Claremont School Board — June 18, 2025

Regular meeting summary generated from the meeting dialogue transcript, the posted packet, the approved minutes, and the unsealed nonpublic-session minutes. The longest meeting of the quarter, and an unusual one: the board went straight into nonpublic session before any public business, the superintendent was absent, and the business administrator gave her financial update by video link from medical leave. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.

Body
Claremont School Board (SAU 6)
Date
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Start time
6:30 p.m. (nonpublic session entered 6:33 p.m., public session reconvened 7:03 p.m.; consent adjournment 9:23 p.m., per the approved minutes)
Location
Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center, Claremont NH; audio broadcast on CCTV Channel 8
Recording
Cablecast: School Board - 6/18/25 (2:23:46 — the 30-minute nonpublic session is absent from the recording; the broadcast jumps from the roll call in to the motion out, so from the four-minute mark the recording clock runs about 30 minutes behind the meeting clock)
Minutes
01. Approved CSB Meeting minutes 6.18.25 (approved) and 6.18.25 CSB nonpublic minutes unsealed — the nonpublic minutes were never sealed and are public (see flag 7)

Participants

Attendance and name spellings follow the approved minutes and the unsealed nonpublic-session minutes; where the dialogue file uses a different label or flags an uncertain attribution, the difference is noted here and in the method note.
NameRoleParticipation
Heather WhitneySchool Board ChairPresided; 230 of 944 transcript segments — moved the nonpublic session, ruled that no motion to seal was needed, ran the policy adoptions
Michael PetrinSchool Board Vice ChairAbsent (per the approved minutes; not noted in the recording)
Arlene HawkinsSchool Board member; Policy Subcommittee ChairPresent; 101 segments — carried the policy docket, caught and corrected a drafting error in policy JIC, questioned the preschool staffing
Candace CrawfordSchool Board member; Finance SubcommitteePresent; 98 segments — pressed on the FY22 audit and health-insurance comparisons; walked the board through the eight finance policies
Frank SpragueSchool Board member; Finance Subcommittee ChairPresent; 72 segments — the meeting's principal dissenting voice on the preschool pilot and the DMG proposal
William "Bill" MaddenSchool Board member; Policy and Curriculum subcommitteesPresent; 15 segments — the handbook critique and the honor-roll question; agreed to report back in August
Loren HowardSchool Board member; Policy SubcommitteePresent; 30 segments — helped with the remote-audio setup; asked that policy DBJ go back to committee (the transcript renders it "DB")
Christopher "Chris" PrattSuperintendent of Schools, SAU 6Absent. Referred to repeatedly — the DMG proposal was sent to him and the presentation came "at the request of Superintendent Pratt"; the chair: "[Un]fortunately, I wish Mr. Pratt was here this evening"
Mary HenryBusiness Administrator, SAU 6Participated remotely by Google Meet while on medical leave; 49 segments. Gave an abbreviated financial report and stayed on for the preschool item. Also listed among those present in the nonpublic session. See flag 6
Michael "Mike" KoskiAssistant Superintendent — Curriculum, Instruction, Innovation & AssessmentPresent; 83 segments — professional-development plan for 2025–26; read the accepted donations; present in the nonpublic session
Michael "Mike" McCoskerDirector of Student Services, SAU 6Present; 97 segments — the preschool special-education plan and the LEA determination; the transcript renders his name "McCusker"
Maggie GallagherConsultant, District Management Group (DMG)Remote presenter; 59 segments — presented DMG's Special Education Opportunity Review. Identified from the approved minutes, which name her as presenting for DMG; the dialogue file flags her surname as uncertain
Melissa LewisPrincipal, Disnard Elementary SchoolPresent; 51 segments — professional development, and the Disnard staffing move that funds the preschool teacher
Noelle KronbergSchool Board ClerkTook the attendance roll and both nonpublic roll calls; recorded the nonpublic minutes. The transcript renders her name "miss Chromebook"
Matt UptonLegal counsel to the boardPresent in the nonpublic session only (per the unsealed nonpublic minutes); no public-session remarks
Patrick O'HearnHuman Resources Director, SAU 6Present in the nonpublic session (per the unsealed nonpublic minutes); named in public session as posting the preschool teacher position. No attributed remarks
Mark BlountPrincipal, Maple Avenue Elementary SchoolPresent in the nonpublic session (per the unsealed nonpublic minutes); listed on the agenda as a handbook presenter, an item the board deferred. No attributed remarks
Lisa Salvucci · Samone CarpenterDistrict Management GroupListed in the approved minutes as attending for DMG; neither is separately identified in the dialogue file
Lilly Clark · Miles SheehanStudent Board MembersListed on the minutes' masthead; neither is recorded as present, and neither speaks in the recording. No student report was taken up
Citizens' comments (Policy BEDH)None. The approved minutes record "none" for citizens' comments, and the recording contains no public-comment period — the board moved from the consent agenda directly to the nonpublic motion

Agenda

Agenda text as reproduced in the approved minutes; the posted agenda is in the packet (CSB Agenda 6.18.25 (1).pdf). Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for full text.

Taken upItemAgenda text / disposition
0:00:06I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance"I'd like to call to order the June 18th, 2012, 2025 meeting of the Claremont School Board" — the year is an automatic-transcript stumble, not the chair's. Scheduled 6:30 p.m.
0:00:32II. General Business — roll call"With the clerk, miss Chromebook [Kronberg], please roll call." Per the minutes — present: Candace Crawford, Arlene Hawkins, Loren Howard, William Madden, Frank Sprague, Heather Whitney. Absent: Michael Petrin.
0:00:46II.a. Consent agenda (vote required)"1. Amendments and Final Approval of board agenda 2. Minutes Approval- 6.3.25 3. 25-26 School Calendar Changes." Approved by consent, with a floor addition: "Miss Henry contacted me, and she feels she is abled and up and able to communicate with us through or through Google Meet and would like to give us an abbreviated financial report." Calendar changes (Exhibit E): kindergarten's first day moved to 9/3/25 for a 9/2 open house; November 4, 2025 no school (voting day / teacher workshop); graduation moved to June 5, 2026; inclement-weather days added June 16–18; one more new-teacher day August 21, 2025.
6:35 p.m.II.b. Citizens' comments — Policy BEDHMinutes record: "none." No public-comment period appears in the recording; the chair moved from the consent agenda to the nonpublic motion. Listed at its scheduled clock time because there is no moment in the recording to link to.
0:02:46III.1. Nonpublic session — RSA 91-A:3, II (a) & (c)Motion by the chair: "a motion to move in to nonpublic for a 91 dash, a three comma Roman numeral A, A and C, and I have a second, please." Roll call at 0:03:16. Per the approved minutes: Whitney moved, Hawkins seconded, roll call by Kronberg, all present in favor; entered 6:33 p.m. Out at 0:03:43; public session reconvened 7:03 p.m. Subject, per the unsealed nonpublic minutes: "grievance hearing of Claremont Administrators Association… both parties agreed to no action and discussion on clarification will [occur] during negotiations." No motion to seal (0:04:05).
0:04:12III.2. Financial Report — Mary Henry (added to the agenda from the floor)"we're going to return to our regular scheduled meeting, and Miss Henry is now available to give us a brief, financial summary update." Roughly four and a half minutes of on-air audio troubleshooting follow before her report begins at 0:09:18. No vote.
0:17:55III.3. Review of Handbooks — Elementary, SHS, CMS (Discussion/Vote)Listed for a vote with Mark Blount, Melissa Lewis, Dale Chenette (Exhibit A), Courtney Steele (Exhibit B) and Michael Herrington (Exhibit C) presenting. No vote was taken and no presenter was heard: the chair announced the review had been deferred so two principals new to the district could give input, with revised copies "compiled by mid-July and presented to the board for approval or for request for revision at the first meeting in August." Board direction: less punitive, less redundant, consistent K–12, a focus on academic excellence, and a resolution of the missing middle-school honor roll.
0:35:41III.4. District Management Group — Special Education Opportunity Review (Exhibit D)"There is no vote expected on this. It's informational only at this time, but it's for our consideration moving forward. Whether or not we would like to contract with DNG [DMG] regarding these services." Presented remotely by Maggie Gallagher, with Lisa Salvucci and Samone Carpenter attending per the minutes. Cost: "typically for a district or size of the under $100,000, but around that Walmart" — a garble the minutes render as "usually around, but under $100,000." Deferred to the first meeting in August.
0:56:24III.5. Professional development for the upcoming school year — Mike Koski (Discussion)Priorities drawn from a staff survey and the professional development committee: classroom management, technology training (Christina Swenson), Responsive Classroom, LETRS, OGAP, The Skillful Teacher, curriculum-writing teams; "all of the opportunities will be available to teachers and about 80% will be available for paraprofessionals." No cost to teachers, small Title-funded stipends, college credit available. Melissa Lewis added the practitioner's view. No vote.
1:18:30III.6. Special education services for preschool students FY25-26 — Michael McCosker (Exhibit F, Discussion)Four phases after the board cut the preschool program: a PreK pilot at Disnard (12 seats, state approval applied for and pending), drop-in services, push-out services, and home-based services in rare cases. Funded net-zero by combining three Disnard third-grade sections into two of 19. The longest and sharpest exchange of the meeting followed, between Sprague and McCosker. No vote.
1:54:30III.7. Accepted donations per policy KCD"Thank you from Keene State. Thank you for Claremont Savings Bank. Claremont Savings Bank again and Kiwanis for the donations to to a variety of school programs." Per the minutes: CMS — Keene State College Music Department, $825.00 in gift cards to JW Pepper; SRVRTC — Claremont Savings Bank Award $2,500.00; SHS S.A.L.T Program — Claremont Savings Bank Award $2,000.00; SRVRTC — Kiwanis donation for t-shirts and snacks for Summer Camp, $1,500.00. Accepted by the superintendent under policy KCD; no board vote.
1:55:05III.8. Subcommittee reports — Policy Subcommittee docketRoughly 32 policy items in the meeting's last half hour. Withdrawn (one motion, Hawkins moving): ADB, EGA, GBED, JICIB, JICG, JICKA. Adopted without a second read: ACE, EHAB, JLDBB. Adopted: JH; JIC as amended in the meeting; JICD. Second read adopted: CHCA. Moved to second read: JLCF, and DA, DB, DEA, DFA, DGA, DIE, DK plus the DAF procedures. Returned to committee: DBJ (the transcript renders it "DB") and IHBI. JICD-R, JICK-R(1) and JICK-R(3) need no board action. Capital Improvement, Finance, Curriculum and SRVRTC subcommittees gave no separate reports.
8:20 p.m.IV. Other BusinessNo items recorded in the approved minutes and none identifiable in the recording. Listed at its scheduled clock time.
2:23:03V. Future Dates / Future Agenda Items"no regular schedule meetings in July. Fiscal finance subcommittee is meeting on Monday… Those minutes will be posted within 48 hours." Per the minutes: no regularly scheduled meetings in July; Claremont School Board 8/6/25 and 8/20/25; first day of school 8/28/25. The chair names August 6 at 2:23:25.
8:30 p.m.VI. Adjournment"Consent adjournment at 9:23pm" per the approved minutes — 53 minutes past the scheduled time. The recording ends moments after the chair's closing remarks; no adjournment motion is captured.

Discussion timeline

Times are from the dialogue transcript (Output/Dialogue/16602 SchoolBoard061825.mp4.CSV), which is speaker-diarized and well attributed; the Role column's uncertainty flags are reproduced rather than smoothed over. Because the recording omits the nonpublic session, times after 0:03:43 run roughly 30 minutes behind the clock times in the minutes. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.

TimeTopicWhat was said (leading text; hover/focus for more)Flags
0:02:46Straight into nonpublic, and Henry's report moved behind itKoski, on the business administrator's availability: "I think it was going to be right after the nonpublic." Chair: "Would there be any objection to changing to have Mary give us a brief chat after the nonpublic. Okay. Seeing none. First item on our action and items list, our discussion and action items is a motion to move in to nonpublic for a 91 dash, a three comma Roman numeral A, A and C, and I have a second, please." The board thus reordered its own agenda so that the only financial report of the evening would follow a closed session.MEDIUM POSITIVE
0:03:16Roll call in — and 27 seconds later, the motion out"Can we have a roll call? Vote for moving into nonpublic police? Yes. Yes. Yes." The recording captures five unattributed "Yes" responses in overlapping clusters. Twenty-seven seconds of recording later, at 0:03:43, the chair asks for a motion to come out — thirty minutes having passed on the meeting clock. On the way out a voice vote was called and then corrected on the floor: "I. No. Going to roll call. Roll call."MEDIUM
0:04:05No motion to sealChair: "I'd like to make a motion to do. We want to make a motion to seal the minutes." A member: "Is there any? I don't think there's any." Chair: "Reason to. No motion to seal the minutes." The approved minutes confirm: "Minutes not sealed." The nonpublic-session form is checked "Not Sealed" and is published in the district's Drive share alongside the approved minutes.POSITIVE
0:04:29Four and a half minutes of audio troubleshooting, on airHenry, from home: "Can't hear you say I apologize to take you there in person. I went out and we can't hear you. Mayor. Can you hear me?" What follows is the board and administrators working the room's audio — "Hey, Mary, will you talk quick just so we can see if we see the little bubble?" — until 0:09:01: "All right. Thanks, Jim [Jeff]. My gosh, thank you so much." Roughly a third of the elapsed time between the return to public session and the start of her report is unusable audio.OBSERVATION
0:09:18"I know we're going to study in, in a deficit"Henry: "I still want to say thank you for allowing me to be on tonight. I know I've been out for medical leave, and, it's never a good time to go out, but unfortunately, I had to for the benefit of my health. So, Anyways, I have been working remotely part of the time." Then, at 0:09:47: "At this point, I know we're going to study in, in a deficit, but I have not had an opportunity to go through all the purchase orders. Which is what I really need to do to see which ones are valid, which ones aren't. Because right now I have $2.3 million in encumbrances. I know some of those encumbrances are going to go away." She asked to review them "before I release any of your numbers".OBSERVATION
0:11:13What the Finance Committee gets on MondayWhitney: "Miss Henry, could you tell us what we what the finance committee could expect on Monday? And if it were in a form that we can have out in the minutes? So every member of the board, since we're not going to be having another meeting to August, has an opportunity to review what those are." Henry undertakes to email the spreadsheet ahead and bring hard copies. Crawford, on health insurance: "Will we have a summary of the proposed changes or relative comparisons for health care plans?" Henry: "I have six total that we can look at, whether it be an HSA and HMO, you know, a PPO, things like that." Any change is FY27, not FY26 — "you've already signed an agreement with school care."OBSERVATION POSITIVE
0:13:59The FY22 audit, againCrawford: "The third question I have, Mary, is I thought the 22 audit was complete." Henry: "It is almost three, but it's not quite complete yet. I know they're working on finishing it now." Crawford: "What's what's the holdup?" Henry: "I'm not sure. I haven't talked to my campus [Campo] as I went out, so I will have to touch base with them." Crawford: "I'll be in touch with Mike tomorrow." Henry: "I would like to make that phone call, Candice, because I'm." Six days earlier the SAU 6 board had been told Claremont's FY2022 audit "should have just gone out".OBSERVATION
0:17:55Handbooks deferred to August"Next item on the agenda is we were going to have a complete review of the handbooks for the elementary, Stevens High School and CMS. But there have been some reconsideration on that. We have two new principals new to the district that should have an opportunity, to have a say and input on these handbooks." And: "Members also feel the quality of the handbooks do not accurately reflect reflect the district's commitment to high standards and a culture of excellence… A new copies or revised copies will be compiled by mid-July and presented to the board for approval or for request for revision at the first meeting in August."OBSERVATION
0:23:19"repetitive… redundant… punitive" — and the missing honor rollMadden: "It's repetitive, it's redundant, it's punitive. It launches into, the disciplinary issues. If you just look at the definition of a handbook in Webster's, it's totally different… I don't think this is meant to be an encyclopedia." On academics: "There is one for the high school, but it's not implemented for the middle school. They explicitly says in boldface. No. Honorable [honor roll]." Koski: "It kind of goes against middle school philosophy to have an honorable… We can have a discussion about that." Whitney redirected a floor motion into policy: "if we as a board want to put our stamp on what we consider academic excellence is and how we would like it to be reflected within our schools, working with our leadership partners, then I think that the board and the leadership should work together to ensure that whatever honor roll system is put into the high school is something that we all agree with." Madden to report back at the first August meeting; Sprague and Madden authorized to ask how grading is configured in PowerSchool.
0:36:31DMG's Special Education Opportunity ReviewGallagher: "this is not for you to vote on for consideration this evening… We are here obviously at the request of Superintendent Pratt." The review's four areas, per the minutes: systems, structures for staff efficacy, instructional practices, and aligning services to student needs; deliverables are a synthesized report, a prioritized list of opportunities, and a "guiding coalition" of district and school leaders. Methodology includes a one-week time study run on proprietary software: "for one week, staff logs and schedules around how much time they're spending with students… And then our technology takes all of that data, and it takes out back to us a bunch of, insights and perspectives on how that time is being used." Tied to a strategic-plan measure on outcomes for students with disabilities. A screen-share failure interrupted the opening minutes; Henry, still on the call, talked her through it.OBSERVATION
0:54:08"$100,000… the 50 mile rule"Madden: "I do. I have a question. What is what is the cost of this?" Gallagher: "We sent a proposal to occur. Such typically for a district or size of the under $100,000, but around that Walmart." The minutes render it as "usually around, but under $100,000." Sprague at 0:54:47: "we already know pretty much what our issues are… Are we are we going to employ the 50 mile rule. Is that how where people will listen to somebody from 50 miles away that won't listen to our own administration?" And: "we can spend 100 grand and I'll bet you their recommendations with match pretty closely to what I just wrote down here with about a 90% reliability." Whitney: "[Un]fortunately, I wish Mr. Pratt was here this evening" — deferred to the first meeting in August.OBSERVATION
1:11:55Does professional development work? The LETRS answerWhitney asked how the district knows its PD is "actually bearing" results. Koski: "letters [LETRS] is probably the first example that comes to mind. It's the third year of teachers taking this. We've been limited to about a dozen spots per year. But because of expense. But we're seeing our k one and two reading scores where we're now in the 80 to 90 eighth percentile, not percentile. 8,090% of our students are in grade level reading, which didn't exist two years ago." The figure as transcribed is garbled and is not corroborated in the minutes, which record only "a significant increase in student reading proficiency." Whitney: "If so, why are we limiting those spots?" — state seed funding ended; the district now pays from Title money.
1:21:23The LEA determination: "needs assistance"McCosker: "basically an a [LEA] determination is the report card a district receives for how they do special education, pre-K through. Well, it'd be through 22", scored across results, assessment, compliance and additional factors. At 1:22:31: "if we don't do anything and we just provide a service only model, we will probably never move that. Ellie a [LEA] determination. What's the big deal if we don't ever move the a determination? It affects federal funding. If we stay there long enough, nobody can tell me how long, but we have to be able to move that needle." Per the minutes the district's grade is "needs assistance," driven primarily by PreK outcomes.MEDIUM
1:27:03State approval applied for, not yet granted"I've applied to have a preschool special education approval for a self-contained preschool program with the State of New Hampshire Department of Education. Those processes typically take 2 or 3 weeks. Probably the first time I hear back from them, they'll say, you need to fix this. You need to change that." Design at 1:27:54: "We target 12 students. I'm. I'm struggling more with a three day in a two day split", restricted to students with an IEP presenting multiple disabilities or global developmental delay who will enter kindergarten in 2026-27. Staffing at 1:48:31: asked how many paraprofessionals are needed, "I don't know without until we know who the 12 students are… We're trying to build this plane as [we fly it]."MEDIUM
1:36:17How the preschool teacher is paid for: two third grades instead of threeMcCosker: "We will be posting for a teacher. Patrick was working on that today. But that teacher will be net zero to the budget." Sprague: "How can it be net zero?" Lewis: "it's a net zero to the budget. Because I took a section of three of my third grades. I have three third grades. We're combining them into two slightly larger class size. Not necessarily ideal, but do very doable so that that money was available to fund the preschool teacher." New third-grade class sizes: "it'll be 19 and 19." Transportation: Henry, still on the line, confirmed at 1:36:01 that "I never touched the budget line for our transportation."MEDIUM OBSERVATION
1:40:55"this feels like an end run"Sprague: "The formation of this pilot. To me, this feels like an end run that the administration is. Or whoever is saying to the board, we're going to do this even though you said no, that's what it feels like to me… It's under development. I don't know how how you determine how much staff you're going to need for this. I didn't get an explanation of that… I had asked for case loads for related service people a couple of times. Haven't seen that."MEDIUM
1:41:52"you took the funding away for those services"McCosker: "y'all all y'all tasked me to do a job to provide services for children in this community that federal law says we have to provide… And then you took the funding away for those services. So we are trying to find a creative way to best provide services without it being. Uncontrolled costs to this district." On the alternative: "that papes [FAPE's] going to be us paying for them to go out of district somewhere… Our elementary. Self-contained numbers. We have 17 this year. Next year is going to be 29." The transcript then renders a cost figure as "Cost could be upwards of over $22 million" — a garble the minutes do not corroborate and this page does not adopt. Caseload: "The state special education database, 58 students, 3 to 5 year olds."MEDIUM
1:44:40The sharpest exchange of the quarterMcCosker: "After you've given me a task to do and you've given me nothing to do it with. I find it very insulting and very degrading and very demeaning. And I'm just going to shut up now because I'm going to get myself in trouble." Sprague: "we know we're giving out services kids don't need." McCosker: "You were just making stuff up with that. Kids do not get services unless a professional team says they need those services. They're professionals that are making those calls, and I find that so insulting as a professional." Sprague: "I said in hundreds of IEP meetings, Mike, I know." Whitney closed it at 1:53:26 by naming the underlying grievance — that a prior program was supposed to produce something and "it and it failed to do so."MEDIUM
1:51:26"about 32 policies to do"Whitney: "We're pushing on 9:00 now and we have about 32 policies to do." Crawford: "We can't… Do that." Whitney: "We're going to have to do them tonight so they can be put into the handbook. Okay. Unfortunately." Everything that follows — six withdrawals, three adoptions without a second read, three adoptions, one second-read adoption, nine items moved to second read and two returned to committee — happens in the next half hour.OBSERVATION
1:58:25Six policies withdrawn in one motionWhitney: "First withdrawing the withdrawals such as a DBEGA. So that is drug free schools e.g. A is responsible tech use GBED is the tobacco policy. These are all just being withdrawn and being replaced or revised." Hawkins moved: "We withdraw adb e.g. a GBEDJI see I b, JICG and j I see k a" — ADB, EGA, GBED, JICIB, JICG, JICKA — "All of these policies have already other policies have been adopted. Which which which are more current than these policies. That's the reason for the withdrawal. That's one motion for all of them." Voice vote, all present in favor.
2:00:30Three policies adopted without a second read"the grouping would be a motion to adopt. Not even going to second read" The list opened as ACE, EHAB, JLDBB and JLCF; Hawkins pulled JLCF — "I would move that we not discuss j LCF tonight… Because there's a lot of work that has to be done on that one with the administration" — leaving ACE (procedural safeguards / nondiscrimination on the basis of disability), EHAB (data governance and security) and JLDBB (suicide prevention and response plan). Howard seconded "the motion as amended"; adopted on a voice vote.OBSERVATION
2:06:37Policy DGA — an annual report of who signs on the district's bank accountsCrawford, reading the Finance Subcommittee's addition: "DGA we added to it. An annual report will be given to the school board listing designated signees for all district bank accounts. Any changes during the year will be reported to the board as part of the subsequent monthly VA report, given at the second meeting of each month." Other finance-policy changes read into the record: DEA gains "hearings and board votes will be conducted as part of the acceptance process"; DFA's item three changed "To annually"; DI adds a paragraph and a results provision; DK drops provisional language; a definition corrected from "building principal" to "building administrator" at Koski's prompt.POSITIVE
2:10:33An adoption motion withdrawn in favor of a second readSprague: "I'll make a motion to move these to adoptions policy DADBDEADFADGADIE. DK. And then the procedures under daff [DAF]." Whitney: "The only question that I have, I wasn't at the last meeting before we make this policy was was it okay with the administrative team." Crawford: "And there was no administrative team at the meeting, so I have no idea." Whitney: "Should we make it first read then?" Sprague: "Withdraw my motion and change it to move to second read okay." Adopted as a friendly amendment — the board declined to adopt eight fiscal policies, including the signature and manifest policies, until administration had seen them.POSITIVE
2:15:59A drafting error caught before adoption: policy JICHawkins: "There's a correction from the copy that you received in your packet. It's under d, perceived pursuant to an say [RSA] it's parental notification of simple assaults… Currently says requiring parents and then goes on it should say requiring notification to parents. That little phrase was inadvertently left out." And: "I've already spoken to New Hampshire School Board Association and they said yes, it was an error. So we caught the error." The corrected language, as read at 2:16:43: "under D parental notification of simple assaults. Pursuant to RSA 193, the superintendent is directed to adopt and implement procedures requiring notification to parents, guardians". Adopted as amended, Howard seconding.POSITIVE
2:21:14"which is a structural deficit"Whitney, closing the policy docket: "a lot of the policies that were addressed. A target or address, board oversight to help prevent what we have, which is a structural deficit from ever happening again. We provided real clarity in those policies. So to, allay the community's fears that we have done all that we can from our perspective to ensure moving forward, that future boards will have the guidance, guidance that passports [past boards] did not have on what their duty was for oversight." This is the second time in the evening a district official used the word "deficit" about Claremont's finances in open session — in June 2025, two months before the shortfall became public.OBSERVATION
2:23:16Subcommittee minutes "within 48 hours"Whitney: "We will ensure that the minutes from the last meeting have been posted. Correct?" — "Those minutes will be posted within 48 hours." With no full board meeting until August 6, the Finance Subcommittee meeting the following Monday, June 23, becomes the only public forum for the year-end numbers; the chair also asked that the material arrive in a form that could go "out in the minutes."POSITIVE OBSERVATION

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 when no verified rule reaches the concern.

MEDIUM Thirty minutes of nonpublic session, no roll-call names in any public record, and two official records that disagree on the clock

What the record shows. The board's first act after the consent agenda was to close the doors. The motion did what RSA 91-A:3, I(b) requires: it named specific subparagraphs on its face — "a 91 dash, a three comma Roman numeral A, A and C," i.e. RSA 91-A:3, II(a) and (c) — and a roll call was taken (0:03:16). The approved minutes record Whitney moving, Hawkins seconding, the roll call taken by the clerk with all present voting in favor, entry at 6:33 p.m. and reconvening at 7:03 p.m. The unsealed nonpublic minutes name who else was in the room — Kronberg, counsel Matt Upton, Mark Blount, Mary Henry, Patrick O'Hearn and Michael Koski — and state the subject and outcome: a "grievance hearing of Claremont Administrators Association," with "both parties agreed to no action and discussion on clarification will [occur] during negotiations." That is more disclosure than the statute compels, and it is credited at flag 7.

What the record does not show. The recording contains none of the session: it runs 27 seconds between the roll call in and the motion out, where 30 minutes elapsed, so every subsequent timestamp on the broadcast lags the meeting clock by about half an hour. No public record names how any individual member voted on either roll call — the recording captures only overlapping, unattributed "Yes" responses, and the released nonpublic form's roll-call marks do not survive into the text extraction this project can read. The two official records also disagree on the clock: the approved minutes say 6:33 p.m. in and 7:03 p.m. out, while the nonpublic form as extracted reads "10:33 a.m./p.m." and "1:03." The form is a scan of a handwritten template and the discrepancy is most likely a transcription artifact rather than a substantive conflict, but a reader auditing the record cannot resolve it from the documents alone. Finally, the pre-printed form lists every subparagraph of RSA 91-A:3, II from (a) to (l); which were marked is not legible in the extracted text, so the approved minutes — (a) and (c) — are the operative statement of the exemption claimed.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) (specific exemption on the face of the motion; roll-call vote), II(a), (c), III; RSA 91-A:2 (minutes; persons appearing before the public body); Approved minutes 6.18.25; 6.18.25 CSB nonpublic minutes unsealed.

MEDIUM A preschool special-education program stood up with state approval pending, staffing undetermined, ten weeks before school opens

The district is under a state LEA determination of "needs assistance," driven primarily by PreK outcomes, and was told the consequence plainly: "It affects federal funding. If we stay there long enough, nobody can tell me how long, but we have to be able to move that needle" (1:22:31). Against that background, and after the board cut funding for the existing preschool program, the administration presented a four-phase plan whose central element — a 12-seat self-contained PreK classroom at Disnard — had not yet been approved by the New Hampshire Department of Education: "I've applied… Those processes typically take 2 or 3 weeks" (1:27:03). The day-split model was undecided, the students were unidentified, and the paraprofessional count could not be given: "I don't know without until we know who the 12 students are… We're trying to build this plane as [we fly it]" (1:48:31). The teaching position is funded net-zero by collapsing three Disnard third-grade sections into two of 19 students each. No board vote was taken or, on the administration's account, required.

The countervailing case was made just as forcefully. The district's duties under the federal special-education statute do not pause for a budget decision — "federal law says we have to provide" — and the alternative to an in-district program is out-of-district placement whose cost the district cannot control; the elementary self-contained count is said to be rising from 17 to 29, with 58 identified three-to-five-year-olds in the state database (1:43:49). Board member Sprague's objection was procedural as much as substantive — "this feels like an end run… I had asked for case loads for related service people a couple of times. Haven't seen that" — and the requested LEA report was directed to the full board. The flag here is the documentation and approval gap, not the program's merits: RSA ch. 186-C carries the district's FAPE and placement duties, and Ed 306 is the state's minimum-standards rule; neither is cited here as breached, because the record shows an application pending rather than a program operating without approval. What the record does not contain is a staffing plan, a caseload analysis, or a board vote authorizing the program.

Sources: RSA ch. 186-C (special education; FAPE and out-of-district placement duties); N.H. Code Admin. R. Ed 306 (minimum standards for school approval — part page); Approved minutes 6.18.25 (item III.6); PreSchool Planning 2025-2026.pdf.

OBSERVATION A ~$100,000 consulting proposal presented with the superintendent who solicited it absent from the room

The District Management Group presentation came, in the presenter's words, "at the request of Superintendent Pratt", and the proposal had already been sent to him. He was not at the meeting. When the board asked the questions that matter — what it costs, whether the district could do the work itself, why outside consultants would be heeded where its own administrators are not — there was no one present who could answer for the district's side of the engagement. The chair said so: "[Un]fortunately, I wish Mr. Pratt was here this evening," and put it on the first August agenda. Sprague's objection is worth recording in full because it is the sort of challenge that rarely survives into minutes: "we can spend 100 grand and I'll bet you their recommendations with match pretty closely to what I just wrote down here with about a 90% reliability." No vote was expected or taken, so nothing was decided in the superintendent's absence — which is why this is an observation rather than a finding. No verified rule on this project's citation list requires an administrator's presence for a presentation, sets a procurement threshold for professional services at this level, or governs how a school board evaluates a consulting proposal. The concern is one of deliberative sequencing: the board's first substantive look at a six-figure engagement happened without its principal proponent, and its next opportunity was seven weeks later.

Sources: Approved minutes 6.18.25 (item III.4); Exhibit D- DMGroup_SAU6_SEOR_Board Presentation.pdf. No verified rule was identified.

OBSERVATION A deficit named on the record, $2.3 million in encumbrances, and no figures released before an eight-week recess

Two officials used the word "deficit" about Claremont's finances in open session on June 18, 2025 — two months before the shortfall became public. The business administrator: "I know we're going to study in, in a deficit, but I have not had an opportunity to go through all the purchase orders… right now I have $2.3 million in encumbrances. I know some of those encumbrances are going to go away", and she asked to work through them "before I release any of your numbers". The chair, closing the meeting: "board oversight to help prevent what we have, which is a structural deficit from ever happening again." The FY22 audit, reported six days earlier to the SAU 6 board as having "should have just gone out" was described here as "almost… but it's not quite complete yet", with the reason unknown to the officer answering: "I haven't talked to my campus [Campo] as I went out".

The board then adjourned with no regular meeting until August 6. The year-end detail was routed instead to the Finance Subcommittee on Monday, June 23. That is not a way of avoiding the public: under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) a subcommittee is itself a public body, so that meeting carried the same notice and minutes duties, and the chair asked both that the material come "in a form that we can have out in the minutes" and that the subcommittee's minutes be posted within 48 hours. Nothing on this project's verified citation list required the district to publish year-end figures on this date; the annual financial report to the Department of Revenue Administration is due September 1 under RSA 21-J:34, ¶V, and the retained-fund-balance cap in RSA 198:4-b, II operates at year-end close. This is therefore an observation about what the board knew and when, not an asserted violation — and it is the most consequential thing on this page precisely because no rule reaches it.

Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (subcommittees are public bodies); RSA 21-J:34, ¶V (annual financial report to DRA by September 1); RSA 198:4-b, II (retained unassigned fund balance); Approved minutes 6.18.25 (item III.2).

OBSERVATION Roughly 32 policy items in the last half hour, three adopted with no second read

At 1:51:26 the chair set the terms: "We're pushing on 9:00 now and we have about 32 policies to do… We're going to have to do them tonight so they can be put into the handbook." What followed in thirty minutes was six withdrawals in a single motion, three policies adopted without a second read (ACE, EHAB, JLDBB), three adopted after discussion (JH, JIC as amended, JICD), one second-read adoption (CHCA), nine items moved to a second read and two returned to committee. The forcing function was the handbook deadline the board had itself set earlier the same evening — revised handbooks due mid-July and back before the board in August — which meant the policies they reference had to exist first.

Waiving a read is a governance choice, not a legal violation, and no statute on this project's verified list prescribes how many readings a school board must give a policy; the applicable standard is the board's own practice and bylaws. No verified rule was identified. Two things weigh in the board's favor and are recorded at flag 9: it declined to adopt the eight fiscal policies on learning that no administrator had reviewed them, and it caught a substantive drafting error in policy JIC before adopting it. Weighing against: the three policies adopted with no second read include the district's suicide prevention and response plan (JLDBB) and its data governance and security policy (EHAB), and the packet's Policies folder is a shared Drive folder rather than a fixed document set, so the versions actually adopted cannot be pinned from the packet alone.

Sources: Approved minutes 6.18.25 (item III.8, Policy Sub-Committee); Packet folder: Policies. No verified rule was identified.

OBSERVATION Remote participation: an official, not a member — no vote was cast electronically

Because remote participation raises quorum and voting questions under the Right-to-Know Law, it is worth stating exactly what this record shows rather than assuming. Every voting member who took part was physically present. The approved minutes list six members present — Crawford, Hawkins, Howard, Madden, Sprague, Whitney — and one absent, Vice Chair Petrin, who did not participate at all. The only person appearing electronically was Business Administrator Mary Henry, an administrator rather than a board member, who has no vote. She joined by Google Meet, by an accommodation added to the agenda from the floor with no objection ("Miss Henry contacted me, and she feels she is abled and up and able to communicate with us through… Google Meet"), and she stayed on the call long enough to answer a transportation-budget question during the preschool item at 1:36:01. Every vote taken during the meeting — the two nonpublic roll calls and the evening's voice votes on policy — was therefore cast by members in the room, and the electronic-participation rules for members were not triggered.

Two details a reviewer should have. First, the unsealed nonpublic minutes list Henry among those present during the closed session, so her remote connection spanned it; the record does not describe how the remote link was managed while the room was closed. Second, the board announced no procedure for the remote appearance — no statement of why she could not be physically present, who else was in the room with her, or that she could hear all of the proceedings — and about four and a half minutes of the public broadcast (0:04:29 to 0:09:01) is audio troubleshooting. Those are the disclosures the Right-to-Know Law's meeting provisions are built around, and they are the practical difference between an accommodation and a precedent.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2 (definition of "meeting"; minutes must name persons appearing before the public body); Approved minutes 6.18.25; 6.18.25 CSB nonpublic minutes unsealed (persons present).

POSITIVE The nonpublic minutes were never sealed — and they say what the session was about

RSA 91-A:3, III makes disclosure the default: nonpublic minutes and decisions must be publicly disclosed within 72 hours unless the body votes by a recorded two-thirds vote, with one of three statutory findings, to withhold them. Sealing is common enough in this record that its absence is notable. Here the chair raised the question and the board declined: "We want to make a motion to seal the minutes." — "Is there any? I don't think there's any." — "Reason to. No motion to seal the minutes" (0:04:05). The approved minutes record "Minutes not sealed," the nonpublic form is marked "Not Sealed," and the completed form sits in the district's public Drive share, naming the six members present, the six other people in the room including counsel, the statutory basis, and both the subject and the outcome: a grievance hearing of the Claremont Administrators Association at which "both parties agreed to no action." The motion into the session also met RSA 91-A:3, I(b) on its face, naming subparagraphs (a) and (c), with a roll call on the way in and, after a floor correction, on the way out as well.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) and III; 6.18.25 CSB nonpublic minutes unsealed; Approved minutes 6.18.25.

POSITIVE Policy DGA would put the district's authorized signers in front of the board every year

Six days earlier the SAU 6 board discovered it could not say who was authorized to sign its checks, and that a board member who had left two years before was still the signer of record. The revision the Finance Subcommittee brought to this meeting is the structural answer to exactly that failure. Crawford, reading it into the record at 2:06:37: "DGA we added to it. An annual report will be given to the school board listing designated signees for all district bank accounts. Any changes during the year will be reported to the board as part of the subsequent monthly VA report, given at the second meeting of each month." Companion changes in the same batch run the same direction — DEA adding that "hearings and board votes will be conducted as part of the acceptance process", DFA moving an investment review to annual, DI adding a results provision, DK tightening payment language. RSA 197:23-a places district money in the treasurer's custody to be paid out "only upon orders of the school board"; a standing report of who can move money is the control that makes that order enforceable. Two caveats keep this from being more than it is: the policies were not adopted this night — the board moved them to a second read (see flag 9) — and the SAU 6 accounts discussed on June 12 are not necessarily the district accounts DGA governs. Cross-reference: SAU 6 Board, June 12, 2025, flag 2.

Sources: RSA 197:23-a (treasurer's custody; payment only upon orders of the school board); Approved minutes 6.18.25 (item III.8, first read: DGA — Authorized Signatures).

POSITIVE Two moments of deliberative discipline in a rushed docket — and a commitment on subcommittee minutes

Against the pressure described at flag 5, the board twice slowed itself down. First, on the eight fiscal policies: a motion to adopt was on the floor when the chair asked "was it okay with the administrative team", Crawford answered "there was no administrative team at the meeting, so I have no idea", and the mover withdrew his own motion — "Withdraw my motion and change it to move to second read" (2:10:33). Second, on policy JIC: the policy chair caught a phrase dropped from the New Hampshire School Board Association's model language that would have left the superintendent directed to adopt procedures "requiring parents" rather than "requiring notification to parents" in simple-assault cases, confirmed the error with NHSBA, and read the corrected text into the record before the vote (2:15:59). Third, on records: with no full board meeting until August 6, the chair asked that the Finance Subcommittee's material come in a form that could go "out in the minutes" and confirmed that its minutes would be "posted within 48 hours" (2:23:16) — well inside the five-business-day floor in RSA 91-A:2, and a recognition that under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) the subcommittee is a public body in its own right.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2 (minutes open to inspection within 5 business days); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (subcommittees are public bodies); RSA 193:13 (suspension and expulsion — the discipline context for JIC/JICD); Approved minutes 6.18.25.

Appendix — source files

Official and public sources

Packet documents (exact Drive names)

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

Laws and rules cited on this page