SAU 6 Board — April 10, 2025

Regular meeting of the joint Claremont–Unity SAU 6 board, generated from the meeting dialogue transcript, the one-document posted packet, and the draft minutes. Two centerpieces: the annual reorganization, which elected a chair, a vice chair, a treasurer and two voucher signers; and auditor Michael Campo's remote status report on an audit programme running four fiscal years behind. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.

Body
SAU 6 Board — the joint board of the Claremont and Unity school districts (11 seats per the draft minutes' masthead: 7 Claremont, 4 Unity)
Date
Thursday, April 10, 2025
Start time
6:30 p.m. per the posted agenda (nonpublic session 8:12–8:38 p.m.; minutes of that session sealed for one year; adjourned on a motion by Howard, seconded by Sprague — all per the draft minutes)
Location
Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center, Goodrich Community Room, Claremont NH; audio broadcast on CCTV Channel 8 (per the minutes' header and agenda)
Recording
Cablecast: SAU 6 Board Meeting 4/10/25 (1:42:38 — the recording ends at the roll call entering nonpublic session. The return to public session, the recorded vote to seal the nonpublic minutes for one year, and adjournment are documented only in the draft minutes.)
Minutes
4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes (1).pdf — still marked DRAFT, and filed not with this meeting's packet but inside a later one, the SAU 6 folder 6. SAU6 6.12.25. See flag 5.

Participants

Every SAU 6 board member on the draft minutes' masthead, marked present or absent per the minutes' roll call, plus the administrators and guests who appear in the record. There were no citizens' comments — "I don't see any citizens comments." The minutes record "none." Name spellings follow the draft minutes; the automatic transcript's rendering is given where it differs.
NameRoleParticipation
Arlene HawkinsSAU 6 Board Chair (elected at this meeting); Claremont board memberNominated by Crawford, seconded by Whitney, elected by voice vote; presided from 0:01:06 onward and was the meeting's most frequent speaker (178 segments)
Rocco RuggeriSAU 6 Board Vice Chair (elected at this meeting); Unity School Board memberNominated by Sprague, seconded by Whitney; nominated himself to review and sign vouchers; delivered the Unity town-vote report (11 segments; transcript renders him "Mr. Jerry" and "Mr. Ruggieri")
Candace CrawfordSAU 6 Treasurer (elected at this meeting); Claremont board memberNominated Hawkins for chair; nominated as treasurer by Whitney, seconded by Howard; put the detailed questions to the auditor on purchase orders, journal entries, missing deposit records and timeliness of payments (60 segments)
Heather WhitneySAU 6 Board member; Chair of the Claremont School BoardSeconded the chair and vice-chair nominations; moved approval of the agenda and the 12.12.24 minutes; questioned the auditor on stale-dated checks; moved to refer the background-check policy to Claremont's policy committee; moved the nonpublic session (39 segments)
Frank SpragueSAU 6 Board member; chairs the Superintendent Evaluation subcommitteeNominated Ruggeri as vice chair; pressed the auditor on repeat findings; argued the background-check amendment belonged in Claremont policy JLIF, not in a SAU policy; reported the completed superintendent-evaluation instrument (71 segments)
William "Bill" MaddenSAU 6 Board memberPresent; accepted nomination as a voucher signer (his only recorded utterance on the transcript is "Yes"); joined the superintendent-evaluation subcommittee
Loren HowardSAU 6 Board memberPresent; seconded the treasurer and voucher-signer nominations — "My timid second"; volunteered for the policy subcommittee; moved adjournment (per the minutes, off-recording)
Michael PetrinSAU 6 Board memberPresent per the minutes' roll call and seconded the 12.12.24 minutes per the minutes; does not appear as a speaker anywhere in the dialogue transcript
Marjorie EricksonSAU 6 Board member (Unity side)Absent (per the draft minutes)
Atonya HartSAU 6 Board member (Unity side)Absent (per the draft minutes). Discussed in her absence as a possible Unity member of the superintendent-evaluation subcommittee — "I reach out to a Tanya, I think she's. Yeah. I don't want to. She's got enough."
Shannon PopescuSAU 6 Board member (Unity side)Absent (per the draft minutes)
Christopher PrattSuperintendent, SAU 6Called the meeting to order and presided over the reorganization until the chair was elected; supported the TLC presentation; addressed cell-phone policy and fireproof filing cabinets (41 segments)
Mary HenryBusiness Administrator, SAU 6The meeting's second-largest voice (159 segments) — introduced the auditor, answered nearly every audit finding, specified what signatories she needed, and walked the year-to-date financial report line by line
Michael CampoAuditor, Plodzik & Sanderson, CPA — attending remotely by videoPresented the audit status and recommendations (0:04:100:29:48), 27 segments. His connection dropped at 0:15:43 and again mid-answer around 0:22:02 — see flag 6. The transcript renders his firm as "Classic and Sanderson" and once addresses him as "Mr. Campbell" and "Mr. King"
Matthieu A.F. Fortier, Q.D.D.P., C.E.S.P.Strengthening Families Initiative Coordinator, TLC Family Resource Center (title and name spelling per the draft minutes; the dialogue file and his own introduction give "Matthew Fortier")Presented the Strengthening Families needs assessment (Exhibit A) — 74 segments, 0:33:280:58:54. Position funded by a New Hampshire Children's Trust grant and scoped to Claremont
Noelle KronbergSAU 6 School Board ClerkCalled the roll and the nonpublic roll call (4 segments; the chair addresses her as "Miss Cronenberg")
"Bonnie"Former SAU 6 treasurer, as named on the recordingNot present and not named in the draft minutes. The chair recalled "remember Bonnie was the treasurer, and you were going to talk with her about signing things"; the business administrator answered "No Bonnie has not. So I need to get with Bonnie." The minutes record only that "the SAU Board currently has no treasurer"

Agenda

Item numbering and wording from the draft minutes, which reproduce the posted agenda (CSB Agenda 4.10.25.pdf — the only document in this meeting's packet folder). Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.

Taken upItemAgenda text / disposition
0:00:03I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (Chris Pratt)"Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the April 10th Siu six [SAU 6] school board to order." The superintendent presides until a chair is elected, which is why the reorganization comes before the roll call.
0:00:33II.a. Election of Board Officers — Chair"The first order of business tonight is to reorganization and to elect a board chair for the Sussex [SAU 6] School Board. Do I have any nominations?" Crawford: "I nominate Arlene Hawkins." Seconded (Whitney per the minutes); voice vote at 0:01:01 — "All in favor. I know [aye] opposed." — "all present voting in favor" per the minutes. Hawkins: "Motion passes."
0:01:22II.b. Election of Board Officers — Vice ChairSprague: "Like to nominate Rocco for vice chair." Hawkins, now presiding, at 0:01:25: "I'll second that. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions. Welcome aboard, Mr. Ruggieri [Ruggeri]." The minutes record the second to Whitney, not the chair.
0:01:38III. General Business — roll call, agenda, minutes, citizens' comments"All those in attendance, please shut off all cell phones and electronic devices. Miss Cronenberg [Kronberg], would you please call the attendance?" Present per the minutes: Crawford, Howard, Madden, Petrin, Sprague, Ruggeri, Whitney, Hawkins. Absent: Marjorie Erickson, Atonya Hart, Shannon Popescu. Agenda approved as presented at 0:02:24 (Whitney moved, Crawford seconded per the minutes); the December 12, 2024 minutes approved at 0:03:00 (Whitney moved, Petrin seconded per the minutes) — "Any corrections to the minutes from December 12th, 2024? Seems like a long time ago." Citizens' comments: none.
0:03:29IV. SAU 2020 Audit Recommendations — Plodzik and Sanderson, CPA (Presentation/Discussion)"We have before us Mr. Mike Campo, the one of the auditors from Classic [Plodzik] and Sanderson, who has been conducting the Saw [SAU] audits over the last couple of years." The agenda's year is wrong and was corrected on the record at 0:31:29: Crawford — "our agenda says it's the SA 2020 audit recommendations. Shouldn't that be 2020?" Henry — "Should have said 2021. And I just got 2022." Ran to 0:32:35. Three officer/signatory votes were taken inside this item while the auditor's video connection was being restored. See flag 1, flag 2, flag 8.
0:32:35V.1. Strengthening Families, Needs Assessment Presentation — Matthieu A.F. Fortier (Exhibit A)"Our next item for discussion is a presentation by Matt Fortier from TLC Family Resource Center. He's presenting the the results of strengthening families needs assessment." A two-phase assessment — interviews with community leaders and an educator survey, then a parent survey with over 800 responses. Discussion, no vote. Exhibit A is not in the public packet — see flag 4.
0:59:11V.2. Financial Report (Discussion) — Mary Henry (Exhibit B): "Up to Date FY 2025 detailed review of actual to budgeted and specific line items""Miss Henry has provided us with the year to date financials." A twenty-minute line-by-line walk: technology, superintendent's office, special education, business office, human resources and maintenance. Bottom line as printed, $205,000 to the good; as revised on the record, $212,000. Discussion, no vote. Exhibit B is not in the public packet.
1:20:06V.3. Unity Town Vote (Rocco Ruggieri)"Moving along now, we have from Mr. Jerry [Ruggeri] the unity town vote." Timeline confirmed on the record: last day in SAU 6 is June 30, 2026; "July 1st would be the first day of separation." The minutes add, under Other Business, "State approved Unity's separation." See flag 7.
1:22:03V.4. Subcommittee Appointments (Chairperson) — a. Policy; b. Supt EvaluationHawkins continues as policy chair, joined by Howard: "If there's someone who'd like to join me in that joyful experience of doing policy. Thank you. Lauren [Loren]." Whitney asked Sprague to keep the superintendent-evaluation chair "for, just the institutional knowledge", with Madden joining as a new member and Sprague to invite a Unity member. Two SAU subcommittees survive into the final joint year.
1:25:29V.5.a. Policy Sub-committee — GBCD, Background Investigation and Criminal History Records Check (Revision)A superintendent-proposed addendum extending the policy to "anyone who is classified as an offender against children to keep them off of school grounds and any place there is a school sponsored event". Sprague objected to the placement rather than the content. Whitney moved instead, at 1:34:48, to task the Claremont policy committee with updating policy JLIF; Sprague seconded; carried on a voice vote at 1:36:50. See flag 10.
1:37:05V.5.b. Superintendent Evaluation Sub-committee (Discussion)"I've finished the superintendent's evaluation instrument… the superintendent developed, I don't know, what was it, seven, seven goals or something. And I broke all of each goal down to the specific activities that you had identified." Howard and Madden ruled ineligible to complete it ("you haven't been on the board long enough"). Target: survey out by May 1; Sprague believed the contractual deadline was June — "I think it's actually June, to be honest with you."
1:41:29VI. Nonpublic meeting session — RSA 91-A:3, II (a & j)Chair: "item number seven is a request for a non public session under RSA 91-83A [91-A:3] colon three comma two a and J." Whitney moved at 1:41:51, Crawford seconded, roll call at 1:42:20. Per the minutes: entered 8:12 p.m., returned to public session 8:38 p.m., then "Heather Whitney made a motion to seal the minutes for 1 year, Loren Howard seconded the motion; roll call vote taken by Noelle Kronberg, all present voting in favor." The recording ends before the return. See flag 3 and flag 9.
VII. Future Dates / Future Agenda ItemsOff-recording, per the draft minutes. Future dates: Claremont School Board 4/16/2025; Claremont School Board 5/7/2025; Unity School Board 5/13/2025. Future agenda item, verbatim: "Continued audit presentations (2021-2024) timeline prior to June 2026."
VIII. Other Business — meeting dates for 2025-2026Off-recording, per the draft minutes: "Discussion regarding the frequency and need of SAU meeting"; "Consensus to meet on an as-need basis"; "State approved Unity's separation." An as-needed cadence for a board whose own auditor had just explained that its irregular meeting schedule is why an electronic check signature is used at all — see flag 1.
IX. AdjournmentOff-recording: "Loren Howard made a motion to adjourn, Frank Sprague seconded the motion; voice vote taken, all present voting in favor."

Discussion timeline — the audit status report and the reorganization

Times are from the dialogue transcript (Output/Dialogue/16463 SAU6Mtg-041025.mp4.CSV), which is speaker-attributed; the Role column carries uncertainty flags and those are noted below where they bear on a claim. Quotations reproduce the transcript as spoken, including its errors; corrections are in square brackets and joins across separated rows are marked with an ellipsis.

TimeTopicWhat was said (leading text; hover/focus for more)Flags
0:00:33Reorganization: four minutes, three offices later filled to fiveThe superintendent opened the floor; Crawford nominated Hawkins; Sprague nominated Ruggeri; both carried on voice votes with no opposition and no abstentions recorded. Hawkins at 0:01:38: "We've become quite the team. Thank you. Folks, I really appreciate that." The treasurer and two voucher signers were not on the agenda at all; they were elected later in the evening, inside the audit item, once the auditor explained why the board needed them.POSITIVE
0:03:32The FY2022 draft arrives the afternoon of the meetingMary Henry, introducing the auditor: "we just FYI, we received fiscal year 22 audit today for review for saw. 2222. Yep. I just got it this afternoon from Mike, which is good. So I'm in the process of reviewing that and get it back out to them so that it can be through. And we'll get you guys a copy of the findings on that one, which they're all going to be the same, like Mike and I have talked to or spoken about, until we get to a point where I'm here and things are different." She had been in the job since July 1, 2023.MEDIUM
0:04:10Campo's opening: "we have a few years we have to get through""Sure. First of all, thank you. Thank you for having me. As the chairwoman said, I've. I've been doing this audit. I feel like this particular audit that that we just finished. I've been doing for quite a few years. I'm excited to have some stabilization in the in the finance department. One of the biggest challenges we've had is that we've had different renditions of the management team in place." At 0:04:35: "And with each change, there's the disconnect of some things as simple as where invoices kept, what, you know, what processes were in place. So I'm excited to have the opportunity with this engagement, to be able to see it from the start to the finish with the same people. We're obviously we have a few years we have to get through."MEDIUM
0:04:56Where each fiscal year actually stood, in his own wordsFY2022: "I actually pushed pushed extra hard to make sure that draft got there before tonight's meeting for the 22 audit. And what that means to is that after Mary Henry is able to review it, she can provide any concerns, comments, feedback, and we can then get into the 23 audit. We want to make sure at least we're both comfortable with the numbers before we start any field work on 23." FY2023, at 0:05:22: "the goal is to be into 23 before the end of the month." FY2024, at 0:07:41: "I let I let your business administrator speak to that because we haven't actually looked at 24 yet." And the year then running, at 0:05:43: "I'm happy to either take questions or I can certainly go over some of the 2021 audit. But where we're looking at 2025 mere two months away, I don't know if that's what you want to do."MEDIUM
0:06:04The electronic signature nobody could identifyHawkins: "Under the under the treasurer signing the check registers. It says an electronic signature is being used. And I know, Mary, we had talked about this in the early winter about having that corrected and, having our treasurer remember Bonnie was the treasurer, and you were going to talk with her about signing things." When she asked directly at 0:10:26 — "when you say the electronic signature, who is that person?" — the answer was: "I have to look and see what that electronic. Right now it's who's on the bank account. So I would have to look to see who that is." The mechanism, at 0:11:33: "It's an electronic signature. It's digital. It's scanned in and it's scanned in through Infinite Visions… I have it set so that the only signature you can use is that signature in the system."MEDIUM
0:06:36Campo on why an irregular board needs a treasurer more, not less"you guys are a little bit unique because you don't necessarily meet on a regular basis, so that when you're dealing with the individual school district, you you're meeting at least on a monthly basis. So the treasurer and the board are able to see the manifest on a timely basis. So what we're saying here is that if the treasurer is not going to be able to sign, physically sign the checks in, the electronic signature is being used." His recommendation at 0:06:58: "At the very least, the treasurer should be reviewing the check registers to make sure that they're reasonable. It gives you that extra layer of oversight that the RSA is looking for… it's not even a case of the risk of theft. It just we all know that when we're, we're trying to get through a bunch of things, sometimes an error happens." He did not name a statute, and neither did the board.MEDIUM
0:08:01The board had no treasurer, and the vouchers were unreviewedHawkins: "So Bonnie has done that." Henry: "Oh Bonnie I'm sorry. No, it's not clear. Bonnie. That's right. Okay. Never mind. No Bonnie has not. So I need to get with Bonnie." Hawkins, at 0:08:08: "Is she? She's on the board. We we need a treasurer." Henry at 0:08:42: "prior to that, you know, our treasurer for Bonnie was actually coming in and looking at our stuff. But again, you guys should be looking at the vouchers as well. So, we need to implement that where you guys would get copies of those vouchers. I'm working on that with unity as well." Asked who "you guys" meant: "The board should review those."MEDIUM
0:09:21"if you don't document it, it didn't happen"Campo's prescription: "designating at least two individuals to go in, see the actual manifest, review the invoices, make sure that they are lining up with what's on the manifest and then sign off." Then, at 0:09:41: "The big thing is signing off. I tell my staff if if you don't document it, it didn't happen. We hold our clients to the same. We can't just take somebody word that, oh yeah, we're looking at it. So as simple as an initial might sound, it's at least evidence that somebody actually put pen to paper and review that document." He accepted designees over the full board because "your board is not necessarily all in the same community, which makes it a little more challenging."MEDIUM POSITIVE
0:11:56Sprague on repeat findings: "we're talking 2021"Sprague framed the question fairly: "the is the, repeat findings, right. I'm going to ask. I was to and I want to qualify that statement with saying we're talking 2021. So this doesn't affect this this administration at all. … But I'm hoping that when we get to 23, 24 that all of these repeat findings have have been resolved." Campo, at 0:12:35: "I'm fully in alignment with your desire to see these findings go away. I know you were writing findings, but at the same point, if I don't bring these to your attention, I'm not doing my job. The challenge here is that we're talking about four years ago when we look at this. And the problem is that some of these just continued because of the lack of continuity in the finance department."MEDIUM
0:12:57The one forward-looking warning: FY2022 will read the same"I do think that with the conversations I've had with your current members of management, Mary and her team, they're committed to not only resolving these findings, but actually improving the environment beyond what they what is basically accepted. I think you're on the right track, but you. I mean, I'll tell you right now, your your governance letter and management letter are very similar in the 22 audit as well." Asked to confirm at 0:13:23: "Yeah. 22 audit." Hawkins pressed for reassurance — "So just to clarify, it will get better. These findings will go away." — and it was Henry, not Campo, who answered: "It's better already." Earlier, at 0:07:20, Campo had put the same point on a timeline: "even though it's carrying a 24 issuance date, this is going back to 21 and that you're probably going to see it in 23, I believe it's in 23 back. And then you'll probably, I think 24 when you start to see a fall off."MEDIUM OBSERVATION
0:13:55Stale-dated checks and a cash reconciliation done yearlyWhitney asked whether the stale-dated checks were significant. Campo: "I don't have the dollar amount in front of me, but, I mean, the fact that it's carrying over year to year is telling me that on an annual basis, you're adding more stale data [dated] checks. Anything over six, 6 to 9 months passed the issuance date. It gives you a really bad, bad, bad idea of where your cash stands". At 0:14:40: "one of the challenges that we've had is the lack of reconciliations in general. And I know when Mary's team went in there, it they took a lot of time on multiple districts just reconciling cash." And at 0:14:59: "That really should be done on the monthly basis. They were doing like a year's worth a year and a half worth." Henry's mitigation: "we have Laurie Morey has been going through those checks"; the amounts are "not big numbers in the South [SAU]… some of them were duplicate checks to where they just weren't voided."MEDIUM
0:15:43The auditor drops off — and the board fills the gap by electing officers"Did we lose them?" Henry: "Google send them a Google meet." Sprague: "Scotty bringing them back?" Rather than wait, the chair used the interval: "So we can actually nominate while we're waiting to get Mr. Campo back. Maybe. Do we have a nomination for a treasurer from unity?" Ruggeri volunteered — "I'll do it" — and was elected at 0:16:40. Whitney then nominated Crawford as treasurer, Howard seconding ("My timid second"), carried at 0:17:00. Henry had to correct the count twice — "I need I need one treasurer… Two, two people to sign the the vouchers" — so Madden was nominated and elected at 0:17:45. Hawkins summed it up at 0:18:18: "So it'll be Rocco and Bill Madden. Those will be your other two signatures."POSITIVE OBSERVATION
0:19:29The deadline that governs everything: June 30, 2026Hawkins: "is Mr. Campo aware of the fact that unity will be leaving the saw as of June 26th? I have July 1st. Correct." Corrected to 2026, she went on at 0:19:52: "it would be helpful if we could have all the audits, and it sounds like it might happen so that as my family used to say, you put the bow on the package, it's all done." Henry: "And unity is up to 22 as well. So, yes, that is the plan. The game plan." When Campo reconnected the chair repeated the question at 0:20:26 — "we're optimistic and hopeful that all of the audits will be completed by then." No answer from Campo appears on the recording. The next voice is Henry's: "That's his goal as well." The draft minutes instead record "Mr. Campo said that is the plan" — see flag 6.MEDIUM OBSERVATION
0:21:37Crawford works the findings list one by onePurchase orders: "I see purchase orders were not created or attached to invoices for cash disbursements. I hope that that is has been corrected by now." Henry: "Purchase orders are done and they're in the system, and then invoices are scanned in when we pay them… Nothing is ordered without a purchase order. And if it is, I'm not a happy camper. And I find out." Journal entries, at 0:22:02: "there are a number of journal entries that had to be reversed or changed. And my question to you, Mr. Campo, is to me, this seems unusual. Would you agree that this is unusual?" Henry's candid answer at 0:23:13: "there are times when we are busy and I will enter journal entries on my own and not have someone else enter them for me, because I've done a lot of the reconciliations. So. But I scan in all my backup for my journal entries."OBSERVATION
0:24:27Deposit records that could not be locatedCrawford: "testing of cash receipts, supporting documentation for all deposits could not be located. What is the implication here?" Henry: "I can get copies of the checks from the bank, but if there was no other documentation or if there was other documentation that went with it, I would have to track that down." Campo, at 0:25:07: "The other issue here, the building also went through some major renovations, and I think some records were shifted. And frankly, I think some of them were lost." The fix, per Henry at 0:25:29: "Everything is scanned into our system. So deposits that are made are scanned in with the backup as well" — but "that started in 24 because I got here in July 1st of 23."MEDIUM
0:26:02Unclaimed grants, no cash, and a spreadsheetOn the finding that payments were not made timely, Henry gave the mechanism: "I got corrected in 24 because I had to go back and claim almost two years worth of grants to get the money in. We had cash flow issues. We were working off a spreadsheet." At 0:26:43: "even saw [SAU] was the same way. They weren't getting paid from Claremont in a timely manner or from unity in a timely manner for their fees, because Claremont or Unity hadn't gotten in their money yet either." And at 0:29:01, naming which district: "not necessarily unity. But more so Claremont did not claim their grants. Unity doesn't have as much. But when you're talking millions of dollars in grants and Esser [ESSER] funds that weren't claimed until two years later, that's it's a snowball effect, right?" The remedy now in place is a monthly assessment payment from each district.MEDIUM
0:30:18"Rip the Band-Aid off"After Campo left the call, Henry addressed the backlog directly: "We are working very diligently with them to get this done. Their firm is also pushing to get this done. So it's not just us or you. It's them as well. Because it's not good for them to have audits hanging out either." At 0:30:39: "if I could have a month straight, I would just to get it, just rip the Band-Aid off and be done." Hawkins at 0:31:08: "It's nice to finally start having our head coming up from underwater." Henry at 0:31:14: "I am so looking forward to doing the Doe [DOE-25] this year and having real numbers that you have no idea how happy I am."MEDIUM
0:31:29The agenda named the wrong fiscal yearCrawford: "our agenda says it's the SA 2020 audit recommendations. Shouldn't that be 2020?" Henry: "Should have said 2021. And I just got 2022." Crawford filled in the missing year: "I did get the 2020 review also in our packet. Okay we cancel that meeting. So that was also ready." So FY2020's report existed and had been distributed, but the meeting at which the board would have taken it up was cancelled and it was never reviewed in public. Henry undertook to circulate FY2022 once accepted: "I just got to send the letter to him accepting it, and then I will have it sent over to you and it won't say draft on it anymore."MEDIUM MEDIUM
0:33:28Fortier: a Claremont-specific needs assessment"So my name's Matthew Fortier. I work, I work with TLC out of New Hampshire Children's Trust. So there's a grant that exists from New Hampshire Children's Trust to create my position, which is a strength and families position." Scope, at 0:34:48: "my program is specifically Claremont… this role exists to target, the city here and to connect with those families directly." Two phases: interviews with "local businesses, business leaders, nonprofits, a couple of faith organizations," plus a survey of Claremont educators sent with the superintendent's help; then a parent survey. The draft minutes give his full name and credentials as Matthieu A.F. Fortier, Q.D.D.P., C.E.S.P., Strengthening Families Initiative Coordinator, TLC Family Resource Center.
0:43:37Over 800 responses — and a finding the assessment did not expect"So to have over 800 was was great." Demographics at 0:44:03: "almost everybody was a parent. Over 80% had between 1 and 3 kids". The surprise, at 0:45:58: "we as people who work with families where we had predicted the second most, you know, we thought people were going to ask for, for resources or resource navigation. The second most frequent reported struggle is parenting". He tested it at 0:48:03: "I was able to do a t test comparing the two groups. And if you said parenting was a struggle, you were less likely. Finances were were less likely to be a concern for you… It trumps the need from you." He also stated his own limits — the survey was electronic, self-selected, and incentivized with a $20 Amazon gift card, which produced duplicate entries.
0:51:26Family cafes, and the district's role in publicising them"what we've done since this survey was conducted is I've started hosting what are called family cafes… family cafes are just opportunities for parents to connect. They come to these meetings, I'm there. I host it with a free meal because, you know, because I want to mitigate that, that, you know, paywall that a lot of a lot of parents reflected on in their answers." Whitney asked whether he would use district channels; Pratt confirmed the offer of support. Whitney also asked, at 0:57:33, whether families from the other sending towns could attend — "I'm going to say that they can come." With Fortier adding "If you show up. You're welcome to have pizza and talk to me." Cafes run 5 to 7 p.m.
0:59:35The SAU's own books: $205,000 on paper, $212,000 in factHenry opened the year-to-date report by correcting her own exhibit: "as of right now, I know this bottom line says 205. It's actually 212,000, just so you know. But I'll explain to you where I got that extra money from." She walked technology, the superintendent's office, special education, the business office, HR and maintenance, flagging line-level corrections as she went — a mileage line budgeted at $1,250 that should have been $2,500, dues-and-fees amounts that belonged in staff training, two Claremont bills paid by the SAU that will be billed back. On the encumbrance mechanics, at 1:18:28: "We're sitting at a positive. Yes."
1:18:32Crawford audits the surplus back to its causes"So, Mary, right now this for 325 [3/25] financial statement shows. We're to the good 205,000. That can be attributed to one person not in this budget. And we went to Claremont for about 99,000." Then at 1:18:52: "And $30,000 for technology, for info technology and the business office software of almost 58,000. So 58,030 thousand is 88,000." Her projection at 1:19:45: "It's still going to be to the good 150,000." Henry: "I would say that. Yes. Confidently. Yes." The draft minutes record the estimated year-end surplus as "about $100,000" — Crawford's first figure, before she revised it upward on the record.OBSERVATION
1:20:12Unity's withdrawal, confirmed on the recordRuggeri: "March 15th … 2025, the unity annual budget was presented to the town where the Warren [warrant] article, asking the town to vote on movie [moving] with a drawing [withdrawing] from saw six was presented and passed." Timeline at 1:20:31: "the last day that unity will be part of saw six will be June 30th, 2026… So July 1st would be the first day of separation." Tone at 1:21:10: "there's going to be some changes. But I believe I speak for the unity board and, the, the school staff and the principal and everybody involved with the Unity School District that the relationship with the Claremont School District, there's every bit of interest to maintain and improve that." Hawkins at 1:21:39: "We are working to get the audits completed. Business. I did check with legal counsel. He said it's all in your court in terms of what."OBSERVATION
1:26:26The background-check amendment, and where it belongsHawkins introduced a superintendent-proposed revision to policy GBCD "to include anyone who is classified as an offender against children to keep them off of school grounds and any place there is a school sponsored event", presented as a revision needing no second read "because it's already in place." Sprague, at 1:27:52: "Claremont has a policy. JLIF which is the receipt and use of sex offender registry information, which has a lot of the s…" and at 1:28:23: "I'm not objecting to the content. I just think we're attaching it to the wrong policy." His practical objection at 1:29:01: "I just think it's very nobody's going to find it." Hawkins was candid about the motive: "The reason we did this and in bringing it forward for revision is for expediency."POSITIVE
1:34:48The board takes the slower routeWhitney: "I'd like to make a motion to instead of approving this policy to task the Claremont Policy Committee to make a priority of updating policy… JLL[IF]… I f to include the relevant language." Sprague: "Yeah, because this is important." He added a second question at 1:35:22: "We have a policy to encourage volunteerism, and I would imagine that that puts them in the school" — Pratt confirmed background checks are required for volunteers: "Yeah, legally we have to. Yep." Hawkins undertook to check the statute: "I think with that we can look through the RSA and see how it's stated in the RSA". Carried on a voice vote at 1:36:50.POSITIVE
1:41:29Into nonpublic — and the recording stopsHawkins announced the item with its subparagraphs: "item number seven is a request for a non public session under RSA 91-83A [91-A:3] colon three comma two a and J. If I can have a motion to move into nonpublic for this." Whitney moved it the same way at 1:41:51: "I make a motion to move into nonpublic per RSA 91-8 [91-A:3] colon, three comma Roman numeral two A and a [and J]." Crawford seconded; the chair confirmed the clerk had it — "Did you get that, Noel?" — and called the roll at 1:42:20. Her last words on the recording, at 1:42:28: "So we will wrap up our public meeting after this non public session." Everything after — the 8:38 p.m. return to public session, the roll-called vote to seal the nonpublic minutes for a year, and adjournment — exists only in the draft minutes.MEDIUM POSITIVE

Items flagged for review

Flags are a reviewer's aid generated by comparing the discussion against current state and federal law. They are not findings of violation, and nothing here is legal advice. Each flag cites the rule it rests on, or says plainly that no verified rule was identified. Note that severity here tracks how firmly a flag is anchored in a verified rule, not how important the underlying material is: the audit backlog is the most consequential thing on this page and is rated MEDIUM because no provision on this project's verified citation list fixes a completion deadline for an SAU's fiscal-year audit.

MEDIUM No treasurer, an unidentified electronic check signature, and vouchers no one was reviewing

Going into this meeting the SAU 6 board had no treasurer at all. Checks were being released bearing a scanned electronic signature belonging, in the business administrator's words, to "who's on the bank account" — and when the chair asked who that person actually was, the answer was "I have to look and see what that electronic… So I would have to look to see who that is." No one was reviewing the check register, and no one was reviewing the vouchers: "you guys should be looking at the vouchers as well. So, we need to implement that where you guys would get copies of those vouchers." The auditor's recommendation was concrete — the treasurer should review the check registers, at least two designees should "see the actual manifest, review the invoices, make sure that they are lining up with what's on the manifest and then sign off", and the sign-off must leave a mark, because "if you don't document it, it didn't happen." Citation discipline: Campo said the second set of eyes gives "that extra layer of oversight that the RSA is looking for" but named no statute, and no provision on this project's verified citation list governs the treasurer of a school administrative unit. RSA 197:23-a puts custody of school district money in a treasurer who "shall pay out the same only upon orders of the school board"; it is cited here as the analogous district-level rule and is not asserted to govern SAU 6. The severity reflects a control weakness identified by the district's own independent auditor as a repeat finding, not an established legal violation. The board fixed it in the room — see flag 8.

Sources: RSA 197:23-a (school district treasurer's custody; payment only upon orders of the school board) — cited as the district-level analogue, not as a rule governing an SAU; 4.10.25 draft minutes (item IV: electronic signature, treasurer, designees to review the manifest/vouchers). No verified rule governing SAU treasurers was identified on this project's citation list.

MEDIUM Audit status as of April 10, 2025: FY2020 never reviewed in public, FY2021 the report in hand, FY2022 delivered in draft that afternoon, FY2023 not started, FY2024 not looked at, FY2025 two months from closing

This is the most consequential material in the quarter, so it is set out as the record has it rather than summarised into a conclusion the auditor did not state.

FY2020. The report was finished and distributed to board members — Crawford: "I did get the 2020 review also in our packet. Okay we cancel that meeting. So that was also ready" — but the meeting at which the board would have received it was cancelled, so it was never reviewed in public session. FY2021. The audit before the board this night, mislabeled "2020" on the posted agenda and corrected on the record by Henry: "Should have said 2021." Campo on its age: "we're talking about four years ago when we look at this", and on why findings persisted: "some of these just continued because of the lack of continuity in the finance department… we've had different renditions of the management team in place … And with each change, there's the disconnect of some things as simple as where invoices kept". FY2022. The draft reached the business administrator hours before the meeting — Henry: "we received fiscal year 22 audit today for review for saw… I just got it this afternoon from Mike"; Campo: "I actually pushed pushed extra hard to make sure that draft got there before tonight's meeting for the 22 audit." His warning about its contents is the sharpest thing he said: "I'll tell you right now, your your governance letter and management letter are very similar in the 22 audit as well." FY2023. Not begun. "the goal is to be into 23 before the end of the month", and only after Henry's review of FY2022 — "We want to make sure at least we're both comfortable with the numbers before we start any field work on 23." FY2024. "we haven't actually looked at 24 yet." FY2025. Then in progress: "where we're looking at 2025 mere two months away". And on when the repeat findings drop out: "you're probably going to see it in 23, I believe it's in 23 back. And then you'll probably, I think 24 when you start to see a fall off."

The underlying findings he described were not clerical: stale-dated checks accumulating "on an annual basis" and giving "a really bad, bad, bad idea of where your cash stands"; cash reconciliations being done "like a year's worth a year and a half worth" when "That really should be done on the monthly basis"; and supporting documentation for deposits that "could not be located," some of it, he thought, physically lost in a building renovation — "I think some records were shifted. And frankly, I think some of them were lost." Henry supplied the cash mechanism behind the late-payment finding: "I had to go back and claim almost two years worth of grants to get the money in. We had cash flow issues. We were working off a spreadsheet," and named the district responsible — "more so Claremont did not claim their grants… when you're talking millions of dollars in grants and Esser [ESSER] funds that weren't claimed until two years later."

Why this is MEDIUM and not HIGH. RSA 21-J:19 provides for audits of school accounts by independent public accountants, but no provision on this project's verified citation list fixes a date by which a school administrative unit's fiscal-year audit must be complete, and none was in force in April 2025 that this page can cite. Nor does the record establish whether SAU 6's own federal expenditures reach the single-audit threshold: if they do, 2 CFR 200.501 would require an annual single audit and 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1) would require the reporting package the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report or nine months after period end — deadlines a four-year backlog could not meet. Nothing in the packet, the minutes or the recording answers that question, and it should not be assumed either way. The board's own stated deadline was not statutory but practical: all audits complete before Unity leaves on June 30, 2026, carried into the minutes as the future agenda item "Continued audit presentations (2021-2024) timeline prior to June 2026."

Sources: RSA 21-J:19 (audits by independent public accountants); 2 CFR 200.501 (single audit at ≥$750,000 of federal expenditures for FY22–FY25) and 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1) (reporting-package deadline) — both stated conditionally, because the record does not establish SAU 6's federal expenditure level; 2 CFR 200.303 (internal control over federal awards); 4.10.25 draft minutes (item IV and Future Agenda Items); Valley News, Jan. 2, 2026 — reporting, not law, and confirming the auditor's identity.

MEDIUM Nonpublic minutes sealed for one year with no statutory finding in the record

RSA 91-A:3, III makes disclosure of nonpublic minutes within 72 hours the default. A public body may withhold them only if two-thirds of the members present determine, by recorded vote, that divulgence would render the proposed action ineffective, would likely affect adversely the reputation of a person other than a member of the body, or is likely to affect adversely a person's reputation. The draft minutes record the vote but not the determination: "Heather Whitney made a motion to seal the minutes for 1 year, Loren Howard seconded the motion; roll call vote taken by Noelle Kronberg, all present voting in favor." No finding is stated, and no reason is given for the one-year term. Nothing in the record indicates the board considered which of the three statutory grounds it was relying on. Two mitigations: the vote was by roll call and was recorded, which is the harder half of the requirement to evidence after the fact; and the underlying session was properly noticed and properly entered (see flag 9). This is a documentation gap in the minutes as filed, not proof that no determination was made in the room — but the room is where the public record ends, because the recording had already stopped.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, III (72-hour disclosure; sealing requires a recorded 2/3 vote and one of the statutory findings); 4.10.25 draft minutes (item VI).

MEDIUM A one-document packet for a meeting built on three documents nobody outside the room could see

The public packet folder for this meeting holds exactly one file: the agenda. The evening's business turned on three others. The FY2021 audit report — board members were reading from it line by line ("I see purchase orders were not created or attached to invoices for cash disbursements"; "testing of cash receipts, supporting documentation for all deposits could not be located") while a member of the public could not follow along. The FY2020 audit report, which Crawford confirms was distributed to members in a packet and which never reached a public meeting at all. Exhibit A, Fortier's needs-assessment slides, referred to throughout his presentation ("if you're following along, I'm, I'm looking at the first slide here after the title"). And Exhibit B, the year-to-date financial report the business administrator walked line by line, with an updated version circulating in the room that was never posted: "I have updated ones if you want them. Or you can get them at the end there." Two further wrinkles compound it. The agenda itself misnamed the audit year — "SAU 2020 Audit Recommendations" for what was the FY2021 report — so even the one posted document pointed the public at the wrong year. And the folder is filed under the Claremont board's naming scheme, 19. CSB 4.10.25, in the Claremont share, although both the recording and the minutes call this an SAU 6 board meeting; the SAU's own packet share holds nothing for this date. RSA 91-A:4 governs the availability of governmental records on request; it does not, by itself, require a public body to post its packet in advance, which is why this is a documentation and findability problem rather than an asserted violation.

Sources: RSA 91-A:4 (availability of governmental records); RSA 91-A:2 (notice and minutes); Packet folder 19. CSB 4.10.25 (1 document).

OBSERVATION These minutes surface only inside a later meeting's packet, and are still marked DRAFT

RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes to be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than five business days after the meeting; a draft satisfies that duty. The draft minutes of this April 10, 2025 meeting are not filed with this meeting's packet. They sit inside the packet folder for the SAU 6 board's June 12, 2025 meeting — and, symmetrically, that meeting's own packet folder does not contain its own minutes either. The pattern repeats across the SAU 6 board's record: the June 12, 2025 draft minutes surface in the September 11 and November 13 packet folders. As of 2026-08-25 no approved version of these April 10 minutes has been located in the district's Meeting Minutes share; the only copy on hand is still marked DRAFT more than a year later, and the board's April 10 decision to "meet on an as-need basis" means there may have been no meeting at which to approve them for months. None of this establishes a breach of the five-business-day rule — the date these minutes first became available cannot be determined from the documents on hand, and that is the point. A citizen looking for what the SAU board did in April 2025 has to know to open a June packet to find out.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (minutes promptly recorded, open to inspection within 5 business days; a draft satisfies); 4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes, as filed in folder 6. SAU6 6.12.25; MAP.md, sections 17 and 22.

OBSERVATION Where the recording and the minutes diverge on the audit item

The auditor attended by video and the connection failed twice, which leaves the public record thinner than the minutes suggest at three specific points. Readers checking this page against either source should know about all three.

One. At 0:20:26 the chair asked Campo directly whether all the audits would be complete before Unity's June 30, 2026 departure. No answer from Campo appears anywhere on the recording; the next voice is the business administrator's — "That's his goal as well." The draft minutes render the same moment as "Mr. Campo said that is the plan." The minutes are the authoritative record and are followed here, but the attribution is not corroborated by the recording. Two. At 0:22:02 Crawford asked Campo whether the volume of reversed journal entries was unusual — "Would you agree that this is unusual?" — and the transcript then jumps 51 seconds to Campo mid-sentence describing the correct procedure, his connection having dropped again. The minutes supply the missing answer: "Mr. Campo agreed that it is unusual and changes have been made." It is not on the recording. Three. On the SAU's projected year-end surplus, the minutes record "it is estimated to be about $100,000"; on the recording Crawford offered $100,000, then revised upward to "It's still going to be to the good 150,000", and Henry confirmed "I would say that. Yes. Confidently. Yes." The minutes captured the first figure, not the one the exchange settled on. Campo himself flagged his own condition earlier, at 0:10:06: "We lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. I've done for [four] meetings in four nights, so I'm a little bit fraught." No verified rule requires a public body to record its meetings, or to secure a reliable connection for a remote presenter; this is an observation about the completeness of the public record, not a finding.

Sources: 4.10.25 draft minutes (item IV; item V.2); dialogue transcript rows at 0:20:26–0:20:47, 0:22:02–0:22:53 and 1:18:32–1:19:50; RSA 91-A:2 (minutes must record, among other things, persons appearing before the body).

OBSERVATION The board reorganized for its final joint year with three of four Unity seats empty

SAU 6's board seats eleven members per the draft minutes' masthead — seven from Claremont, four from Unity (Ruggeri, Erickson, Popescu, Hart). At the meeting that elected the chair, vice chair, treasurer and two voucher signers who will serve through the separation, three of those four Unity members were absent: Marjorie Erickson, Atonya Hart and Shannon Popescu. Rocco Ruggeri, the sole Unity member present, was elected vice chair and one of the two voucher signers, and delivered the withdrawal report. The absence also shaped the subcommittee appointments: Sprague wanted a Unity member on the superintendent-evaluation subcommittee and had to defer the ask — "I reach out to a Tanya [Atonya Hart], I think she's. Yeah. I don't want to. She's got enough" — while Ruggeri's answer was "All you can do is ask." Nothing here is irregular: the minutes record a quorum, every vote was taken among members present, and both the chair and Ruggeri were plainly working to keep the two districts aligned through the transition ("we look forward to continuing that cooperation that we already have"). It is worth recording because Unity's withdrawal — approved at its March 2025 town vote, which Ruggeri dated on the record as "March 15th … 2025", and confirmed at this meeting as effective July 1, 2026 — is the fact that shapes every remaining SAU decision — including the audit deadline the board set for itself.

Sources: RSA 194-C:2, IV (SAU withdrawal process); 4.10.25 draft minutes (masthead, roll call, items V.3 and V.4, Other Business — "State approved Unity's separation").

POSITIVE The board closed the control gap in the same meeting the auditor named it — three offices filled in five minutes

The gap identified at 0:06:58 was closed by 0:17:45. None of it was on the agenda. The chair used the dead air while the auditor's video was being restored to open nominations; Ruggeri volunteered ("I'll do it") and was elected to review and sign vouchers; Whitney nominated Crawford as treasurer, Howard seconded, carried; and when the business administrator corrected the count — "I need one person to sign checks and then I need two people from your board other than your treasurer to sign the v[ouchers]" — Madden accepted the third role and was elected too. Every one of the three had a nomination, an acceptance, a second and a recorded voice vote, and the minutes name the mover and seconder for each. The board also went further than the strict recommendation, splitting the roles across both member districts so that the check signer and the voucher reviewers are not the same person. Substance, not form, is the point: on April 10 the SAU had no treasurer and an anonymous scanned signature on its checks; when the meeting ended it had a treasurer of record and two named board members obliged to put an initial on a manifest before money moved.

Sources: 4.10.25 draft minutes (item IV — three nominations, seconds and voice votes); RSA 197:23-a — the district-level analogue this arrangement mirrors.

POSITIVE The nonpublic motion named its exemptions on the face of the motion, and the vote was by roll call

RSA 91-A:3, I(b) requires the motion to enter nonpublic session to state on its face the specific paragraph II exemption relied on, and requires the vote to be by roll call. Both were done here, and done in the right order: the chair read the item with its subparagraphs — "a request for a non public session under RSA 91-83A [91-A:3] colon three comma two a and J" — the mover repeated them in the motion itself, the second was taken, the chair confirmed the clerk had captured it ("Did you get that, Noel?"), and only then was the roll called. The draft minutes record the motion as "under RSA 91-a:3, II (a& j)" and reproduce the full statutory text of both (a) and (j) on the agenda page, so a reader can see what was claimed and check it. This is worth naming because the same board's Claremont half did it differently eight days earlier, on April 2, when the motion cited only the paragraph and the subparagraphs had to be supplied in the conversation that followed.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) (specific exemption on the face of the motion; roll-call vote); 4.10.25 draft minutes (item VI); Claremont School Board, April 2, 2025 — the contrasting motion.

POSITIVE Offered an expedient shortcut on a child-safety policy, the board chose the slower, findable route

The superintendent's amendment would have extended the SAU's background-check policy GBCD to bar anyone classified as an offender against children from school grounds and school-sponsored events. It was brought as a revision to an existing policy specifically so it would not need two readings — the chair was open about it: "The reason we did this and in bringing it forward for revision is for expediency." Sprague's objection was not to the substance but to where it would live: Claremont already has policy JLIF on the receipt and use of sex offender registry information, the SAU has no student-facing policy series, and burying the provision in a background-check policy would mean "nobody's going to find it." The board could have adopted it that night in a body due to dissolve in fourteen months. Instead Whitney moved to send it to the Claremont policy committee to fold the language into JLIF, Sprague seconded, and it carried. The discussion also surfaced a genuine gap — Sprague asked whether volunteers were covered and Pratt confirmed "legally we have to" — and the chair undertook to check the underlying statute rather than assume: "I think with that we can look through the RSA and see how it's stated in the RSA". Findability of a child-safety rule is not a legal requirement; choosing it over expedience is the practice worth recording.

Sources: 4.10.25 draft minutes (item V.5.a — motion to task the Claremont policy committee with updating JLIF, carried); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (subcommittees are themselves public bodies, so the referred work stays public).

Appendix — source files

Official and public sources

Packet documents (exact Drive file names)

Project files (relative links work when this page is opened from Output/HTML/)

Laws and rules cited on this page