Participants
Every seat on the agenda masthead, marked present or absent per the draft minutes' roll call, plus the administrators and the one citizen who appear in the record. Name spellings follow the draft minutes and the agenda; the automatic transcript's rendering is noted where it differs, because on this recording it differs a great deal. Segment counts are from the dialogue CSV. Attributions of movers and seconders follow the draft minutes where the transcript leaves a voice unidentified, and say so.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Arlene Hawkins | SAU 6 Board Chair, re-elected at this meeting; Claremont School Board member; chair of the SAU policy subcommittee | Present. Nominated by Heather Whitney and seconded by Michael Petrin per the draft minutes; took the gavel at 0:02:20 — "I feel very, very honored to take this role again" — and immediately nominated Rocco Ruggeri as vice chair. Presented all eight policies, moved to seal the nonpublic minutes for six months, and nominated both subcommittee slates. 242 of 677 segments, more than a third of the meeting. The transcript renders her "Arlene Hopkins," and the roll-call answers at her own name are inaudible. |
| Rocco Ruggeri | SAU 6 Board Vice Chair, elected at this meeting; Unity School Board member | Present. Moved acceptance of the amended agenda, the February 15 minutes, entry to and exit from nonpublic session, the subcommittee slate and adjournment; drove the floor amendments to policies BEDG and DBJ; moved to table policy KED; delivered the Unity withdrawal report at 1:08:02. 128 segments. The transcript renders him "Rocky times," "Rocco Gerry," "Rocco Roger" and "rock over here." |
| Marjorie Erickson | SAU 6 Board member; chair of the Unity School Board | Absent per the draft minutes. Her name is called in all four rolls and no answer is audible on any of them; she speaks nowhere in the transcript. |
| Shannon Popescu | SAU 6 Board member (Unity) | Present. Per the draft minutes seconded the subcommittee slate, policy EHAB, the EHB revision and the withdrawal of policy GBAA. Abstained on the nomination of Patrick O'Hearn as Director of Human Resources — one of only two recorded abstentions all night. 6 segments; the transcript renders her roll answer "Shannon. Perpetuo. Yep." |
| Kelly Simpson | SAU 6 Board member (Unity) | Present. Moved adoption of policy AC and the EHB revision and moved the withdrawal of policy GBAA; seconded ACAC, BEDH and DBJ per the draft minutes. Abstained on the O'Hearn nomination. 19 segments. |
| Atonya Hart | SAU 6 Board member (Unity) | Absent per the draft minutes — and nominated in her absence to the superintendent-evaluation subcommittee at 0:13:44. The transcript renders her name in the rolls as "Fine art" and "Tony. Hawk." |
| Frank Sprague | SAU 6 Board member; Vice Chair of the Claremont School Board; named chair of the SAU superintendent-evaluation subcommittee at this meeting | Present. Seconded the vice-chair nomination and the agenda per the draft minutes; questioned policy KED for four minutes and was asked by the chair to take the question to the New Hampshire School Boards Association; presented the superintendent-evaluation instrument and its timeline. 68 segments. The transcript renders his roll answer "Thanks, Bragg. Here." |
| Bonnie Miles | SAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board member | Present. Per the draft minutes she moved the nomination of Patrick O'Hearn as Director of Human Resources. She answers "Here" or "Yes" in all four rolls and speaks nowhere else in the transcript — an elimination-only presence of the kind this corpus repeatedly produces for her. |
| Whitney Skillen | SAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board member | Absent per the draft minutes — and the author of the work the board spent twelve minutes discussing. Sprague, at 1:04:12: "next time you see Whitney she built this," and at 1:04:22 "She had this done I think it was 11:00 last night." The draft minutes make the reference explicit: "Whitney Skillen put the survey into a spreadsheet." She was also nominated in absentia to the superintendent-evaluation subcommittee. Two people on this board are called "Whitney" — Whitney Skillen and Heather Whitney. Every "Whitney" spoken in the evaluation discussion is Skillen, per the minutes. |
| Candace Crawford | SAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board member; named to the SAU policy subcommittee at this meeting | Present. Per the draft minutes moved the nomination of Michael McCosker as Director of Student Services and moved adoption of policy EHAB, and seconded the amended February 15 minutes. On the recording she supplies the policy committee's intent on reviewing sealed minutes at 0:26:05 and the word "ratify" when the board is trying to fix DBJ. 37 segments. |
| Michael Petrin | SAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board member (returned to the Claremont board on March 20, 2024) | Present. Per the draft minutes he seconded Heather Whitney's nomination of Arlene Hawkins for chair, and it was he who asked that the superintendent's subordinates be surveyed. He answers "Here" in the attendance roll and "Yes" in the roll-call votes, and has no attributed speaking segment anywhere in the dialogue file — the subordinate-evaluation request at 1:01:49 is left "Unidentified" by the transcript and attributed to him only by the minutes. |
| Heather Whitney | SAU 6 Board member; Chair of the Claremont School Board | Present. Nominated Arlene Hawkins for chair per the draft minutes; seconded both nonpublic motions and the motion to seal; moved policy BEDG to a second read and moved adoption of BEDH and DBJ. Proposed the friendly amendment that "every effort should be made" to keep seal durations under ten years (0:30:43). 65 segments. |
| Christopher "Chris" Pratt | Interim Superintendent of Schools, SAU 6 | Presided over the officer elections until the chair was seated at 0:02:20, as the superintendent does at every organizational meeting in this corpus. Prompted the chair with one word — "Public comment" — when citizens' comments were about to be skipped (0:07:06). Declined Susan Mason's request for a few minutes after the meeting in favour of a scheduled appointment (0:09:07). 12 segments. His title on this date is interim, per both the posted agenda and the draft minutes; his permanent appointment was announced in late May 2024, took effect in June, and was formally recognised by this board on 9/12/24. |
| Michael "Mike" Koski | Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Innovation, SAU 6 | Per the draft minutes he presented both personnel nominations; the transcript leaves that voice "Unidentified" (0:14:38). On the record he told the board the Title IX rules bind the SAU "whether we have a policy or not" (0:19:54) and explained that a §504 plan "can just be a temporary disability" (0:43:37). 11 segments; the transcript renders him "Mr. Kosky." |
| Ben Nester | Director of Special Education, SAU 6 | Read all four roll calls in the clerk's absence, at the chair's request — "Can I can I take attendance at the last board. Meeting I attend to?" (0:03:48), a reference to his own departure: he had announced his resignation in December 2023, effective July 2024. 11 segments; the transcript renders him "Mr. Nestor." |
| Jeff Small | Director of Technology, SAU 6 | Explained why policy EHAB was not new work — "So a lot of this is what we. Are already doing." (0:40:04) — and walked the board through the drive-sanitization change to policy EHB in concrete detail (0:48:36). 8 segments. |
| Mary Henry | Business Administrator, SAU 6 | Gave the monthly budget update: little change since the last report, and "We haven't transferred any money between budget lines, though… I haven't done that this year at all" (0:17:29). 6 segments. See flag 6. |
| Noelle Kronberg | SAU 6 School Board Clerk | Absent — the chair, at 0:03:20: "Our secretary Noel, is not present tonight, so I'm going to ask Ben." She nonetheless signs the draft minutes, "Respectfully submitted by Noelle Kronberg, board clerk," so the only narrative record of this meeting was written by someone who was not in the room. See flag 3. |
| Patrick O'Hearn | Nominated Director of Human Resources, SAU 6, effective April 15, 2024 | Not present. Approved 7 in favour, none against, 2 abstentions (Simpson and Popescu) per the draft minutes — the only counted vote of the night. The transcript's rendering of his name is a three-way failure in one breath: "Patrick Ahern. O'Hearn. Not her. Patrick overheard." |
| Michael "Mike" McCosker | Nominated Director of Student Services, SAU 6, effective July 1, 2024 | Not present. Approved by voice vote, unanimously per the draft minutes (0:15:21). He succeeds Ben Nester. The transcript renders him "Michael McCusker." |
| Susan Mason | Citizens' comments — no ward or affiliation stated | The meeting's only public speaker, and the whole of its public comment. Asked "What happens when you have a teacher within the school system that has broken at least one bullet point of each of three different one of your policies" (0:07:36); was directed to the district board and to the superintendent, and asked for a few minutes with Pratt after the meeting. She identified her interest only as "my granddaughter is a special ed student." See flag 7. |
Agenda
Item numbering and wording from the posted agenda (SAU 6 School Board Agenda 4.11.24.docx (3).pdf), with dispositions from the draft minutes and the recording. The agenda carries scheduled clock times for every item; those are printed plain, while the "Taken up" column gives the moment in the recording. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:09 | I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (Chris Pratt) | Scheduled 6:30 PM. "Good evening everybody. Welcome. Called the O six school board in. Meeting to order at. 630. Please stand for the legions [allegiance]." The interim superintendent presides until a chair is elected, which is why the officer election comes before the roll call. |
| 0:00:54 | II.a. Election of Board Officers — Chair (Chris Pratt) | Scheduled 6:35 PM. "The first order of business is to ask for nominations for chair of the Saw six school board. Do I have any nominations?" Per the draft minutes: Heather Whitney nominates Arlene Hawkins, Michael Petrin seconds; voice vote, unanimously approved. On the recording the nomination survives only as "Rocky times and I believe she nominations" and the second is heard from Ruggeri; the minutes are followed here. Pratt put the question at 0:01:43: "All in favor of nominating Arlene Hopkins as CEO? Six board chair. Any opposed?" No count. |
| 0:02:20 | II.b. Election of Board Officers — Vice Chair | The new chair nominates her own vice chair: "I'd like to move to nominate Rocco Gerry [Ruggeri] as vice chair. Do we have a second?" Frank Sprague seconds per the draft minutes. Her stated reason, at 0:02:45: "I received to recall someone last week saying that vice chair walked off the ledge sometimes. And Rocco is a really good balance. We work well together, and he gives me a lot of perspectives…" Voice vote at 0:03:08 — "All in favor? I opposed extensions [abstentions]" — unanimously approved per the minutes, no count on the recording. No secretary and no treasurer were elected, and the agenda provided for neither. See flag 2. |
| 0:03:58 | III. General Business — Secretary Roll Call of Attendance | Scheduled 6:40 PM. Read by Ben Nester in the clerk's absence. Per the draft minutes — present: Arlene Hawkins, Rocco Ruggeri, Shannon Popescu, Kelly Simpson, Frank Sprague, Bonnie Miles, Candace Crawford, Michael Petrin, Heather Whitney (9 of 12); absent: Marjorie Erickson, Atonya Hart, Whitney Skillen. The recording's version of the same roll is largely unusable — "Arlene Hawkins, rock over here. Marjorie erickson, Sharon Kelly Simpson, president. Fine art. Thanks, Bragg. Here. Bonnie. Miles. Here." — which is why the minutes govern attendance on this page. |
| 0:04:22 | III. Agenda — Amendments and Final Approval | The chair adds one item: "I'm going to add item k… to withdraw two policies. Policy GBA equal opportunity employment and policy GBAA sexual harassment of saw employees and staff" (0:04:54). Ruggeri moved acceptance as amended, Sprague seconded per the minutes; voice vote at 0:05:22, unanimously approved. The chair also noted of the added item, "I don't know if they're in your pocket [packet]" — they were not. |
| 0:05:48 | III. Minutes Approval — 2.15.24 | Ruggeri moved approval as presented, Heather Whitney seconded. The chair then opened discussion to supply a missing line (0:06:15): "Under item number three, in the minutes from February 15th, the fourth bullet, a motion to seal the minutes that should read. Made by Candace Crawford for three years. Second by Heather Whitney." Ruggeri re-moved as amended at 0:06:47, Crawford seconded; "Opposed? Unanimous." So a February sealing vote had gone unrecorded in the February minutes and was restored eight weeks later. |
| 0:07:21 | III. Citizens Comments | Nearly skipped. The chair had already begun the nonpublic motion — "At this point, I'd like to have a motion to move into a nonpublic session for RSA 91…" (0:07:08) — when the interim superintendent said "Public comment," and she stopped: "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm chewing through to many things. Citizens comments. Do we have any citizens comments? I apologize please. I'm so sorry." Susan Mason spoke; the period ran about two minutes and closed at 0:09:32. See flag 7. |
| 0:09:32 | IV. Non public meeting session RSA 91-A:3, II (a) | Scheduled 6:45 PM. The agenda noticed subsection (a) only and printed its text in full. The motion as made cited two: "I'll make a motion to move into nonpublic meeting session for RSA 91A32A and B" — Ruggeri moving, Heather Whitney seconding per the minutes. Roll call by Ben Nester at 0:10:08, all present voting yes. The board returned on a second Ruggeri/Whitney motion and roll call at 0:11:14; the session occupies 47 seconds of recording. The minutes' own heading for this item reads "RSA 91-A:3, II a, b" and prints both texts. See flag 4. |
| 0:11:52 | IV. Motion to seal the nonpublic minutes | Not on the agenda; taken on return. The chair, at 0:12:14: "I'm going to seal them in light of the discussion that we had where things are not finalized, I would move to seal the seal the minutes for six months." Heather Whitney seconded per the minutes (the transcript places motion and second inside one attributed segment). Roll call by Nester at 0:12:39, all present voting in favour — which satisfies the two-thirds threshold. No statutory ground for sealing was stated. See flag 4. |
| 0:13:04 | V. Appointment of Board Sub-Committee Chairs/Members (Vote) | Scheduled 7:05 PM. "This is the reorganization meeting where we reappoint members of subcommittees and their chairs." Both slates nominated by the chair at once, at 0:13:44: superintendent evaluation — Atonya Hart, Rocco Ruggeri, Frank Sprague, Whitney Skillen, chair Frank Sprague; policy — Candace Crawford, Kelly Simpson, Arlene Hawkins, chair Arlene Hawkins. Two of the four evaluation members (Hart and Skillen) were absent. Ruggeri moved, Popescu seconded per the minutes; voice vote at 0:14:23, unanimous. |
| 0:14:23 | VI. Superintendent Report — nomination of Director of Student Services and Director of Human Resources | Scheduled 7:10 PM. There was no superintendent's report as such; the item was two personnel nominations, presented by Assistant Superintendent Koski per the minutes. Michael McCosker, Director of Student Services effective July 1, 2024 — Crawford moving, Heather Whitney seconding, voice vote, unanimous (0:15:21). Patrick O'Hearn, Director of Human Resources effective April 15, 2024 — Miles moving, Ruggeri seconding (0:15:46); the minutes record the only named tally of the night: in favour Hawkins, Ruggeri, Sprague, Miles, Crawford, Petrin and Whitney; against none; abstaining Kelly Simpson and Shannon Popescu. On the recording the abstentions are two voices saying "That'd be me" and "Me too" (0:16:07). |
| 0:16:24 | VII.1. Budget Update (Discussion) — Mary Henry, Business Administrator | Scheduled 7:20 PM. "I honestly don't have. A lot because it hasn't. Moved a lot since the last time I read an update. We moved about $5,000, so. It's not like it's great." — one passage, which the diarizer splits across four segments and two speaker labels; the draft minutes attribute it to Mary Henry. The chair asked for a June accounting of "all of the transfers that were made during this year with the rationale and any encumbrances" (0:17:16); Henry answered "We haven't transferred any money between budget lines, though… I haven't done that this year at all." No member asked a question; the packet's own Financial Statement 3-31-24 (3).pdf was never referred to. See flag 6. |
| 0:17:42 | VII.2.c. Policy AC — Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Employment (second read/adoption) | "The policy committee subcommittee has been very much at work, and you will find all the paperwork in your packet." Kelly Simpson moved adoption as presented, Shannon Popescu seconded per the minutes; on the recording both Crawford and Ruggeri say "Second" and the chair rules "Which one is the second? Candace." Voice vote at 0:18:23, unanimously approved. Policy AC is not in the posted packet. |
| 0:18:23 | VII.2.d. Policy ACAC — Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy and Grievance Process (First Read) | Adopted at first read on the New Hampshire School Boards Association's advice — "recommended this get passed and adopted on an emergency basis, and then we can have a discussion at a future meeting" (0:19:33). The chair's account of why, at 0:18:58: "These regulations went into effect in 2020, but we did not implement. We have no policy that is this regarding this." Assistant Superintendent Koski: "Whether we have a policy or not, regulations… have to follow the." Heather Whitney moved, Kelly Simpson seconded; "None passes unanimously." See flag 1. |
| 0:21:56 | VII.2.e. Policy BEDG — Meeting Minutes (First Read) | A new policy written to implement the October 2023 amendment to the Right-to-Know Law: "This is the change in the in the law that requires the minutes be reviewed within every ten years… anything that started October 3rd, 2023" (0:23:30) — the exact effective date of RSA 91-A:3, IV. Amended on the floor after Ruggeri pressed for a stated preference against long seals and Heather Whitney proposed the wording. Whitney moved it to a second read as amended, Ruggeri seconded; unanimously approved (0:32:33). Adopted at second read on 9/12/24. See flag 12. |
| 0:32:54 | VII.2.f. Policy BEDH — Public Comments & Participation at Board Meetings (First read) | Adopted at first read. "This policy that you have in your packet is Claremont's policy. Claremont's policy subcommittee reviewed this and updated it to comply with the latest legislation that requires every board provide a minimum of 30 minutes in total to hear all public comments. And that's to align with RSA 18974 [189:74]." Heather Whitney moved adoption stripped of the Claremont-only "related policies" header, Kelly Simpson seconded; voice vote at 0:34:11, unanimous. The packet copy is literally Claremont's: Copy of CLAREMONT BEDH APPROVED Public Comment and Participation 9.6.23 (1) (1).pdf. See flag 7. |
| 0:34:11 | VII.2.g. Policy DBJ — Transfer of Appropriation (First read) | Adopted at first read as amended. "This is not a required priority. Policy for the saw. This was brought forward by a member of the board," reviewed with Pratt and the board's attorney. Substance, at 0:34:55: "this is consistent with RSA 3210 [32:10]… this policy would authorize the superintendent to transfer funds between line items up to $10,000. Anything beyond the 10,000 would require Saw board approval." Ruggeri found the defect — the draft had the board "approve" transfers already made — and the sentence was struck. Heather Whitney moved adoption with the last sentence of the fourth paragraph stricken, Kelly Simpson seconded; unanimous at 0:38:56. See flag 6 and flag 10. |
| 0:38:56 | VII.2.h. Policy EHAB — Data Governance and Security (First read) | Adopted at first read. An NHSBA priority policy, new to the SAU. Ruggeri's question was workload — "my concern was the added workload to Jeff" — and Jeff Small's answer was that the cybersecurity work is already ongoing and that "one policy is now referring to another policy that we don't have or it needs updating. So this is kind of the start of it" (0:40:31). Crawford moved adoption as presented, Popescu seconded; unanimous at 0:41:44. |
| 0:41:44 | VII.2.i. Policy KED — Facilities or Services, Grievance Procedure (First read) | Tabled. The document was not in the packet and the board could not find it — "Don't have this… Stapling would help us labeling" (0:42:24). Sprague, who had prepared, questioned the need for a §504 grievance procedure at all: "I'm wondering why a grievance would not go to the Office of Civil Rights. Don't 504 grievances go to the OCR?" and "I don't think that the school administration has the authority to mediate civil rights claims" (0:44:18). Ruggeri: "I think we should table this until the next meeting." The chair asked Sprague to seek clarification from NHSBA. See flag 5. |
| 0:47:22 | VII.2.j. Policy EHB — Data/Records Retention (Revision) | Revised and adopted. A policy the board had read and adopted at a single meeting in February — "that's we have to be a little cautious when we do that" — and which turned out to prescribe a sanitization method the district does not use. Small, at 0:48:36: "how the policy was originally written was a format, formatting three times over on a dry [drive], which roughly takes about 5.5 hours, per drive… we overwrite every sector on the drive with the cross [zeros], and then we actually send them and recycle it with the certified recycling company, which then actually formats all the drives 33 times over and can give us a letter for that." Simpson moved, Popescu seconded; unanimous at 0:50:04. |
| 0:50:04 | VII.2.k. Policies to be withdrawn — GBA and GBAA (added by floor amendment) | Both withdrawn. GBA (Equal Opportunity Employment) "has been withdrawn by the New Hampshire School Board Association, and it has been incorporated into and covered by policy a c that we had our second read and adopted tonight" — Sprague moving, Simpson seconding, "It's unanimous" (0:51:10). GBAA (Sexual Harassment of SAU Employees and Staff) withdrawn on the ground that "the grievance procedure is included in the new policy that we had a first read of. No, we we passed we adopted tonight" — Simpson moving, Popescu seconding (0:52:00). Ruggeri had insisted on the form: "We need to read a policy we're deleting." |
| 0:52:33 | VII.3. Superintendent Evaluation Subcommittee (Discussion) | A condensed instrument, because Pratt had been in the job three months: "It was because obviously it wasn't a full year by the time Chris took over" (0:53:10). Whitney Skillen — absent — built the survey on a Google Sheet; Sprague added a "not observed" option and required narrative text for most ratings. Timeline as read by the chair at 0:58:59: board members complete individual evaluations between tonight and May 1; data compiled into one written evaluation between May 1 and May 15; the final evaluation delivered to the superintendent between May 15 and May 31, because "contractually has to be completed, and he has to receive a written evaluation by June 1st." Responses are not anonymous. No vote; discussion only. |
| 1:04:56 | VII.4. SAU #6 Retreat (Discussion) | No date set. The chair wanted the two district retreats first — Unity's on April 16, Claremont's provisionally Saturday May 11 — so their goals could be brought up to the SAU. She also proposed collapsing the two retreats the pre-populated calendar prescribes into one: "I'm thinking we can have one retreat and do our own self-evaluation effectiveness and goal setting" (1:06:19). Heather Whitney set out the distinction being collapsed: "One is developing district goals with the administration and then the other is essentially us doing individual goals for the board at the on the board level." Venue: "the teal Lantern at the tech center." The retreat was eventually held 5/29/24. |
| 1:07:41 | VIII. Future Dates | Per the agenda: Claremont Board Meeting 4.17.24; SAU #6 Board Meeting 6.13.24; Unity Board Meeting 5.14.24. The chair added the standing offer of an interim nonpublic meeting "Unless the subcommittee determines that you want us to come together for a non public, which we will do if you want us to." No 6/13/24 SAU 6 meeting appears anywhere in this project's records — no recording, no packet folder and no minutes. The next SAU 6 meeting on the record is 9/12/24, which is where these minutes were finally approved. |
| 1:08:02 | IX. Other Business — Unity School Board Warrant Article 8 | Ruggeri reports the town vote: "So on March 16th I believe it was our annual town vote… we had an amendment, a warrant article asking our town for approval to create a planning committee to look into the withdrawal for unity to withdraw from the Saw six. So the town did approve that." And the caution: "nothing is guaranteed… for the next year, it's just the planning committee and the planning committee's findings." Composition, at 1:09:00: "the committee consists of five people from town, two board members and the superintendent." The chair offered the SAU board's help. See flag 8. |
| 1:09:20 | X. Future Agenda Items / XI. Adjournment | Scheduled 8:15 and 8:30 PM. No future agenda items were offered; the chair moved straight to "Future agenda items. I will entertain a motion." Ruggeri moved to adjourn, Sprague seconded per the draft minutes (Popescu's "Second" is what the recording catches). No adjournment time is recorded anywhere. |
Discussion timeline
Times are taken from the dialogue transcript (Output/Dialogue/15687 SAU6041124.mp4.CSV) and link into the recording. Quotations reproduce the transcript verbatim, ASR errors included, with editorial insertions in square brackets. Because the nonpublic session is not on the recording, recording time and clock time diverge after 0:10:27.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:00:54 | The board reorganizes: two offices, no count, ninety seconds | From the call for nominations to a seated chair takes ninety seconds. "Do I have any nominations?" … "Any further discussion? All in favor of nominating Arlene Hopkins [Hawkins] as CEO? Six board chair. Any opposed?" No tally is announced and none is recorded beyond "unanimously approved." The vice-chair election that follows is the new chair's own nomination, seconded by Sprague, put by her and — the transcript catches this — seconded again by her: "I'm sorry. I'll second that. Thank you. All in favor?" RSA 194-C:5, I directs this board to organize by choosing "a chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer"; the agenda listed only a chair and a vice chair. | MEDIUM OBSERVATION |
| 0:03:20 | The clerk is absent; the special-education director reads the rolls | "Our secretary Noel, is not present tonight, so I'm going to ask Ben. Would you take attendance tonight?" Nester, who had already given notice: "Can I can I take attendance at the last board. Meeting I attend to?" He reads four rolls across the evening — attendance, into nonpublic, out of nonpublic, and the seal. The draft minutes are nevertheless signed by the absent clerk. | MEDIUM |
| 0:06:15 | A sealing vote missing from the February minutes is restored | "Under item number three, in the minutes from February 15th, the fourth bullet, a motion to seal the minutes that should read. Made by Candace Crawford for three years. Second by Heather Whitney." The chair had caught it herself and carried the correction in her notes: "I just realized I made a correction in the minutes the last time I found them." A recorded vote to seal nonpublic minutes for three years had gone unrecorded in the minutes of the meeting that took it, and was fixed eight weeks later. | MEDIUM |
| 0:07:08 | Citizens' comments skipped, then restored by the superintendent | The chair began the nonpublic motion — "At this point, I'd like to have a motion to move into a nonpublic session for RSA 91. Excuse me, dash a three." Pratt, one word: "Public comment." The chair: "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm chewing through to many things. Citizens comments. Do we have any citizens comments? I apologize please. I'm so sorry." Later that same evening the board adopted policy BEDH, whose stated purpose is to comply with the statute requiring "a minimum of 30 minutes in total to hear all public comments." | OBSERVATION |
| 0:07:36 | Susan Mason: what happens when a teacher breaks board policy? | "My name is Susan Mason. I just have a question for the board. What happens when you have a teacher within the school system that has broken at least one bullet point of each of three different one of your policies from the school board? What is the standard policy that you would do?" The chair redirected her: "I'm going to suggest that you go to the individual district board meeting… I would suggest that you contact our Superintendent Pratt" (0:08:03), and explained the division of labour between the SAU board and the district boards. When Mason asked for "some time with him after this meeting for just a few minutes," Pratt declined in favour of an appointment: "I would rather if you just give my office a call and I'll set up a appointment… that way we can have uninterrupted time" (0:09:07). Her stake, stated only afterwards: "my granddaughter is a special ed student." | OBSERVATION |
| 0:09:32 | Into nonpublic under two exemptions, on a roll call — but the notice named one | "I would like to have a motion to move into nonpublic session or as under RSA 91-A32A and B." Ruggeri's motion repeats the citation on its face, Heather Whitney seconds, and Nester calls the roll: "Arlene Hawkins. Yes. Rocco? Gary. Yes… Frank. Sprague. Yes. Bonnie. Miles. Yes… And is Crawford? Yes. Michael. Patron. Yes. And. Whitney. Yes." That is exactly the procedure RSA 91-A:3, I(b) prescribes. The posted agenda, however, noticed only subsection (a); (b) — hiring — is the one the two personnel nominations later that night rest on. | POSITIVE MEDIUM |
| 0:11:52 | Sealed six months, with no statutory ground stated | The board hesitated first — "I think we need to see at least a minute. Okay. So we're. We're not voting." — and Ruggeri offered a ceiling: "Ceiling ceiling for any more than ten years." The chair chose a term: "I wouldn't even know. I would just to the contract until the negotiations are done," then "I'm going to seal them in light of the discussion that we had where things are not finalized, I would move to seal the seal the minutes for six months." Roll call; all present in favour. Six months is a short seal by this board's own recent standards — its 12/7/23 nonpublic minutes were sealed 99 years and its 1/11/24 minutes 30 years — but none of the three statutory grounds in RSA 91-A:3, III was named. | MEDIUM POSITIVE |
| 0:13:44 | Two subcommittees named in one motion; half the evaluation committee is absent | "I would like to nominate for both committees at once. And if people are okay with that…" Superintendent evaluation: Atonya Hart, Rocco Ruggeri, Frank Sprague and Whitney Skillen, chaired by Sprague. Policy: Candace Crawford, Kelly Simpson and Hawkins, chaired by Hawkins. Hart and Skillen were both absent and neither had been asked on the record. The whole item — nomination, motion, second and vote — runs 39 seconds. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:15:21 | Two directors hired; the only counted vote of the night | McCosker as Director of Student Services from July 1, 2024 passed on a voice vote. O'Hearn as Director of Human Resources — "And I believe he's starting this month. Oprah 15 [April 15]" — did not: at 0:16:07 two voices answer the call for abstentions, "That'd be me" and "Me too," and the chair confirms, "You're abstaining." The draft minutes name them: Kelly Simpson and Shannon Popescu, both Unity members, with seven in favour and none against. No reason for either abstention appears in the record. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:16:24 | "We haven't transferred any money between budget lines… I haven't done that this year at all" | The budget update ran under two minutes and drew a single question — Ruggeri's "No. Thank you." The chair asked for a June accounting of transfers, rationales and encumbrances, "I had asked for that at an earlier meeting," and Henry replied that none had been made. The packet in front of the board contained a general-ledger report printed two days earlier showing the SAU's Superintendent's Office salaries $107,557.44 over budget once encumbrances are counted, a School Board function carrying $7,400 of committed spending against a $0 budget, and Business Office contracted services at nearly three times its $5,000 line. Overall the SAU was still $148,616.13 (6.20%) under its $2,396,000 appropriation. Nobody mentioned the document. | MEDIUM |
| 0:18:58 | "These regulations went into effect in 2020, but we did not implement" | The chair introducing policy ACAC: "This policy is much more involved than the original sexual harassment policy, which was GBE a a [GBAA] because the federal regs that are pertaining specifically to title nine… So there's a completely new definition of sexual harassment. It has timelines for the essay [SAU] to respond with. It defines complainants and respondents. There's no wiggle room… These regulations went into effect in 2020, but we did not implement. We have no policy that is this regarding this, other than that G.B. a which I'm going to ask to have withdrawn later." Koski, asked whether to adopt on an emergency basis: "Whether we have a policy or not, regulations… have to follow the." | HIGH |
| 0:21:14 | Ruggeri: adopting a document still marked up as a first read | "So the way the policy is presented, there's a lot of extra stuff in here. So a lot of the highlighting… Does the highlighting come out?" The chair explained the practice — "This is what we've traditionally done is provide it this way for a first read, so that members of the board can see the changes and recommendations from the New Hampshire School Board Association. But this will all come out." Ruggeri's point, at 0:21:14: "But we were talking about adopting it today. Right. So that makes it a little different than a first read." He voted for it anyway: "I'm good with the text. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what the final version was going to look like." | HIGH |
| 0:23:30 | The board writes a minutes policy to a statute six months old | "This is the change in the in the law that requires the minutes be reviewed within every ten years. Not until the board determines its time. So anything that started October 3rd, 2023. We must seal the minutes. We must review those sealed minutes within a ten year period. And so the policy subcommittee agreed to be the group that would go into the list of sealed minutes, go through those sealed minutes in a nonpublic meeting, and then bring to the board those minutes that we determine need to continue being sealed." October 3, 2023 is the exact effective date of RSA 91-A:3, IV. The chair on the purpose: "to get less, fewer minutes sealed and for a shorter period of time. Sure. So we've done we've had meetings where we've sealed minutes when we really may not have had to." | POSITIVE |
| 0:25:17 | Eight minutes on who gets to unseal, and a friendly amendment | Ruggeri wanted the preference written down: "I guess I'm just suggesting it say in here somewhere that, you know, the saw board prefers not to seal minutes for more than ten years unless deemed necessary… as people change in and out of the board, right? That legacy preference can get lost." Heather Whitney pressed the governance question — "Does the board want to relinquish that that right decision making capacity" — and Crawford stated the committee's intent: "our intent was to review the minutes that have been sealed and are already. And then that ones that should continue to be sealed and bring that to the board for approval to reseal." Ruggeri then read the draft back accurately, including its nine-years-ten-months re-review clock (0:28:41). Resolution: Whitney's amendment, "every effort should be made… Recommended duration less than ten years," and back in June for a second read. | POSITIVE |
| 0:32:54 | The SAU adopts Claremont's public-comment policy, header and all | "This policy that you have in your packet is Claremont's policy… updated it to comply with the latest legislation that requires every board provide a minimum of 30 minutes in total to hear all public comments. And that's to align with RSA 18974." The only amendment was cosmetic — striking the Claremont-specific "related policies" list at the head of the document, "because that only applies to Claremont at this point." The packet file name still reads Copy of CLAREMONT BEDH APPROVED Public Comment and Participation 9.6.23. | OBSERVATION |
| 0:34:55 | A $10,000 spending delegation, and the sentence Ruggeri got struck | "this policy would authorize the superintendent to transfer funds between line items up to $10,000. Anything beyond the 10,000 would require Saw board approval and authorization." Ruggeri found the flaw at 0:35:52: the draft told the board it "will approve the transfers and encumbrances" at the last meeting of the fiscal year — "Then it says will approve it. So how do we approve something after it's already done?" The chair defended it as informational — "to pretty much kind of put the bow on the package" — Crawford offered "ratify," Ruggeri countered "maybe I should just say acknowledge because approving is an action," and Heather Whitney proposed simply deleting the sentence, which is what carried. Sprague then pinned down the ceiling clause (0:37:50): "in no circumstance the total amount exceed the total amount appropriated by the adopted budget. That does not refer to a specific line… So the essay you cannot run in a deficit." | POSITIVE OBSERVATION |
| 0:40:04 | Cybersecurity policy: is this new work for one person? | Ruggeri to the technology director: "my concern was the added workload to Jeff… it sounds like you have a lot more work to do unless you're already doing it, that I'm just not aware of because I don't know everything you do." Small: "So a lot of this is what we. Are already doing." and "So, the cybersecurity is always ongoing." And on why the policy chain matters (0:40:31): "I kind of went down the rabbit hole where one policy is now referring to another policy that we don't have or it needs updating. So this is kind of the start of it." Ruggeri: "I feel better knowing that it's not new work being brought… to your desk." | |
| 0:42:06 | Policy KED is not in the packet, and then it is tabled | "Don't have this. You know that. I buried in there?" — followed by nearly a minute of members hunting through unstapled paper, and the chair's remark, "Stapling would help us labeling. You used to get labeled exhibit." Sprague's objection was substantive: "we have other nondiscrimination rules under the idea [IDEA] for employees and for students… I'm trying to figure out where why this protection is needed that they wouldn't get under the American with Disabilities Act," then "I'm wondering why a grievance would not go to the Office of Civil Rights. Don't 504 grievances go to the OCR?… I don't think that the school administration has the authority to mediate civil rights claims." Koski's counter — a §504 plan "can just be a temporary disability. So somebody may be on crutches for a month" — did not change the outcome. Sprague: "it just seems like it's a a solution looking for a problem." Ruggeri moved to table. | MEDIUM |
| 0:47:22 | A February policy that told staff to do the wrong thing for 5.5 hours a drive | "This is a revision to an adoption that we just did. After this is one of the policies we read and adopted at one meeting. So that's we have to be a little cautious when we do that." Small explained what the February text had actually required: "formatting three times over on a dry [drive], which roughly takes about 5.5 hours, per drive, which I don't think, for what we're doing" — against the district's practice of a single zero-fill overwrite followed by certified recycling that "actually formats all the drives 33 times over and can give us a letter for that." The chair's own caution about single-meeting adoptions is notable given that policy ACAC had been adopted at a single meeting an hour earlier. | HIGH |
| 0:52:33 | The superintendent evaluation: a condensed tool, built overnight by an absent member | "We're doing a condensed version of an evaluation, not as, encompassing of everything. It was because obviously it wasn't a full year by the time Chris took over." Sprague on the instrument's design: a "not observed" option, because "depending on committees, subcommittees… Not everybody has the same experience in in every category"; mandatory narrative for most ratings, "There's a little bit of accountability. You just can't push the button and say exceeds expectations"; and a request that every member propose next year's goals, "I think this is where our fodder for our retreats will come from." Attribution matters here: the builder is Whitney Skillen, absent — "next time you see Whitney she built this… She had this done I think it was 11:00 last night" — not Heather Whitney, who is in the room. | |
| 0:58:59 | Twenty days to evaluate the superintendent, against a June 1 contract deadline | "the full board complete the individual evaluations between tonight and May 1st. That gives us about two weeks. And then data from the individual evaluations will be compiled into one final written evaluation between May 1st and May 15th… And then the final evaluation would be given to the superintendent between May 15th and May 31st, contractually has to be completed, and he has to receive a written evaluation by June 1st." Sprague on enforcement: "I am interested in if people aren't doing it to get after them," which is why the responses are not anonymous — "I don't think it's anonymous because it hasn't been in the past." Petrin, per the minutes, asked for a subordinate survey; Ruggeri said the superintendent runs a separate one, "he did get some emails, some of those surveys done. But because this was kind of a shortened timeline, we just we needed to get something completed." | |
| 1:04:56 | Retreat dates, and two retreats collapsed into one | "before we do an say [SAU] retreat, it would be beneficial to have Claremont have their retreat unity have theirs so we can bring those goals together under SA6 board goals." Unity's was the following week, April 16; Claremont's was unset — "I have. Saturday, May 11th." The chair proposed merging the pre-populated calendar's two SAU retreats: "the prefilled calendar indicates a summer s a board retreat. And then also shows the board goal, board goals review retreat for self-evaluation and school board effectiveness. And I found that I was not clear on what that meant." Heather Whitney set out the distinction being collapsed. No date was fixed at the meeting; the retreat was ultimately held on 5/29/24. | |
| 1:08:02 | Unity's withdrawal reaches this board for the first time | "So on March 16th I believe it was our annual town vote as we had, you know, you guys a heads up prior to that we had an amendment, a warrant article asking our town for approval to create a planning committee to look into the withdrawal for unity to withdraw from the Saw six. So the town did approve that. And we are setting up the planning committee. And, you know, nothing is guaranteed… So for the next year, it's just the planning committee and the planning committee's findings. That's really all that we know for sure going forward." Composition, at 1:09:00: "the committee consists of five people from town, two board members and the superintendent." No chair is named — the committee had not yet met. The chair's response was an offer of help: "if there's any way that this is a board or members of the board can be of assistance to this committee or whatever you need from us… just know that the board is here." | OBSERVATION |
Items flagged for review
Flags are a reviewer's aid produced by comparing what happened at this meeting against state and federal law as it stood. They are not findings of violation, they are not legal advice, and they may be incomplete or wrong. Every rule-based flag names and links the provision it rests on; where no verified rule reaches a concern it is labelled an observation and says so. Positives are included because an evenhanded record is the point.
HIGH The chair states on the record that SAU 6 had operated without a Title IX grievance policy since the federal regulations took effect in 2020
Introducing policy ACAC at 0:18:58, the chair said of the Title IX regulations: "These regulations went into effect in 2020, but we did not implement. We have no policy that is this regarding this, other than that G.B. a [GBAA] which I'm going to ask to have withdrawn later." The regulations she describes are the Department of Education's Title IX final rule, published at 85 FR 30026 on May 19, 2020 and effective August 14, 2020. That rule requires every recipient of federal education funds to "adopt, publish, and implement grievance procedures" for complaints of sex discrimination (34 CFR 106.8) and prescribes the grievance process for formal complaints of sexual harassment at 34 CFR 106.45 — the "completely new definition of sexual harassment… timelines for the essay [SAU] to respond with… complainants and respondents" the chair listed. Between August 14, 2020 and this meeting is three years and nearly eight months. The board's response was to adopt the policy at first read on the New Hampshire School Boards Association's advice that it "get passed and adopted on an emergency basis," on a voice vote with no count, from a marked-up draft that Ruggeri pointed out was still formatted for a first read (0:21:14). Two things cut in the board's favour and belong in the same paragraph: Assistant Superintendent Koski told the board plainly that the regulations bind the SAU regardless — "Whether we have a policy or not, regulations… have to follow the" (0:19:54) — so the absence of a policy is not the same as an absence of obligation; and nothing on this record shows a Title IX complaint that was actually mishandled. What the record does show is a written-policy requirement left unmet for years and then closed in a single sitting. Note also that the withdrawn policy GBAA was the SAU's only prior sexual-harassment policy, so this adoption and that withdrawal had to happen in the right order — and they did.
Sources: 34 CFR 106.8 (Title IX Coordinator; adopt, publish and implement grievance procedures); 34 CFR 106.45 (grievance process for formal complaints of sexual harassment); 85 FR 30026 (May 19, 2020) — "These regulations are effective August 14, 2020"; FOR FIRST READ Policy ACAC (packet PDF); 4.11.24 draft minutes. The eCFR text now shown at 106.8 and 106.45 is the 2024 amended version; the version binding on April 11, 2024 was the 2020 rule linked above.
MEDIUM The statutory annual organization elected a chair and a vice chair; RSA 194-C:5, I directs a chairperson, a secretary and a treasurer
RSA 194-C:5, I provides: "The school board of each school administrative unit shall meet between April 1 and June 1 in each year, at a time and place fixed by the chairpersons of the several boards, and shall organize by choosing a chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer." This meeting is that annual organization — the chair called it so at 0:13:04, "this is the reorganization meeting" — and it falls squarely inside the April 1 to June 1 window. But the posted agenda provided for exactly two offices, "a) Chair" and "b) Vice Chair"; those are the two that were filled; and neither the recording nor the draft minutes contains any election, appointment or mention of a secretary or a treasurer. Vice chair, the office the board did fill, is not among the three the statute names. There are real mitigations. Noelle Kronberg had been appointed SAU 6 board clerk on 11/9/2023 and Bonnie Miles elected SAU 6 treasurer on 8/17/2023, and a board may have understood both to continue; the clerk is named on the agenda masthead. Against that, at the same board's own April 10, 2025 reorganization the chair stated on the record that "the SAU Board currently has no treasurer, so the Board will need one" — prompted by auditor Michael Campo, who had said the treasurer should be reviewing the check register — and the board then elected Candace Crawford treasurer and two members to review and sign vouchers. That is hard to reconcile with an unbroken treasurership running through April 2024, and the 2025 reorganization elected no secretary either. Because no minutes of this meeting were available for months, there was for most of a year no public record either way.
Sources: RSA 194-C:5, I (SAU board shall meet between April 1 and June 1 and organize by choosing a chairperson, a secretary and a treasurer); SAU 6 School Board Agenda 4.11.24 (item II lists only Chair and Vice Chair); 4.11.24 draft minutes.
MEDIUM Minutes of this meeting cannot be shown to have been available within 5 business days; the only located copy is a draft filed in a packet five months later and approved 154 days after the meeting
RSA 91-A:2, II requires that minutes "shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting," and a draft satisfies that duty. RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) puts a school administrative unit's board squarely inside the law. Five business days after Thursday, April 11, 2024 is Thursday, April 18. The only copy of these minutes located anywhere in the district's public shares is 4.11.24 Draft SAU6 Board Minutes (1).pdf, and it sits not in this meeting's own packet folder but in the folder for the September 12, 2024 meeting; the board approved them that night, 154 days after the meeting they record. The SAU 6 archive contains no folder, agenda, recording or minutes for the June 13, 2024 meeting this board scheduled for itself, so nothing indicates an earlier approval. Two honest limits on this flag: posting to a Google Drive share is not what the statute requires — inspection at the SAU office would satisfy it, and nothing here proves a requester was refused — and the district's habit of filing each meeting's minutes inside the following meeting's packet means the folder location is a filing convention, not a date stamp. What sharpens it is who wrote them. The clerk was absent — "Our secretary Noel, is not present tonight" (0:03:20) — yet the draft is signed "Respectfully submitted by Noelle Kronberg, board clerk," so the sole narrative record of this meeting was composed by someone who was not in the room, from the recording or from notes. That is also why this page follows the minutes only where they are corroborated, and says so each time.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes promptly recorded and open to public inspection within 5 business days); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (a school administrative unit board is a "public body"); RSA 91-A:4 (availability of governmental records on request); 4.11.24 draft minutes, filed in 1. SAU6 9.12.24; 9.12.24 draft minutes (recording their approval).
MEDIUM Nonpublic minutes sealed for six months with no statutory ground stated — and the public notice named one exemption while the session used two
Two documentation gaps around an otherwise well-run nonpublic session. First, sealing. RSA 91-A:3, III allows a body to withhold nonpublic minutes only where two-thirds of the members present, on a recorded vote, "determine that divulgence" would adversely affect the reputation of a person other than a member, render the proposed action ineffective, or pertain to preparation for or carrying out of an emergency function. The vote itself was clean — a roll call read by Ben Nester with all nine present in favour, which clears two-thirds — and the term chosen was short. But the reason given on the record was "in light of the discussion that we had where things are not finalized" and, in the minutes, "to allow time for the negotiations to finish" (0:12:14). Neither names one of the three statutory circumstances. The reason given reads naturally as the "render the proposed action ineffective" ground, but the finding the statute requires was not made. Second, notice. The posted agenda noticed the nonpublic under "RSA 91-A:3, II (a)" and printed only that subsection's text; the motion actually made, the roll call, and the minutes' own heading all cite II (a) and (b) — and (b), hiring, is the exemption the two personnel nominations later that night rest on. Under RSA 91-A:2 the required notice is of the meeting, not of a final agenda, so this is not a notice violation on its face; it is a mismatch between what the public was told the board would go behind closed doors to discuss and what it did. Worth recording alongside this: the board spent the first eight minutes of the meeting restoring a sealing vote that had gone unrecorded in the February 15 minutes entirely (0:06:15) — the same board catching the same class of error in its own paperwork.
Sources: RSA 91-A:3, III (nonpublic minutes; 72 hours; sealing requires a recorded 2/3 vote and one of three statutory determinations); RSA 91-A:3, I(b) and II(a), II(b); RSA 91-A:2, II (notice); posted agenda (item IV, subsection (a) only); 4.11.24 draft minutes (item IV, "II a, b").
MEDIUM The §504 grievance procedure was tabled — on a premise the federal regulation does not support — and the document was not in the packet
Policy KED is a grievance procedure under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It was tabled after Frank Sprague argued, at 0:43:50 and 0:44:18, "I'm wondering why a grievance would not go to the Office of Civil Rights. Don't 504 grievances go to the OCR?… I don't think that the school administration has the authority to mediate civil rights claims," and concluded "it just seems like it's a a solution looking for a problem." The governing regulation says something different. 34 CFR 104.7 provides that "a recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with this part" and "shall adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by this part." An internal grievance procedure is the requirement, not an alternative to it; a complaint to the Office for Civil Rights is a separate and parallel avenue that does not displace the recipient's own duty. Two qualifications keep this at medium rather than high. The provision binds recipients employing fifteen or more persons, and this page has not verified the SAU 6 central office's headcount as of April 2024 — the general-ledger report in the same packet shows salary lines for information management, the superintendent's office, special education administration, the business office, human resources and maintenance, which is consistent with but does not prove fifteen. And the board did not reject the policy: it tabled it and asked Sprague to seek clarification from the New Hampshire School Boards Association, which had recommended it. The related process failure is plainer: policy KED was an action item on the posted agenda and was not in the posted packet, and the board lost the better part of a minute of a public meeting to hunting for a document that was not there (0:42:06). Nothing in this project's records shows the policy returning to the SAU 6 board.
Sources: 34 CFR 104.7 (designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures, recipients with 15+ employees); posted agenda, item VII.2.i; 4.11.24 draft minutes ("It was decided to table this policy to the next meeting").
MEDIUM "We haven't transferred any money between budget lines" — while the packet's own general ledger showed a dozen lines overspent, one of them against a zero budget
The budget update ran under two minutes, drew one comment ("No. Thank you."), and produced this exchange at 0:17:16: the chair asked for a June accounting of "all of the transfers that were made during this year with the rationale and any encumbrances," and the business administrator answered, "Yeah. We haven't transferred any money between budget lines, though… I'm just telling you, I haven't done that this year at all." Sitting in the same packet was Financial Statement 3-31-24 (3).pdf, a general-ledger report printed on April 9, two days before the meeting, covering the year to March 31. Read against the appropriation it shows: the Superintendent's Office salary line at $452,234.78 spent with a further $118,376.57 encumbered against a $463,053.91 budget, a projected overrun of $107,557.44; a School Board function (2310) carrying $6,500 spent and $900 encumbered against a $0 budget; Business Office contracted services at $14,955.74 against a $5,000 line; Human Resources health insurance at $32,065.54 against $13,692.80; and a Superintendent's Office TSA 403(b) line at $5,200 against $500. In aggregate the Superintendent's Office function is $75,742.19 over. Two things must be said for fairness. Line overruns are not the same as deficit spending: the SAU as a whole was $148,616.13 — 6.20% — under its $2,396,000 appropriation, and the encumbrances on salary lines represent the rest of the year's payroll rather than money already gone. And the business administrator's statement is literally about transfers, which is a different act from overspending a line. That is exactly what makes the pairing worth flagging: a board that had just been told no funds had been moved between lines, that had a document in hand showing lines materially over, and that then adopted a policy delegating $10,000 of line-to-line transfer authority to the superintendent — all without a single member referring to the report. No member asked a question about the financial statement; it is not mentioned once in 677 transcript segments or anywhere in the draft minutes.
Sources: Financial Statement 3-31-24 (3).pdf — SAU 6 YTD 2023-2024 budget, printed 4/9/2024; FOR FIRST READ Requested Policy DBJ, Transfer of Appropriation (packet PDF); RSA 194-C:5 (the SAU board fixes salaries of SAU personnel and apportions the expense among the districts); RSA 194-C:9 (SAU budget and apportionment). No verified rule on this project's citation list makes a line-item overrun unlawful for a school administrative unit; this flag is a control-and-oversight concern, not an assertion of illegality.
OBSERVATION Citizens' comments were skipped until the superintendent intervened, and ran about two minutes — at the meeting that adopted a policy to implement the 30-minute statute
RSA 189:74, added by 2022, 333:1 and effective September 6, 2022, requires a school board to "provide the opportunity for the public to comment on school district matters at a meeting of the school board held under RSA 91-A:2," and states that "the public comment period shall be for no less than 30 minutes," excepting emergency meetings and meetings held solely for nonpublic session. At this meeting the chair moved past the item entirely and had begun the nonpublic motion before Chris Pratt said "Public comment" and she reversed herself: "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm chewing through to many things. Citizens comments." (0:07:08). The period that followed ran from 0:07:21 to 0:09:32 — about two minutes — and consisted of one speaker, Susan Mason, who was redirected to a different board and to a private appointment with the superintendent rather than answered. This is an observation rather than a finding for two reasons. Nobody was turned away: the chair asked "Are there any other citizens comments?" and no one answered, and the statute's minimum is most naturally read as a floor on the opportunity offered rather than a requirement to sit in silence for half an hour; no New Hampshire decision construing the point has been checked here. And the underlying question Mason asked — what happens when a teacher breaches board policy — genuinely belongs to the district board, not to this one, and the chair explained that distinction accurately. What makes it worth recording is the timing. Forty minutes later the same board adopted policy BEDH for the express purpose of complying with this statute — "the latest legislation that requires every board provide a minimum of 30 minutes in total to hear all public comments" (0:32:54) — using a document that is a copy of Claremont's policy.
Sources: RSA 189:74 (School Board Public Comment Period — "no less than 30 minutes"; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022); RSA 91-A:2; Copy of CLAREMONT BEDH APPROVED Public Comment and Participation 9.6.23 (packet PDF).
OBSERVATION Unity's withdrawal: what this recording corrects, and what it leaves open
This is the first time the SAU 6 board's own record carries Unity's withdrawal — the 2/15/24 SAU 6 meeting contains no mention of it at all. Ruggeri's report (1:08:02) fixes three details that circulate loosely elsewhere. The town vote was March 16, not some later date. The article authorised creating "a planning committee to look into the withdrawal," not the withdrawal itself: "nothing is guaranteed… for the next year, it's just the planning committee and the planning committee's findings." And the committee has eight members, not seven — "five people from town, two board members and the superintendent" (1:09:00). That composition matches RSA 194-C:2, I(a)(3) exactly. The statute seats two local school board members, one member of a financial committee with statutory authority over school budgets, and four public members appointed by the school district moderator, plus the superintendent as a nonvoting member — and it provides that "in communities with no such financial committee, the number of public members under subparagraph (a)(3)(C) shall be increased to 5." A town without a budget committee therefore seats five public members, two board members and the superintendent: precisely the eight Ruggeri described. No chair is named anywhere on this recording, which is consistent with RSA 194-C:2, I(a)(4)(B) — "At the first meeting, a chairperson shall be elected by the members" — and a committee that was still being "set up." Ruggeri delivered the report but never claimed to chair the committee, and no file in this corpus ever names its chair. The road ahead, per the statute: the committee prepares a withdrawal plan with a fiscal and educational impact analysis, holds at least one public hearing no less than 14 days before submission, the state board reviews within 60 days, and withdrawal requires 3/5 of the votes cast in the withdrawing district. Unity's voters approved it in March 2025, effective July 1, 2026.
Sources: RSA 194-C:2, I(a)(3) (planning committee membership), I(a)(4)(B) (chairperson elected at the first meeting), I(a)(8) (majority of total membership), IV (withdrawal: plan, public hearing, 60-day state board review, 3/5 voter approval); the recording at 1:08:02 and 1:09:00; 4.11.24 draft minutes, item IX.
OBSERVATION Not one vote tally was announced all evening, on a board where the two districts' voting strength is not equal
Across a chair election, a vice-chair election, an agenda amendment, two minutes motions, three roll calls, a subcommittee slate, two personnel appointments, six policy actions, two policy withdrawals and adjournment, no count was ever announced. The chair's formula was invariable — "All in favor?" then "Opposed? Abstentions." — and the roll calls read names without a total at the end. The draft minutes record "unanimously approved" or "all present voting yes" for everything except one item: the nomination of Patrick O'Hearn, where they name seven members in favour and record Kelly Simpson and Shannon Popescu abstaining. On the recording that vote survives only as two voices saying "That'd be me" and "Me too" (0:16:07). This matters more on this board than on a single-district one. RSA 194-C:8 provides that "in all votes regarding school administrative unit affairs, including the organization of such unit's school board and selection of officers, each district shall be entitled to one vote for each 16 pupils residing in that district and enrolled in schools under the administrative unit" — but weighted votes "shall only be used upon the demand of a majority of the members of any board present and voting." No such demand was made, so nothing here is irregular. The point is that the statute expressly contemplates that officer elections on an SAU board can turn on district voting strength, and Claremont's enrollment dwarfs Unity's; a record made entirely of uncounted voice votes cannot show how any district's members voted, or whether a weighted vote was ever in prospect. The two abstentions the minutes do capture were both Unity members, on the hiring of a Claremont-based director.
Sources: RSA 194-C:8 (weighted voting; one vote per 16 pupils; used only on the demand of a majority of members present and voting); RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes shall include the names of members and final decisions); 4.11.24 draft minutes. Nothing in the verified provisions requires an announced tally on a voice vote; this is an observation about the completeness of the record, not a rule-based finding.
OBSERVATION The transfer policy was modelled on a Municipal Budget Act section that does not, by its own terms, reach school administrative units
Presenting policy DBJ at 0:34:55, the chair said "this is consistent with RSA 3210 [32:10], the second paragraph," and the policy authorises the superintendent to move up to $10,000 between line items without board approval. RSA 32:10 is the transfer-of-appropriations provision of the Municipal Budget Act, and it is written for a "governing body" spending an appropriation voted at an annual meeting. RSA 32:1 states the chapter's application in terms of towns, districts, school districts and village districts; it does not name school administrative units, whose budgets are adopted and apportioned under RSA 194-C:9 and its alternative procedures. Nothing turns on this as a matter of legality — the chair said the policy was "consistent with" RSA 32:10, which is a statement about a model, not a claim of statutory authority, and the policy was drafted with Superintendent Pratt and the board's attorney per the draft minutes. But a reader auditing the SAU's transfer authority should know that the cited section governs a different kind of body, and that the substantive ceiling the board relied on is the one Sprague pinned down on the floor (0:37:50): the total spent may not exceed the total appropriated, "So the essay you cannot run in a deficit." Readers should also note that 2026 legislation has since changed the surrounding law: 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 153 (HB 564), effective August 18, 2026, revises the SAU annual budget adoption procedure and repeals the alternative procedure. That is well after this meeting and does not bear on it, but it means RSA 194-C's budget provisions should be read in their current form before being applied to anything recent.
Sources: RSA 32:10 (transfer of appropriations by the governing body); RSA 32:1 (application of the Municipal Budget Act — towns, districts, school districts, village districts); RSA 194-C:9 (SAU budget); 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 153 (HB 564), eff. Aug. 18, 2026 — SAU budget adoption procedure revised; FOR FIRST READ Requested Policy DBJ (packet PDF).
POSITIVE The nonpublic session was entered and left by the book, and three policies were materially improved on the floor
RSA 91-A:3, I(b) requires that a motion to enter nonpublic session be made and seconded, that it state on its face the specific exemption relied on, and that the vote be by roll call. All three happened: "I'll make a motion to move into nonpublic meeting session for RSA 91A32A and B," a second, and a full roll call read aloud by Ben Nester naming every member (0:10:08). The board took a second roll call on the way out, which the statute does not require. The seal it then voted was six months — set against the same board's 99-year seal on 12/7/2023 and 30-year seal on 1/11/2024, that is a marked change of practice, and the chair said as much: "we've had meetings where we've sealed minutes when we really may not have had to." Separately, this board did what deliberative bodies are supposed to do with drafts. Ruggeri caught the sentence in policy DBJ that would have had the board "approve" transfers already made and, after Crawford and Heather Whitney worked the wording, it was struck before adoption (0:35:52). Sprague forced an explicit reading of DBJ's spending ceiling onto the record (0:37:50). Heather Whitney's friendly amendment put a stated preference for seals under ten years into policy BEDG (0:30:43). And Ruggeri insisted that a policy being deleted still be read into the record — "We need to read a policy we're deleting" — which is why the two withdrawals appear as named, seconded, voted items rather than as a housekeeping note.
Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) (motion stating the specific exemption; roll call vote); RSA 91-A:3, III (sealing); 4.11.24 draft minutes.
POSITIVE A minutes policy written to a Right-to-Know amendment barely six months old, with the right effective date on the record
RSA 91-A:3, IV was added by 2023, 189:1, effective October 3, 2023. It lets a public body adopt its own procedure for reviewing sealed nonpublic minutes and, absent such a procedure, requires the body itself to review and vote on whether the sealing circumstances still apply — a review that "shall occur no more than 10 years from the last time the public body voted to prevent the minutes from being subject to public disclosure," with minutes not reviewed inside that window becoming "subject to public disclosure without further action of the public body." New policy BEDG is the adopted procedure that paragraph invites, and the chair described the statute accurately, effective date included: "This is the change in the in the law that requires the minutes be reviewed within every ten years. Not until the board determines its time. So anything that started October 3rd, 2023" (0:23:30). She also stated the legislative purpose correctly — "to get less, fewer minutes sealed and for a shorter period of time" — and volunteered the policy subcommittee to work through the existing backlog of sealed minutes and bring back only those needing to stay sealed. The board then spent the better part of ten minutes arguing about the right allocation of that judgment between committee and board, which is the argument worth having, and improved the draft before sending it to a second read. Six months from enactment to a drafted implementing policy is fast for a board this size; the policy was adopted at second read on 9/12/2024, and the board committed at that meeting to begin reviewing its sealed minutes.
Sources: RSA 91-A:3, IV (review of sealed nonpublic minutes; 10-year outer limit; 2023, 189:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023); FOR FIRST READ POLICY BEDG - MEETING MINUTES (packet PDF); 9.12.24 draft minutes (BEDG adopted at second read).
Appendix — source files
Official and public sources
- Remote video: SAU 6 Board Meeting 4/11/24 (Cablecast show 15687), in the Claremont Community TV gallery CLAREMONT SCHOOLS — public session only; the nonpublic session is not on the recording.
- Packet folder: 3. SAU 4.11.24 — 9 documents, in the separate SAU 6 Schoolboard Packets share, not the Claremont School Board packet share.
- Minutes (draft, and the only version located): 4.11.24 Draft SAU6 Board Minutes (1).pdf, filed in the SAU 6 packet folder 1. SAU6 9.12.24 — five meetings and five months later. These minutes are not in this meeting's own packet folder; the SAU 6 share files each meeting's minutes with a later meeting's packet.
- Minutes of the meeting that approved them: 9.12.24 DRAFT SAU6 meeting minutes.pdf — "Rocco Ruggeri made a motion to accept the minutes from April 11 as presented, Kelly Simpson seconded the motion; voice vote taken, all present voting yes."
- Explicit negatives, verified 2026-08-28: no approved-form minutes of this meeting exist in any district public share — only the draft above; no minutes of the nonpublic session appear anywhere, and they were sealed for six months from April 11, 2024; no packet folder, agenda, recording or minutes exists for the June 13, 2024 SAU 6 meeting this board scheduled for itself, and the next SAU 6 meeting on the record is September 12, 2024; the Claremont Meeting Minutes share holds no SAU 6 file of any kind; and two items acted on at this meeting — policy AC (adopted at second read) and policy KED (tabled) — are not in the posted packet.
- Correction to this project's own records: Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md §45 records "No minutes found for this meeting." The draft minutes were located during the preparation of this page, in the 9/12/24 packet folder. The map entry has been corrected.
Packet documents (exact Drive file names, district typographical errors included)
Project files (relative links work when this page is opened from Output/HTML/)
Laws and rules cited on this page
- New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) ("public body" expressly includes a school administrative unit); RSA 91-A:2, II (notice; minutes promptly recorded and open to public inspection within 5 business days); RSA 91-A:3 — I(b) (motion stating the specific exemption, roll-call vote), II(a) (dismissal, promotion, compensation or discipline of a public employee), II(b) (hiring), III (nonpublic minutes; 72 hours; sealing by recorded 2/3 vote with one of three statutory determinations), IV (procedure for reviewing sealed minutes; 10-year outer limit; added by 2023, 189:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023); RSA 91-A:4 (availability of governmental records)
- School administrative units: RSA 194-C:2 — I(a)(3) (planning committee membership), I(a)(4)(B) (chairperson elected at the first meeting), I(a)(8) (majority of total membership), IV (withdrawal: plan, public hearing at least 14 days before submission, 60-day state board review, 3/5 voter approval); RSA 194-C:5, I (annual organization between April 1 and June 1; chairperson, secretary and treasurer; board fixes SAU salaries and apportions expense); RSA 194-C:8 (weighted voting on the demand of a majority present and voting); RSA 194-C:9 (SAU budget and apportionment)
- School boards and municipal budgeting: RSA 189:74 (school board public comment period of no less than 30 minutes; 2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022); RSA 32:1 (application of the Municipal Budget Act); RSA 32:10 (transfer of appropriations)
- Session law: 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 153 (HB 564), signed 6/19/2026, effective 8/18/2026 — revises the SAU annual budget adoption procedure and repeals the alternative procedure. Enacted long after this meeting; noted so that RSA 194-C's budget sections are read in their current form.
- Federal: 34 CFR 106.8 and 34 CFR 106.45 (Title IX coordinator, grievance procedures, grievance process for formal complaints of sexual harassment), as promulgated by 85 FR 30026 (May 19, 2020), effective August 14, 2020; 34 CFR 104.7 (Section 504 — designation of a responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures by recipients employing 15 or more persons)