Claremont School Board — September 18, 2024

MEDIUM The approved minutes tell the public that the $420,000 released at a statutory hearing in March paid for a roof; the motion that released it confined it to special-education costs, and the business administrator corrected the account twice on tape

What the money was. On 6 March 2024 this board held a public hearing under RSA 198:4-b, II(a) — the paragraph that requires “a prior public hearing” noticed in a newspaper at least seven days ahead before retained year-end general funds may be expended — and voted to move $420,000 into the FY2024 general fund. The clerk read the motion back on the recording of that meeting as a transfer “to be used for unintentional, unanticipated special education costs”, against roughly $700,000 of over-expenditure on out-of-district tuition.

What was said here. Crawford (0:31:30): “Okay, so it’s a little over 600,000. And we did move 400,000 from reserves four.” and “And 20, the general fund, to help cover some of the costs for that.”. The business administrator interrupts twice, at 0:31:43 and 0:31:45, with To distribute. and Out of district placement. Thirty seconds later Crawford states the version she wants the public to have (0:32:02): “when I would like people to know that the roof costs 600,000, for which 400,000 came out of our reserves, the other 200,000 we were able to cover with variations in the budget due to not being able to hire positions, variations in benefits.”

What the minutes did with it. They recorded both, in order, and let the second stand as the district’s account: “Mary Henry stated it was a little under $600,000 and $420,000 was moved to cover out of district costs”, then “Candace would like the public to know that the roof was covered by reserves and moves in the budget due to variations such as unfilled positions.” The two sentences describe the same $420,000 doing two different things, and the second is the one written as a message to the public.

Why it is not simply a slip. Money is fungible, and there is a defensible sense in which relieving the tuition lines freed capacity that paid for a roof. But the mechanism the business administrator described at the March hearing was narrower than that: the $420,000 came in as revenue against over-expended tuition lines so that it would survive to 30 June as unassigned fund balance and reduce the tax rate. Under RSA 198:4-b, II(a) a hearing is held on a stated subject; the district’s only public account of what the money did should match the motion the hearing produced. Here it does not, and the officer who runs the ledger said so at the table.

What this page cannot settle. Whether any part of the $420,000 in fact reached the roof accounts. Exhibit B does not show transfers; it shows budget, expenditure and encumbrance by line. What would settle it: the FY24 general-ledger transfer detail, or the DOE-25 for FY2024.

Sources: RSA 198:4-b, I and II (2023 codification; source note ends 2020, 38:25, eff. Sept. 27, 2020); approved minutes, 18 September 2024, item IV.3; the companion page Claremont School Board — March 6, 2024, which sets out the hearing, the motion and the clerk’s read-back in full.

MEDIUM The business administrator told the board the encumbrance had fallen by about $584,000 and then let the old surplus figure stand; the board repeated the old figure twice, and the minutes recorded it

The exhibit. Exhibit B’s grand total, printed 11 September 2024: budget $35,300,311.92, expended to date $34,107,234.87, year-to-date balance $1,193,077.05, encumbrance $648,931.76, budget balance $544,145.29, 1.54 per cent. The last figure is derived: year-to-date balance less encumbrance.

What was said, in one breath (0:23:43). “the report I sent you had $544,145.29 in surplus. There has been a change to this report, and the change has been the encumbrance has gone down to 65,000.” And then (0:24:07): “And that’s because of the roof POA being rolled into the new year and paid for the roofs. That was the big part of that. $648,000 was the roofs. So now it’s down to 65,000. I need to go through those POS and see what is still relevant and what isn’t. I’ve done some of them, just not all of them.”

The arithmetic nobody did aloud. $648,931.76 less $65,000 is $583,931.76 — within a thousand dollars of the $583,000 this board voted for two roofs on 20 June 2024, which is a strong indication that the sentence “$648,000 was the roofs” transposes the total encumbrance for the roof share of it. On the exhibit’s own derivation, an encumbrance of $65,000 leaves a budget balance not of $544,145.29 but of roughly $1,128,000. The two statements in that one segment cannot both be true of the same year-end.

What the board then did with the number. Twenty-one minutes later a member converted it to a percentage (0:37:10): “So when you’re talking $544,000 is a, say, a surplus, when you take that down to the total budget, that’s a 1.54%, right? So to be off by 1.54% and your home budget, it’s it’s not I mean, it’s a big number because the budget is a big number, but 1.54% is not not a big miss. That’s a that’s pretty.” and again at 0:37:40. The percentage is arithmetically correct against the exhibit — $544,145.29 on $35,300,311.92 is 1.5415 per cent — and the minutes record it: “Michael Petrin noted that the surplus is equal to 1.54% of the total budget”. Nobody asked what the encumbrance change did to the input.

How it resolved. On 16 October 2024, when the board actually voted on retention, the figure had become $497,000 of surplus plus $114,000 of additional revenue, a statutory maximum retention of $469,000, and a break-even of about $234,000; the board retained up to $350,000 on the vice chair’s motion, seconded by Petrin, to offset the FY2025–26 tax rate, and a member asked expressly whether the roofing costs were taken into account and was told they were. So the number the public was given on 18 September was neither the one in the exhibit nor the one the board voted on four weeks later, and the difference in either direction is larger than the sum the board eventually retained.

The rule this engages. Retention is capped by RSA 198:4-b, II at 5 per cent of the current year’s net assessment, and encumbrances themselves are governed by RSA 32:7, I, under which an appropriation does not lapse to the extent it is “encumbered by a legally enforceable obligation, created by contract or otherwise”. Which of those two treatments the roof purchase order received decides the size of the FY24 surplus, and the record does not say.

Sources: Exhibit B, grand total, page 22; RSA 32:7, I (source note ends 2017, 127:3, eff. Aug. 15, 2017); RSA 198:4-b, II; approved minutes, 16 October 2024, item IV.3; the companion page Claremont School Board — June 20, 2024 for the $583,000 vote.

MEDIUM The draft minutes of this meeting reached the public share on the tenth business day — five business days past the statutory limit — and the board that had filed the previous set exactly on time approved these without noticing

The rule. RSA 91-A:2, II: minutes “shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting”. In force in this form since 2016, 29:1; the 2023, 188:1 amendment did not disturb it.

The arithmetic, in days. The meeting was Wednesday 18 September 2024. Counting business days and excluding the legal holidays in RSA 288:1 — none of which falls in this window — the fifth business day is Wednesday 25 September 2024. DRAFT CSB meeting minutes 9.18.24 (1).pdf was created in the district’s Drive share on 2 October 2024, at 14:06 UTC, which is the tenth business day — the morning of the meeting that approved it.

Why the modification date does not rescue it. This project has established that a Drive createdTime measures when the public could see a document and a modifiedTime can sometimes prove it existed earlier — but only when the gap is days. Here the file’s modifiedTime falls on the same day and the same minute, twenty-nine seconds before it was created, which is the upload-session artefact and proves nothing about when the minutes were written.

The contrast that makes it a defect rather than a habit. The other minutes in this packet, draft CSB meeting minutes 9.4.24.pdf, were created on 11 September 2024 — the fifth business day after the 4 September meeting, exactly on the limit (flag 23). The same clerk, the same officer posting, two meetings apart. The approved version of these minutes reached the district’s 2024 Meeting Minutes folder on 8 October 2024.

Which limb of the severity rule. The mitigated one: minutes exist, they are complete enough to be checked against the recording, the meeting was noticed and packeted seven days ahead, and only the filing was late. That is why this is MEDIUM where the missing subcommittee minutes at flag 2 are HIGH.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II; RSA 288:1; Google Drive file metadata for the 18 September draft, the 4 September draft and the approved 18 September minutes, read 2026-08-29.

MEDIUM The minutes record the chair as present and as absent in consecutive lines, and record the clerk as neither — while carrying her signature

What the minutes say, in full. Under the roll-call heading: “Present: Candace Crawford, Arlene Hawkins, Bonnie Miles, Michael Petrin, Whitney Skillen, Frank Sprague, Heather Whitney” and, on the next line, “Absent: Heather Whitney”. Seven names present on a board of seven, one of whom is then absent. The draft and the approved text are identical; the board approved them by consent on 2 October.

What the recording shows. Six voices answer the roll (0:00:59 and 0:01:08) and the chair’s name draws nothing. The vice chair presides throughout and refers to the chair in the third person three times — at 0:22:03, at 0:22:24 and at 1:02:07, the last of these explaining that the budget meeting dates “I’m sure these dates have to do with, Chair Whitney’s availability and she has time off.”. The absence is not in doubt; the record of it is.

The rule. RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes to include “the names of members”. A list that names the same member in both columns does not discharge that in any usable way: a reader cannot tell from the district’s own record how many members were in the room, and therefore cannot tell whether the quorum of four required by by-law 2.11 was present or what a majority of members “present and voting” would have been.

The clerk. By-law 2.05 provides that “The chair shall commence the meeting at the hour appointed and the clerk shall call the roll”; by-law 4.03(a) makes her responsible to “Keep a complete, accurate record of all CSB proceedings” and 4.03(c) for “keeping time during Citizen’s Comments per policy”. A board member read the roll at the presiding officer’s request, no voice attributable to the clerk appears anywhere in the sixty-two minutes, the minutes contain no attendance entry for her, and they end “Respectfully submitted by Noelle Kronberg, board clerk”. This page does not treat that as a violation. Nothing in RSA 91-A required minutes to name the person who produced them until 2025, 112:1, effective 22 August 2025, and a clerk may lawfully compile minutes from a recording. It is recorded because the pattern is now five meetings deep in this autumn and because the officer whose by-law duty is the accuracy of the record was not in the room where it was made.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2023 codification; the 2025, 112:1 additions expressly not applied); Claremont School Board By-Laws, rules 2.05, 2.11 and 4.03; approved minutes, 18 September 2024; draft minutes, 4 September 2024, whose attendance list is correctly split.

MEDIUM The only vote of the evening was taken on a motion nobody made and nobody seconded — under an agenda heading that demands a vote and a by-law that provides for consent instead

What happened, in full. 0:01:16: “Okay. We have a consent agenda in front of us. As far as, the agenda and minutes approval, are there any adjustments to either of those from anyone?” Then 0:01:28: “Seeing none, we will, take a vote on.” Then 0:01:37: “Approving those. All those in favor, I, I posed. No. We’re fine.” That is the whole of it. No motion was made, nothing was seconded, no tally was announced. Minutes: “Voice vote taken, all present voting yes”, with no mover and no seconder named.

The three rules that collide here. The agenda heads the item “Consent Agenda (vote required)”. By-law 2.10 says the opposite: “When prompted by the chair consent agenda items will be moved,en masse, by consent (absence of objection).” By-law 2.07 says that where there is a motion, “When a motion is made and seconded, it shall be considered by the Board and not otherwise.” The board did neither cleanly. It asked for objections, found none, and then put a question to a vote instead of declaring the items moved by consent.

Why the statute is engaged and not merely the by-law. RSA 91-A:2, II provides that “The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes” — in force from 2018, 244:1, effective 1 January 2019, and therefore binding on every meeting in this corpus. If the board took a vote, there was a motion, and the minutes name neither the mover nor the seconder. If instead the items were disposed of by consent under by-law 2.10, then the minutes are wrong to describe a voice vote. The record cannot be right both ways, and on either reading the district’s account of how it approved a set of minutes is defective.

The board knows the other route. Two weeks later, on 2 October, the same board recorded the same item as “Amendments approved by consent” and “Minutes approved by consent”. On 4 September the agenda amendment is recorded as “passed by consent” while the donation was moved, seconded and voted in the ordinary way. The practice is not settled, and the agenda heading has said “(vote required)” throughout.

Not flagged. The absence of an announced tally. Nothing in RSA 91-A requires a count on a voice vote, and by-law 2.13 makes a roll call available to any member on request; none was requested.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (mover/seconder clause: 2018, 244:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019); Claremont School Board By-Laws, rules 2.07, 2.10 and 2.13; CSB Agenda 9.18.24, item II; approved minutes, 2 October 2024; draft minutes, 4 September 2024.

MEDIUM The longest item of the meeting turned on a report every person at the table was holding and no member of the public has ever seen

What the by-laws require. Rule 2.09: “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.” The same rule requires the superintendent, in consultation with the chair, to “itemize any and all items to be presented in the agenda”.

What happened. The presenter’s first sentence (0:03:35): “Should have a copy of the documents entitled HR Exit Interview Data.” The document has an appendix A of survey responses and an appendix B of interview notes (0:07:19, 0:07:55), a section three of key insights (0:09:16), verbatim staff quotations (0:09:16), and a recommendations section (0:10:17). The packet folder holds five documents and none of them is it. The agenda gives the item no exhibit letter, where it gives one to each of the next two items.

What the public got instead. Eighteen minutes of description, and one verbatim line, read aloud by the presiding officer from the comments column (0:21:06): “under comments or workloads spreading out, I was burnt out only after one year. Unnecessary stress from certain board members.” The single quotation the public received from the document is the one that criticises the board, which is to the presiding officer’s credit and is also the whole of the public’s access to a report on why roughly forty people left the district in a year.

Why publication would not have been difficult. The presenter states that the instrument records no building and no role (0:17:20, 0:13:27), so the responses are already less identifying than most personnel material; and sixteen responses is a small document. Where a genuine privacy interest exists it is a reason to redact, not a reason to withhold the whole thing. RSA 91-A:5, IV exempts “Records pertaining to internal personnel practices” from disclosure, but it permits withholding rather than requiring it, and no one invoked it.

This is a board-rule finding, not a statutory one. No New Hampshire statute requires a district to publish a document merely because it is discussed at a meeting. The rule broken, if any, is the board’s own, adopted fifteen weeks earlier.

Sources: Claremont School Board By-Laws, rule 2.09; RSA 91-A:5, IV (2022, 122:3, eff. May 27, 2022); packet folder 4. CSB 9.18.24, enumerated 2026-08-29; approved minutes, item IV.1.

MEDIUM The district’s FY26 budget calendar — which fixes two statutory dates — was settled by two board members and two administrators outside any meeting, and the board never voted on it

What the calendar does. Exhibit A fixes, among thirteen dated stages, the public hearing on the budget for 2 January 2025 and the deliberative session for 1 February 2025, and names 11 March 2025 as voting day. The first is the hearing required by RSA 32:5, I; the second is the first session of the annual school district meeting under RSA 40:13, III. These are not internal scheduling; they are the dates on which the town’s voters get their only chance to amend the budget and the only chance to be heard on it beforehand.

Who made it. The superintendent, asked for comment (0:22:56): “Is creating the timeline was, Mary and I worked with, Arlene and Heather to make sure it reflected, what we the purpose of moving forward with, with the budget and stuff.” Mary Henry, Arlene Hawkins and Heather Whitney The presiding officer, twice, is careful to say whose it is (0:22:03): “And I know that, chair Whitney is chair of the board. I’m the chair of the committee. But chair of the board, Whitney has made it her intention that these will all be televised again. So that people can watch them and see what the process is and, you know, that it’s open and we’re having a dialog with administration.” and (0:22:24) “And I want to commend the administration for working with Board Chair Whitney to to develop this.”

What the by-laws give the chair. Rule 4.01 lists the chair’s duties: (a) preside; (b) vote; (c) “Appoint, with board consent, all standing committees”; (d) confer with the superintendent and vice chair on crucial matters between meetings; (e) “Agenda preparation with the vice-chair, clerk, and superintendent and approve the final agenda”; (f) act as point person for media and as a conduit for board communication with the superintendent. Then 4.01(g): “The chair position holds no other independent authority beyond the above except when granted by board”. Setting the district’s statutory budget calendar is not among (a) to (f), and nothing in the record of any 2024 meeting grants it. Rule 4.02(d) puts the vice chair in agenda preparation with the chair and superintendent; the vice chair here learned the calendar’s provenance from the superintendent, at the table, in public.

What the board did about it. Nothing. The agenda item is headed with the verb Set; no motion was made, no vote was taken, and the approved minutes record the whole item in two sentences: “A budget timeline is included in the board packet” and “Frank Sprague stated that there are hard deadlines to be met, so the process has to be concrete”. The board neither adopted the calendar nor declined to. By-law 2.11 does not require a vote — its list runs to appointing or removing employees, modifying salaries, appropriating and transferring money — so the absence of one breaks no rule. What it does is leave the district’s only public commitment to two statutory dates resting on a document nobody voted for.

What this page expressly does not find. Two board members out of seven is not a quorum, so no meeting occurred within RSA 91-A:2, I, and nothing in this record suggests the circulation of drafts among more. RSA 91-A:2-a, II — communications outside a meeting, including sequential communications, must not be used to circumvent the chapter, in force since 2008, 303:4 — is not engaged on this evidence and is named here only so that a reader knows it was considered. The superintendent is required by the by-laws’ own Appendix B to develop and recommend the budget, so an administration-drafted calendar is entirely ordinary. The finding is about the two board members in that group and about the board’s silence, not about the administration.

Sources: Claremont School Board By-Laws, rules 1.04, 2.11, 4.01(a)–(g), 4.02(d) and Appendix B; Exhibit A, 24-25 SAU6 Budget Timeline; RSA 91-A:2-a, II; approved minutes, item IV.2.

MEDIUM Both statutory student board member seats were empty, the report was postponed to October, and the board took no recorded step to fill them

The rule. RSA 189:1-c: “In addition to the school board members authorized in RSA 671:4, the school board shall have at least one nonvoting student member from each public high school maintained by the local school board within its district. The powers and duties of a student member shall be as described in RSA 194:23-f.” In force from 2022, 195:1, effective 1 January 2023. The board’s own by-law 2.16 restates it.

The paragraph that had just changed. RSA 194:23-f was amended by 2024, 69:1, effective 13 August 2024 — five weeks before this meeting. Paragraph III provides that “A student board member shall serve for a term of one year. The school board shall decide the date at which the term shall begin.” Paragraph II leaves the choosing to the students: “A student board member shall be chosen by a simple majority vote of the high school student body”, on procedures the student government establishes. So the board cannot appoint a student member — but the one thing the statute does put on the board is the decision this record does not contain.

What the record shows. The agenda masthead prints the heading “Student Board Members” with no names under it. The agenda line reads “Student Board Member Report will resume in October.” and the minutes repeat it verbatim. On tape the item is two words inside another sentence (0:01:50). No motion, no date, no reference to a school election, and no explanation of why the seats were empty six weeks into the school year. The same blank masthead appears on the agenda and minutes of 4 September. Two student members are printed on the masthead from 2 October 2024.

The limits of this flag. The statute sets no deadline and names no consequence, the choosing is the student body’s, and the seats were filled within a fortnight. What is missing is the board’s own decision under paragraph III, and any record that the board asked for one.

Sources: RSA 189:1-c (2022, 195:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2023); RSA 194:23-f, I–V (source note ends 2024, 69:1, eff. Aug. 13, 2024); Claremont School Board By-Laws, rule 2.16; CSB Agenda 9.18.24; approved minutes, 2 October 2024, whose masthead names them.

MEDIUM The minutes cite an exhibit that does not exist, leave a lettered agenda sub-item blank, and were approved unchanged

Three defects in one document. First, the agenda heads item IV.3 “Finance Report (Discussion) (Exhibit B)” and the minutes head the identical item “Finance Report (Discussion) (Exhibit C)”. The packet contains an Exhibit A and an Exhibit B and no Exhibit C, so the district’s record of its own finance report points at nothing. Second, the agenda’s sub-item “(1) Employee Needs Moving Forward” under the Finance Subcommittee appears in the minutes as “i. Employee Needs Moving Forward” with no content beneath it — a second blank heading alongside the Policy Subcommittee’s at flag 3. Third, the packet’s largest presentation has no exhibit letter at all (flag 9).

Why it is worth recording. RSA 91-A:2, II requires “a brief description of the subject matter discussed”. Exhibit letters are how a reader of the minutes finds the document the discussion was about; a wrong letter and a blank heading each break that link. The board approved these minutes by consent on 2 October with no amendment, so nothing in the district’s record corrects them.

A standing defect of this board’s paperwork, not a one-off. The agenda has printed “Joint City Counsel and Claremont School Board Meeting” on this and every neighbouring agenda since 2023 — a council is not a counsel — and the minutes copy it. This project reports such things and does not silently repair them.

Sources: CSB Agenda 9.18.24, items IV.3 and IV.4(b)(1); approved minutes, 18 September 2024; packet folder 4. CSB 9.18.24.

MEDIUM Three district documents give three different figures for the same roof work within ninety days, and the minutes preserve the least precise of them

The three figures. On 20 June 2024 this board voted $583,000 for two roofs — Disnard at $310,000 and the third phase at Stevens over the gymnasium at $273,000 — to a named contractor. On 30 June 2024 the ledger in this packet shows total encumbrance of $648,931.76. On 18 September the business administrator, asked specifically about the Stevens roof, answers “That was roughly six, a little over 600,000.” (0:31:23) and then corrects herself: “And it’s a little under 600,000. I’m sorry. A little under.” (0:31:27). The minutes record only “a little under $600,000”.

Where the numbers do reconcile, and where they do not. $648,931.76 less the $65,000 residual encumbrance is $583,931.76, which matches the June vote for both roofs almost exactly. On that reading the Stevens roof alone was $273,000 and “a little under 600,000” describes the pair. But the question asked was about “The roof at Stevens High School”, the answer given was about a single roof, and the minutes wrote it down that way. Read as the district wrote it, the record says the Stevens roof cost more than twice what the board voted for it.

Why this is not pedantry. The same exchange produced the sentence about the $420,000 at flag 4, and both were offered expressly as an explanation for the public. A member of the public reading the approved minutes learns that a roof cost just under $600,000 and that $420,000 of reserves paid for it; the board’s own June vote and the March motion say otherwise.

Sources: Exhibit B, grand total; approved minutes, item IV.3; the companion page Claremont School Board — June 20, 2024.

MEDIUM The by-laws governing this meeting misdescribe the Right-to-Know Law, cite three statutes that say something else, and carry two different rules numbered 2.09

What the statute says. RSA 91-A:3, as amended by 2023, 189:1, effective 3 October 2023. Paragraph I(a): “Public bodies shall not meet in nonpublic session, except for one of the purposes set out in paragraph II.” Paragraph I contains no exemptions at all. The grounds are in paragraph II, which runs (a) through (m) — thirteen lettered subparagraphs with (f) repealed, so twelve live grounds.

What Appendix D of the by-laws says. “RSA 91 -A:3 sets forth eight grounds upon which Board of School Committees may enter nonpublic session” — followed by a numbered list of nine. Four paragraphs later the same appendix requires a motion stating “one or more of the nine statutory bases cited above”, and the compliance checklist at the end reduces the same list to six lettered items and then continues the lettering into procedural steps, so that “g) Motion to enter a non-public session is seconded” reads as though it were a ground. Three counts of the same list in one appendix, none of them the statute’s. The same appendix cites “RSA 91-A, II (d)” for the property exemption, which is not a citation to anything.

Three more citations that do not support what they are cited for. Rule 1.05(c) and rule 1.11 both cite “RSA 91-A:II”, which is not a citation. Rule 4.03 heads the clerk’s duties “per RSA 671:20 and RSA 671:25” — two sections about the preparation and delivery of ballots which say nothing about board minutes; RSA 671:20 in the form in force on this date is a single sentence, the second paragraph having been added only by 2025, 281:1. And Appendix A, offered as “REGULATIONS OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION… PURSUANT TO Ed. 303”, gives the board’s meeting duty as “at least once a month (except the month of July)” where Ed 303.01(f) says “Hold meetings for the transaction of business at least once in 2 months and require the attendance of the superintendent or designee”. The by-law is the stricter of the two, so nothing turns on it, but it is presented as the State Board’s text and is not.

A drafting defect this project has not previously recorded: the by-laws contain two rules numbered 2.09. The first is headed “(Amendments)” and governs friendly amendments; the second, immediately after it, is the agenda-itemisation and publication rule relied on at flag 9. Every citation to by-law 2.09 in this corpus is therefore ambiguous on its face, and this page names the subject matter rather than the number alone wherever it relies on either.

What this page does not say. No nonpublic session was held on 18 September 2024 and none was proposed. Appendix D was not applied to anything at this meeting. The finding is that the governing document in force misdescribes the statute it exists to implement — and that this board has already used the by-laws’ numbering rather than the statute’s in a real motion, on 7 August 2024, when the minutes record a move into nonpublic “under RSA 91-A:3, I & II (1)”: paragraph I, which contains no exemption, plus the by-laws’ invented numbering.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(a)–(b) and II(a)–(m) (source note ends 2023, 189:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023); Claremont School Board By-Laws, rules 1.05(c), 1.11, 2.09 (both), 4.03, Appendix A and Appendix D; N.H. Code Admin. Rules Ed 303.01(f); RSA 671:20; 7 August 2024 draft minutes.