CSB minutes, compared in full and identical.

OBSERVATION Two retreats were arranged by e-mail poll, with no date, time or place set on the record

What was decided. The board agreed to hold a district strategic-goal retreat and a board goal-setting retreat, on a weekend, in May or June, with a scheduling poll to be circulated by a member (2:02:11, 2:02:49, 2:03:59). No date, no start time and no location was fixed in open session. The minutes say only “Board members should respond to Doodle Poll for a May retreat”. The 17 April minutes then fix it: “Board retreat will be May 11 from 10:00-11:00 at the Teal Lantern” — a restaurant.

Why it is here. A board retreat at which a quorum discusses the board’s goals is a meeting of a public body under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) and RSA 91-A:2, I, which requires 24 hours’ posted or published notice and minutes open within five business days. This project has already established that a 2023 Claremont board retreat — six of seven members — was held with no notice located and its minutes filed under a heading three years out of date. Nothing at this meeting says the 2024 retreats would be noticed, and nothing says they would not. This page flags the pattern rather than the plan, and does not follow the retreats past the 17 April record.

Sources: the recording at 2:02:11–2:03:59; approved minutes, 20 March 2024; approved minutes, 17 April 2024.

GOOD PRACTICE What this record gets right — and it is worth saying, because most of this page is criticism

The right statute, cited on the face of the agenda. The public-hearing item names “NH RSA 198:20-b,III”, which is the correct paragraph for accepting unanticipated funds, and the chair read it aloud. This corpus contains agendas of the same period citing a chapter of the New Hampshire statutes that does not exist; this one does not.

The grant arithmetic reconciles exactly. Exhibit A itemises thirty awards across six schools. Summed, with the Stevens High School entry taken at the reduced figure its own asterisk gives — “$13,200* reduced to $3,925” — the total is $462,328 to the dollar, matching the agenda, the motion and the minutes. Exhibit B, the state’s own recommendation table, carries the same thirty line items at the same amounts. Both exhibits also carry their own caveats honestly: “Pending Governor’s Council Approval January 10, 2024” and “NOT APPROVED - NO GUARANTEE OF AWARDS - PENDING FISCAL AND GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL APPROVAL”.

The clerk reads motions back before the vote. Twice, at the chair’s request (0:10:56, 1:14:53). That is a real safeguard against the commonest failure in this corpus — a vote whose subject nobody can afterwards state — and the board does it as a matter of course, ahead of the by-law that would require it.

The by-laws’ Appendix D gets the newest amendment right. It carries the ten-year sealed-minutes review added by 2023, 189:1, effective 3 October 2023, with the correct backstop: “Minutes sealed prior to October 3, 2023 must be reviewed and/or unsealed by October 3, 2033.” That amendment was five months old when this draft was written.

Student privacy was handled correctly on the night. Presenting a grade-level data sheet, the Bluff principal told the board it carried student names (0:38:05, 0:38:39), and nothing in the record shows the sheet being displayed. Every figure that reached the public was a school-level count or percentage.

Sources: agenda; Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Exhibit H, Appendix D; RSA 91-A:3, IV.

Appendix — source files

Official and public sources

Recording: Claremont Community Television, Cablecast show 15638 — “School Board Meeting 3/20/24”. Title reproduced exactly as the public archive displays it, confirmed 2026-08-29, together with the archive’s event date of 20 March 2024 and its total run time of 7,780 seconds.
Minutes of this meeting: 7. approved 3.20.24 CSB minutes.pdf — approved. Adopted on the 17 April 2024 consent agenda and word-for-word identical to the draft, 3.20.24 draft CSB minutes (1) (4).pdf, which is filed in the 17 April packet folder. Both read in full and compared line by line for this page.
Packet: 6. CSB 3.20.24 — 7 documents, all seven read in full for this page on 2026-08-29:
- CSB Agenda 3.20.24.docx (3).pdf — the official agenda, whose masthead prints the seven board members, the school board clerk, the two student board members and the SAU 6 central office, with the human-resources post shown as “TBD”. Posted 15 March 2024. the doubled extension and the “(3)” are the district’s own file name
- Exhibit A- 1.4.24 Summary of Safe Grant.docx (1).pdf — the district’s own summary: the SAFE grant’s statutory purpose, “Award Total is $462,328 ( Pending Funding Approval)”, and a thirty-line itemisation by school and project type. Sums exactly to $462,328 when the Stevens entry is taken at its reduced figure.
- Exhibit B- Safe grant pending Gov Council Approval copy (1).jpg — a screenshot of the state’s own recommendation table, headed “NOT APPROVED - NO GUARANTEE OF AWARDS” and dated to the Public School Infrastructure Commission’s meeting of 6 December 2023. Shows Claremont’s thirty applications beside other districts’, with one “Reduced Award”.
- Exhibit C- Claremont School Board - Student Achievement Leadership Report - Maple Avenue 3-20-24 (1).pdf — one page. The two “wildly important” goals, the Kennewick and Datawise sources, and the Academic Data Team structure and data sources. Maple Avenue only; there is no Bluff equivalent in the folder.
- Exhibit D - Get The Lead Out grant request.docx (1).pdf — one page, dated 2/28/2024 and signed by Steven Holt, the maintenance director. Eight outlets above 5 parts per billion at the middle school and the technical centre, most already remediated. Quotes RSA 485:17-a and the state programme’s own disclaimer. No dollar amount.
- Exhibit H- Claremont School Board By-Laws - Google Docs.pdf — twenty pages, posted 18 March 2024. Five chapters and four appendices. Carries visible tracked edits, including both readings of the officer term in ¶1.03. The most consequential document in the packet and the one the board did not adopt.
- 3.6.24 draft minutes CSB meeting (1).pdf — the minutes accepted on the consent agenda at 0:04:18, six pages. Identical to the later approved version, including the mislabelled vote at flag 18.
Exhibits cited by the district and absent from the folder: Exhibit E (lead remediation), Exhibit F (Croydon tuition agreement) and Exhibit G (Goshen tuition agreement). All three are named in the agenda and in both sets of minutes. Also absent: the superintendent’s thirty-two-page March report, the Bluff Elementary presentation, and the business office financial update, which the business administrator said on tape had never reached the board’s folders.
Board policies, read in full from the district’s live policy index Claremont SB Policies (for Web), on 2026-08-29 — adoption dates taken from each policy’s own history block, not from the index:
- BDA — Board Organizational Meeting. First reading 7 April 2004, second reading and adopted 2 June 2004, reviewed 19 December 2018.
- BDB — Board Officers. First reading 19 December 2018, adopted 2 January 2019. The source of the three-officer, one-year rule at flag 8.
- BDE — Committees and Delegates. First reading 7 April 2004, adopted 2 June 2004, reviewed 19 December 2018. The source of the majority-vote requirement at flag 1.
- BEDH — Public Participation at Board Meetings. First reading 17 May 2023, second reading and adopted 6 September 2023. Cited by name on tape; the source of the contradiction at flag 13.
Neighbouring district documents this page relies on: 6. approved 3.6.24 CSB minutes.pdf (the previous meeting, and the source for the Capital Improvement site visit and the outgoing subcommittee list); 8. approved 4.17.24 CSB Meeting Minutes.pdf every page of which is headed “4.7.24 Approved CSB Meeting Minutes” — the district’s own typo; and 10. approved CSB meeting minutes 5.15.24. The last two confirm the subcommittee roster read into the record here and establish that the by-laws did not return within two months.
Explicit negatives, from reading all seven packet documents in full rather than from a search: the packet contains no proof of newspaper publication for the RSA 198:20-b hearing; no dollar figure for the lead-remediation grant; no notice document for the meeting itself; no subcommittee minutes, agendas or reports of any kind, for a meeting that constituted five subcommittees; and no record of the 12 March election results, of any oath of office, or of any district office other than the board.
Negatives that are search-derived and therefore weaker, flagged as such: no packet folder, agenda, recording or minutes for a 3 April 2024 board meeting was located, and no document says it was cancelled; the district’s numbered packet sequence runs 6. CSB 3.20.24 to 7. CSB 4.17.24 and the 17 April consent agenda approves the 20 March minutes, so the inference is strong but it rests on absence. Likewise, no record of the Parliamentary and Procedure Ad Hoc Committee — no agenda, notice, membership list, minutes or final report — was found in any district share. This project has established that the Google Drive search API under-reports on these shared folders, so the correct statement in both cases is “not found”, not “does not exist”.

Project files

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

Dialogue: ../Dialogue/15638 SchoolBoard032024.mp4.CSV — 709 rows, 18,134 words, running to 2:09:14.
Video: ../../Input/Videos/15638 SchoolBoard032024.mp4
Diarized transcript: ../../Input/Transcripts/15638 SchoolBoard032024.mp4.json
Map: ../../Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md §44.
Companion pages: 3 February 2024 — the deliberative session, where the chair gave the only other public account of the Parliamentary and Procedure ad hoc committee; 17 January 2024 — the FY25 budget adopted, whose agenda carries the outgoing subcommittee list; and 3 January 2024 — the RSA 32:5 budget hearing.

Laws and rules cited on this page

New Hampshire statutes, in the text in force on 20 March 2024. RSA 91-A:2, I and II — a meeting is the convening of a quorum to discuss or act on matters within the body’s jurisdiction; 24 hours’ notice posted in two places or published; minutes to include the names of members, persons appearing, a brief description of the subject matter and final decisions, and “the names of the members who made or seconded each motion”, open to inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting. 2023 codification; source note ends “2023, 188:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023”. Deliberately not applied: 2025, 112:1, which added the start time, end time and minutes-producer requirements from 22 August 2025. The mover-and-seconder clause is 2018, 244:1, effective 1 January 2019, and binds this meeting.
RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — “public body” includes any board or committee of a school district “or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto”.
RSA 91-A:3, II and IV — the lettered grounds for nonpublic session, (a) to (m) with (f) repealed; and the ten-year review of sealed minutes added by 2023, 189:1, eff. 3 October 2023.
RSA 198:20-b, I, II and III(a)–(b) — acceptance of unanticipated money; prior public hearing and 7 days’ newspaper notice at $20,000 or more, agenda and minutes notice below it. The $20,000 threshold is 2023, 38:1, eff. 18 July 2023; before that date it was $5,000, and this meeting is after it.
RSA 485:17-a — lead in drinking water in schools: three rounds of testing to be completed between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2024, a 5 parts per billion standard, notice to parents and guardians within 5 business days of an exceedance, and a department-approved remediation plan within 180 days. 2018, 4:18, eff. 1 July 2019; 2022, 325:1, eff. 8 July 2022.
RSA 189:74 — school board public comment period of no less than 30 minutes. 2022, 333:1, eff. 6 September 2022.
RSA 197:26 — “The school board shall fill vacancies occurring on the board, and in other district offices, except that of moderator, until the next annual meeting of the district.” Unamended since the 1942 revision (RL 139:25).
RSA 194:10 — “At its annual meeting each school district shall determine the salaries of its school board and other district officers, and the district clerk shall certify the same to the selectmen.” Unamended since 1927.
RSA 671:20 and RSA 671:25 — the school district clerk prepares the official ballots and delivers them to the town moderator before the polls open. RSA 671:20 is quoted in its 1979, 321:1 form; the second paragraph added by 2025, 281:1, eff. 30 September 2025, did not exist and is not applied. RSA 671:25 is 1997, 176:7.
RSA 671:4 — a school board of 3, 5, 7 or 9 members as the district votes, serving three-year terms. 1979, 321:1.
RSA 189:1-c (Student Member; 2022, 195:1, eff. 1 January 2023) and RSA 194:23-f (High School Student as School Board Member) — at least one nonvoting student member per public high school, with all the rights of a board member except the vote. RSA 194:23-f applied in its 2022, 195:2 text; the 2024, 69:1 amendment, effective 13 August 2024, is not applied.
RSA 91-A:4 — the right to inspect governmental records on request, with a five-business-day response. Cited only for what it does not require, and in its pre-2024 form: the 2024, 49:1, 2 amendment took effect 13 August 2024.
RSA 40:13 — official ballot referendum, under which Claremont’s “annual meeting” is the deliberative session plus the March ballot. Last amended 2019, 192:2.
Board policies BDA, BDB, BDE and BEDH, listed above with their adoption dates. These are the district’s own rules, not state law, and every flag that rests on one says so.