Participants
Names and roles follow the district's draft minutes for 11/5/25 and the unsealed nonpublic minutes. Where the dialogue file's speaker label differs, the label is noted in parentheses. Wards are as each speaker announced them or as the minutes record them.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Heather Whitney | School Board Chair | Presided; read counsel's advice on the vacancy at 2:10:07 and Frank Sprague's letter into the record; explained the trust-fund history — "we did vote to authorize withdrawal from various trust accounts and we were told that we could just vote to do that"; seconded and voted for the reinstatement; ruled on the abstention question from the by-laws. |
| Michael Petrin | School Board Vice Chair | Moved acceptance of the $16,000 grant; moved the reinstatement of Frank Sprague twice — the first deferred, the second carried; said at 2:52:21 the letter "came to me requesting to be reinstated[,] not of any sort of backroom deal," and that "there is no set process to assigning someone to the vacant school board seat[;] the process needs to be" clarified. |
| Arlene Hawkins | School Board Member; Policy Subcommittee Chair | Moved the nonpublic session; asked whether the withdrawn trust funds should have been voted on; seconded the forensic-audit motion — "if someone from the state police is suggesting to you that we should do [it] … there's no question that we should do a forensic audit"; seconded the Lavallette motion and voted against reinstatement; read the by-law on abstentions at 2:56:31. |
| Candace Crawford | School Board Member; Finance Subcommittee Chair | Moved the bus sale, the forensic audit, the $17,000 tuition rate and the motion to reopen applications for the vacancy; explained at 1:31:38 how artificially inflated anticipated revenues produced the shortfall, with a worked example: tuition revenue of "around 250,000 per year" reported at "780,000." |
| William "Bill" Madden | School Board Member; Policy Subcommittee | Reported on the SchoolCare annual meeting (premiums rising 9.5–35%); asked about McKinney-Vento transportation cost and NEASC's scope; said he was not comfortable authorising a forensic audit given Angell's view of the books, then voted for it; said reinstating Sprague "feels like a back door deal" and voted for it. |
| Loren Howard | School Board Member; NHSBA delegate | Present in person. Seconded the grant, the bus sale and the tuition rate; moved to appoint Don Lavallette at 2:43:49; abstained on the reinstatement at 2:53:14 and asked afterwards for confirmation of what his abstention had done. |
| Frank Sprague | School Board Member from this meeting | Not a member when the meeting opened. Requested reinstatement by letter, read into the record by the chair; seated as the seventh member after the 3–2 vote with one abstention at 2:53:14. |
| Noelle Kronberg | School Board Clerk | Returned from leave and took the minutes; the roll was still called by Matt Angell (rendered "Miss Noel Cronenberg" in the dialogue file). |
| Kerry Kennedy | Interim Superintendent, SAU 6 | Reported class sizes at Maple and Disnard post-Bluff, the CMS principal change to Dale Chenette, the grant manager posting, professional-development and due-process work, and the SNAP-pause food response; explained the $16,000 grant's split between DHMC and the NH Charitable Foundation. |
| Matt Angell | Senior Comptroller / Interim Business Administrator, SAU 6 | Called the roll and both nonpublic roll calls; presented the tax-rate adjustment, the trust-fund withdrawals, the bus quotes, the $17,000 tuition analysis and the corrective action plans; asked for and received authority to hire a forensic auditor (rendered "Matt Angel" in the minutes and dialogue file). |
| James "Jim" O'Shaughnessy | District legal counsel, Drummond Woodsum | Attended the nonpublic session; announced the former business administrator's termination and separation agreement at 1:05:57 and confirmed the records are available under the Right-to-Know law. Most of his statement is labeled "Donald" in the dialogue file — see the method note. |
| Chelsea Weatherford | Acting Interim Human Resources Manager | Listed on the roster; named as the current point of contact under the whistleblower posting, with the board discussing whether that should be someone else. |
| Jeff Small | Director of Technology | Presented the technology audit: a district-wide software list, privacy agreements, tier classification, and pricing complicated by programmes that were historically grant funded. |
| Courtney Porter | Director of Wellness / school social worker and McKinney-Vento liaison | Reported the $16,000 Safe and Supportive Schools grant, the Thanksgiving food response with the Claremont Soup Kitchen, the Elks Lodge and Trinity Church, and that "all of the mental health supports she has brought in to the district are grant funded." |
| Melissa Lewis | Principal, Disnard Elementary School | Added that Disnard's class numbers had risen above those reported as new families transferred in. |
| Dr. Michael Herrington | Principal, Stevens High School | Reported the SHS Program of Studies is being revamped around career clusters and was not ready for approval. |
| Gary Merchant | Citizens' comments — Ward 2 | Asked the board at 0:03:41 to reopen the search: "allowing a wider pool of candidates would help build consensus among current board members and strengthen public confidence in the integrity of the process." |
| Amanda Barton | Citizens' comments — Ward 2 | Asked whether the tax increase would go to a vote in March, asked for consolidation updates on the agenda, and asked the board to start work on attracting and retaining teachers. |
| Rod Beaton | Citizens' comments — Ward 2 | Pressed on communication about restructuring and on the CMS music programme, noting a teacher who "lost … I think, 15,000 out of his salary" when band and music were cut. |
| Rebecca Vinduska | Citizens' comments — Ward 1; SREA representative | Spoke as a teacher and parent on CMS staffing and the impact of being short staffed (labeled only "Rebecca" in the dialogue file). |
| Michelle Beaton | Citizens' comments — Ward 2 | On staffing, communication and consistency of leadership at CMS: "no answers, no leadership, no consistency" (labeled only "Michelle" in the dialogue file, which merges her with another Ward 2 speaker). |
| Cassandra Edwards | Citizens' comments — Ward 3; Disnard SREA representative | On class sizes after consolidation: "double the paperwork, double the phone calls home … We're exhausted." |
| Michelle Springer-Blake | Citizens' comments — Ward 2 | On staffing, communication and special education, and on restructuring. |
| Don Lavallette | Citizens' comments — Ward 2; candidate for the vacant seat | Told the board at 2:31:59 to honour its process — "either decide to fill it with Mr. Tyson[,] me, or don't fill it … it's an insult" — and was nominated by Howard; the motion failed 3–3 (the dialogue file leaves this segment as an unidentified Ward 2 commenter; the attribution follows the minutes). |
| Kevin Tyson | Citizens' comments; candidate for the vacant seat | Described his volunteering in the schools, clarified his role with EdOpt, and later suggested the board use Google Forms rather than email to gather public input. |
| Matt Bean | Citizens' comments — Ward 1 | At 2:33:02: "we had a process and we have two people … and to just say, oh, we're just going to open things back up again[,] that is very unfair to both people" (ASR renders him "Matt Beam"). |
| Camron Lowney | Citizens' comments — Ward 2 | At 2:36:57: "I understand the instinct to put the issue back to what voters decided on originally … However, there was a process. It opened up, narrowed down to two people. We were all here. Deadlock." (the minutes spell him "Cameron Lowney"; the dialogue file "Camron Lownie"). |
| Sherry Williams | Citizens' comments — Ward 1 | Asked the board to set aside political leanings and choose between the two candidates, calling both highly qualified. |
| Rep. John Cloutier | Citizens' comments — Ward 1; state representative | Introduced himself and the other Claremont representatives and offered their support to the district. |
Agenda
Items follow the agenda as reproduced in the draft minutes and the posted CSB Agenda 11.5.25.pdf, the packet's only document.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:51 | I.–II. Call to order; roll; consent agenda | Roll called by Angell — all present. Whitney added a SchoolCare seminar update from Madden before subcommittee reports; Hawkins removed policy JICI from the policy report as already adopted on 10/15; Kennedy withdrew agenda item 2 (moving the SHS and CMS alternative programmes to Bluff). Agenda, minutes and manifest taken by consent. |
| 0:03:41 | II.b Citizens' comments | "Please reference CSB Policy BEDH — Public Comment & Participation at Board Meetings." Nine speakers: Merchant on the vacancy process, Barton on the tax increase and teacher retention, Rod Beaton on restructuring and the music programme, Vinduska and Michelle Beaton on CMS staffing, Edwards on class sizes at Disnard, Springer-Blake on special education, and Lavallette on the vacancy. The chair explained that speakers may also address agenda items when those items are reached. |
| 0:23:18 | II.c Superintendent's report | Advisory committee meeting set for November 14; class sizes reported for Maple (K 18, gr 1 18.3, gr 2 15, gr 3 24, gr 4 28, gr 5 24) and Disnard; Dale Chenette into the CMS principal post for the remainder of the year; grant manager position posted; Frontline and Visions payroll systems to be reconciled — Angell called timekeeping "a mini disaster"; the social work team's response to the SNAP pause. |
| 0:49:35 | II.c (cont.) NH Charitable Foundation / DHMC grant | A $16,000 Safe and Supportive Schools grant — $10,000 from DHMC and $6,000 from the NH Charitable Foundation, of which $5,000 retains a WeRHope mental-health coach for the middle school and the remainder goes to food, nutrition and nurse support. Asked whether a hearing was needed, the chair answered "No, it's under 20." Petrin moved acceptance, Howard seconded; voice vote, unanimous. |
| 1:28:40 | II.d Financial update — sale of buses | "Per school board policy I have to ask for permission to sell these three busses. We got three different quotes. The highest quote is from [Reed's], which is a local company. Bus one, they are offering $1,100, bus three they're offering $1,800 and bus for they're offering $1,400." Asked why the offers were so low, Angell said the buses are not road worthy — "essentially scrap." Crawford moved to authorise sale to the highest offer, Howard seconded; voice vote, unanimous. |
| 1:31:38 | II.d (cont.) Tax rate adjustment and special education aid | "No extra vote because the tax rate is being adjusted to reflect the actual budget — the public voted to approve the budget." Crawford explained that anticipated revenues had been set above what the district actually received, so the rate never raised enough to cover the voted budget, giving tuition revenue as the worked example. |
| 1:34:11 | II.d (cont.) Past trust fund withdrawals | Angell reported that the building improvement and maintenance capital reserve fund "required voter approval to withdraw the funds," that the amount was $150,000, that the prior business administrator had told the trustees the board authorised her to withdraw it, and that "the letter to the trustees doesn't specify what the funds were being used for." Two withdrawals were identified — one connected to the Masonic Temple purchase analysis, one to offset unanticipated special-education expenses. No motion taken; Angell to report back. |
| 1:38:56 | II.d (cont.) Forensic auditor | "I am speaking with law enforcement … specifically about stipends. Lieutenant Eaton has asked the school board to hire a forensic auditor. And I'd like to get permission from the school board to hire one." Crawford moved to authorise the administration to engage a forensic audit firm, Hawkins seconded, with a friendly amendment that Angell bring the contract back for approval. Voice vote, unanimous. |
| 1:53:09 | II.d (cont.) High school tuition rate | Angell gave the board a low and a high range and recommended $17,000 per out-of-district high school student. Crawford moved, Howard seconded; Whitney clarified that the rate is regular education only, with special-education costs paid by the sending district. Voice vote, unanimous. |
| 1:56:54 | II.e Follow-up items | Whistleblower RSA posting — all sites confirmed except maintenance. Right-to-Know request for the 2024 grant-funding letters — a Letter of Non-Compliance April 2024, a Letter of Non-Compliance August 2024, a Letter of Compliance October 2024 and the ESEA FY23 programmatic monitoring closeout, all "addressed only to the administrative team," now quick-linked from the posted agenda. Compensation packages to be posted with identities secured. Director of Student Services search: no candidates. |
| 1:04:09 | III.1 Nonpublic session — RSA 91-A:3, II(k) | "Consideration by a school board of entering into a student or pupil tuition contract authorized by RSA 194 or RSA 195-A …" Hawkins moved, Petrin seconded; roll call by Angell, all in favour; entered 7:35 p.m., returned 8:08 p.m. The unsealed nonpublic minutes record that Angell discussed tuition rates and his recommendation, that no vote was taken, and that a non-meeting with district counsel was held — the chair asked whether that was permissible during a nonpublic session and counsel said it was. |
| 1:05:57 | III.1 (cont.) Termination of the former business administrator | Counsel, in open session immediately after the return: "Terminated by mutual agreement between the [SAU] and the business administrator. Her contract of employment was through June 30th, 2027. We were able to negotiate a termination that was effective yesterday. The agreement was signed and executed … The details of the agreement are in a termination[,] separation agreement and release. That document will be on file at the [SAU]." Asked whether the employment records are public under the Right-to-Know law, counsel: "Yes they are." |
| 8:15 p.m. | III.2–3 SHS alternative programmes; Program of Studies | Item 2 struck from the agenda at the interim superintendent's request. Herrington reported the Program of Studies is being revamped with career clusters added and was not ready for review; no vote. |
| 2:08:40 | III.4–5 Property evaluation; search committee | Board consented to the administrative team collecting data on the sale or lease of the Masonic Temple on Maple Avenue and Bluff School, for presentation in December; any sale requires voter approval by warrant article in March 2026. Madden and Petrin volunteered for the superintendent and business administrator search committee; the employment attorney offered to discuss alternative models. |
| 2:10:07 | III.6 Vacant school board seat | Counsel's advice read into the record, then Sprague's letter. Three motions: Howard's to appoint Don Lavallette, failed 3–3 at 2:49:34; Crawford's to reopen applications, failed 3–3 at 2:51:31; Petrin's to reinstate Frank Sprague, carried 3–2 with one abstention at 2:53:14 — for Madden, Petrin, Whitney; against Crawford, Hawkins; abstaining Howard. |
| 3:11:50 | III.7–8 SchoolCare; subcommittee reports; IV. other business | SchoolCare premiums expected to rise 9.5–35%. Policy: EHAG (generative AI) moved to a second read; ADB, JFABD, JICI, JLF, DK and JLDBB pushed from first read to adoption; BG, JED, JEDA, JIA and JHB withdrawn as absorbed into other policies — all by unanimous voice vote. Angell reported he must file corrective action plans for the audits about to be filed and for a further set given him by the state. Adjourned by consent at 3:17:49. |
Discussion timeline
Chronological topics with the moment each is taken up. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:03:41 |
A resident asks the board to reopen the search |
Gary Merchant, Ward 2: "I stand before this board as a concerned community member about the current process for filling the vacancy on the board. The board remains evenly split between two candidates … I respectfully ask the board to open the search to additional applicants from the community, allowing a wider pool of candidates would help build consensus among current board members and strengthen public confidence in the integrity of the process." |
MEDIUM |
| 1:04:09 |
Nonpublic session under (k), scheduled around counsel's billing |
Whitney: "And I make the motion. We can just say that the reason why I'd like to do this is because we get bill[ed] by the 15 minute increments. So this is because our nonpublic will include our attorneys. We are requesting to move into nonpublic at this time, a nonpublic meeting session under RSA 91[-]A colon three[,] two K … The regular meeting will continue after … the nonpublic session." Roll called by Angell both ways. The unsealed nonpublic minutes record only tuition-rate discussion, "No vote taken during non-public," and a separate non-meeting with counsel. |
OBSERVATION POSITIVE |
| 1:05:57 |
The former business administrator is terminated |
Counsel O'Shaughnessy: "Terminated by mutual agreement between the [SAU] and the business administrator. Her contract of employment was through June 30th, 2027. We were able to negotiate a termination that was effective yesterday. The agreement was signed and executed. So she is no longer employed by [SAU] six. The details of the agreement are in a termination[,] separation agreement and release. That document will be on file at the [SAU]." Three weeks earlier the same board had been told she was on unpaid disciplinary suspension and had requested a hearing. |
POSITIVE |
| 1:06:42 |
Are the records public? |
The question put to counsel on the recording: "Are the records related to her employment[] public under the right to know law?" — "Yes they are." The draft minutes attribute the question to Arlene Hawkins and record that she asked whether the details would be on file in the employee records and available under the Right-to-Know law at the SAU office, with counsel confirming; the dialogue file attributes the words to the chair. |
POSITIVE |
| 1:31:38 |
Why the old tax rates never covered the voted budget |
Crawford: "there's the amount that was voted and then there are some provisions for anticipated revenues. In the past, some of those anticipated revenues were either artificially set higher than real. Therefore, the money raised through taxes in the past wasn't enough to cover the budget that was voted on." Her worked example at 1:32:51: tuition revenue "was around … 200, 250,000 per year. Last year, the amount that was stated on the [MS-25/MS-24] was set at 780,000, which was artificially inflated by 500,000. So there was $500,000 less raised in taxes to cover the budget that had been passed." Whitney: "And this was — this was wrong. Right." |
OBSERVATION |
| 1:34:11 |
A capital reserve fund drawn down without the district vote it required |
Angell: "I've been asked to review the purchase of the building, the Masonic temple … One of the funding sources was the building improvement and maintenance capital reserve fund. That particular capital reserve fund required voter approval to withdraw the funds." At 1:34:39: "I have documentation from the Trustees of trust funds … the prior business administrator said that the board was authorized her to withdraw the money out of the account." At 1:35:00: "It was $150,000." |
HIGH |
| 1:35:16 |
The board believed its own vote was enough |
Whitney: "So we did vote to authorize withdrawal from various trust accounts[,] and we were told that we could just vote to do that[,] and that's what happened at the meeting … So what are you saying[ — ]that it needed a vote by the taxpayers to do that?" Angell: "Yes." Crawford at 1:37:11: "we were told incorrectly that we could just vote. And we in fact, needed the district vote to do that." Whitney at 1:36:32: "you're just saying it was done incorrectly. It was not done as it was presented and as it was voted upon." |
HIGH |
| 1:38:22 |
The letter to the trustees does not say what the money was for |
Angell: "the letter … to the trustees doesn't specify what the funds were being used for." He was careful to separate the two withdrawals — "I'm not saying that the funds were used for the Masonic Temple. It was in my research when I'm trying to do the Masonic Temple, I pulled this. I asked for all withdrawals from the capital reserve funds" — and said he still had to clarify what happened. Crawford added at 1:37:38 that on the rest of the funds accessed "we were told incorrect information." |
HIGH |
| 1:38:56 |
The State Police ask the board to hire a forensic auditor |
Angell: "I am speaking with law enforcement … specifically about stipends … Lieutenant Eaton has asked the school board to hire a forensic auditor. And I'd like to get permission from the school board to hire one." Asked which agency, he answered "the [New] Hampshire State Police." Madden objected that he was not comfortable approving it given Angell's own view that the books were too disordered to expect findings; Whitney answered the scope would be tailored to what law enforcement needs, and Angell agreed to bring the contract back before signing. Hawkins at 1:42:25: "There's no question that we should do a forensic audit. It's coming from the state police." Voice vote, unanimous. |
POSITIVE |
| 1:45:39 |
McKinney-Vento transportation at about $500 a day |
Angell: "It is a federal law. So McKinney Vento is a federal law that requires us to transport homeless students from the shelter that they're in to the school of record." Kennedy added that some cost is shared and recovered, but that the district cannot report a net figure. Madden asked whether a cab could be used; Angell explained the driver certification and vehicle requirements. |
|
| 1:56:54 |
Federal compliance letters the board had never seen |
Whitney: "the Freedom of Information Act request for letters related to grant funding being withheld in 2024. These documents were referenced in a New Hampshire … Journal article. And these were letters sent to the administrative team regarding withholding of federal funds from the Claremont School District that were addressed only to the administrative team, and the information was not presented to the board." Four documents were quick-linked from the posted agenda: non-compliance letters of April and August 2024, a compliance letter of October 2024, and the ESEA FY23 programmatic monitoring closeout. |
MEDIUM |
| 2:10:07 |
Counsel's advice on the vacancy, read into the record |
Whitney, reading: "he said the la[w] directs the board to fill the vacancy and he provided the RSA, which is RSA 671[:]33. It states that the school board shall f[ill] vacancies occurring on the school board. The law also empowers the selectmen [of] the town to appoint whenever the remaining members are unable, by a majority vote, to agree upon [an] appoint[ment]. My advice is … the board … try to fill the vacancy at the next meeting, because that is what the law requires." She added at 2:11:04 that counsel said "the law that he cited is not a controlling law. So, technically the board could ignore" it, and technically the city council could decline to act. |
MEDIUM |
| 2:13:49 |
The reinstatement motion, deferred once |
Petrin: "in March, the voters get to speak again. So I would make a motion to reinstate Frank Sprague to the [board]." Whitney seconded, then deferred the motion for discussion. Hawkins: the board's decided process should be followed and the application reopened. Howard: reopening "feels a little bit like … a time waster." Madden: "I thought we had a solution, but if it wasn't unanimous then I'm reluctant … bringing Mr. Sprague back feels like a back door deal." Whitney: "my support of Mr. Sprague was simply because he's elected." |
MEDIUM |
| 2:31:59 |
The candidates and their neighbours object |
Don Lavallette, Ward 2: "either decide to fill it with Mr. Tyson[,] me, or don't fill it … it's an insult." Matt Bean, Ward 1, at 2:33:02: "we had a process and we have two people … to just say, oh, we're just going to open things back up again[,] that is very unfair to both people." Camron Lowney, Ward 2, at 2:36:57: "there was a process. It opened up, narrowed down to two people. We were all here. Deadlock." These are speakers' characterisations, recorded here as such. |
MEDIUM |
| 2:43:49 |
Lavallette nominated; the board deadlocks again |
Howard moved to appoint Don Lavallette, Hawkins seconded. Howard grounded his vote in his view that EdOpt "is not transparent"; Hawkins in Lavallette's education experience; Whitney opposed on the ground that the board is already "surrounded by educators" and that experience brings its own bias. The show of hands at 2:49:34: "We have a tie." For Howard, Hawkins, Crawford; against Madden, Petrin, Whitney. |
MEDIUM |
| 2:51:31 |
Reopening applications fails on the same 3–3 split |
Crawford moved to open the position to the public again and bring more candidates to the next meeting; Howard seconded. The same three-three division. Hawkins: "So we are at an impasse." Petrin then returned to the reinstatement, saying at 2:52:21 that Sprague's letter "came to me requesting to be reinstated[,] not of any sort of backroom deal," and that "there is no set process to assigning someone to the vacant school board seat[;] the process needs to be" fixed for the future. |
MEDIUM |
| 2:53:14 |
Three votes, three of six, and one abstention |
Whitney: "All in favor of reinstating Frank to the Claremont School Board. Raise your hand." Howard: "I'm going to abstain doing that." A five-minute exchange followed on whether a member may abstain — Hawkins: "No member can abstain at any time … You can abstain"; Whitney: "you can use an abstention to throw a vote." Whitney at 2:55:23: "both were made by those present and voting. That's what our bylaws are[:] present and voting." Hawkins read the by-law at 2:56:31: "A motion shall be adopted by a majority of the votes … if a member feels too ill informed to vote, abstain. Abstentions are counted, but have no bearing on the outcome of the vote." Carried 3–2. |
MEDIUM |
| 3:11:50 |
Corrective action plans stacking up |
Angell: "I have to do corrective action plans. For the[] four year request, I have to identify all the corrective action plans for those. And then I have to do all the corrective action plans for the audits that … are about to be filed. And then the state has given me another set that I have to file corrective action plans for. And so far, I've been at the corrective action plans for three days before I had to go in for law enforcement." Earlier he had told the board the audits are slated for the next meeting and he is not ready. |
MEDIUM |
Items flagged for review
These are a reviewer's aid, not findings of violation and not legal advice. Each rule-based flag names the provision it rests on and links to the primary source; where no verified rule applies, the item is labelled an observation. Verify against the recording and the primary sources before relying on any of it.
HIGH $150,000 was withdrawn from a capital reserve fund without the district vote the statute requires, and the letter to the trustees does not say what it was for
RSA 35:15 is explicit on both points this meeting turned on. The trustees of trust funds "shall hold the same until such time as the town, district or county shall have voted to withdraw funds" — the vote that releases a capital reserve fund is the vote of the district's legislative body, not of the board — and "Expenditures from a capital reserve fund shall be made only for or in connection with the purposes for which said fund was established or as amended." At 1:34:11 the interim business administrator told the board that the building improvement and maintenance capital reserve fund "required voter approval to withdraw the funds," that his documentation from the Trustees of Trust Funds shows "the prior business administrator said that the board was authorized her to withdraw the money out of the account," and at 1:35:00 that the amount was $150,000. The chair confirmed the board's understanding at the time — "we did vote to authorize withdrawal from various trust accounts and we were told that we could just vote to do that" — and Crawford stated the correction at 1:37:11: "we were told incorrectly that we could just vote. And we in fact, needed the district vote to do that." On the second limb, Angell said at 1:38:22 that "the letter … to the trustees doesn't specify what the funds were being used for," which leaves no contemporaneous record tying the withdrawal to the purpose for which the fund was established. Two withdrawals were identified in the discussion — one surfacing in the analysis of the Masonic Temple building purchase, one described as liquidating funds to offset unanticipated special-education expenses — and the board did not resolve on the record which sums belong to which. Angell was careful not to over-claim: he had pulled all capital reserve withdrawals while researching the building purchase and said he still had to "clarify exactly" what happened. Separately, RSA 197:23-a puts district money in the treasurer's custody to be paid out "only upon orders of the school board," so the board's authority is the necessary but not sufficient condition here; for a capital reserve fund the district vote comes first.
Sources: RSA 35:15 (trustees hold capital reserve funds until the district votes to withdraw; expenditures only for the purpose the fund was established for); RSA 197:23-a (treasurer pays out only upon orders of the school board); draft minutes, 11/5/25. The trustees' letter and the withdrawal documentation are not in the posted packet, which holds only the agenda; the amounts and dates above are as stated on the record and remained under review at the close of the meeting.
MEDIUM The vacant seat was filled by reinstating a former member, on three votes of a six-member board, over the process the board itself had set
RSA 671:33 provides that the school board fills vacancies on the school board, and that where the entire board has vacated or the remaining members "cannot agree by majority vote" upon an appointment, the selectmen — in Claremont, the city council — appoint. Counsel's advice, read into the record at 2:10:07, was that the board should fill the vacancy at this meeting, that the city council could otherwise act, and — as the chair reported at 2:11:04 — that "the law that he cited is not a controlling law." The board had run an application process that produced two candidates and had deadlocked 3–3 on 1 October. On 5 November it deadlocked twice more on the same split — Howard's motion to appoint Don Lavallette at 2:49:34, and Crawford's motion to reopen applications at 2:51:31, each failing with Howard, Hawkins and Crawford for and Madden, Petrin and Whitney against — before Petrin's motion to reinstate Frank Sprague, who had resigned the seat, carried at 2:53:14 by three votes to two with Howard abstaining. Two things are worth a reviewer's attention. First, the board resolved the count by reference to its own by-laws rather than the statute: Whitney ruled that "both were made by those present and voting," and Hawkins read the by-law that "Abstentions are counted, but have no bearing on the outcome of the vote" — but the by-law's two sentences pull in different directions, and RSA 671:33's trigger for the city council is the remaining members' inability to agree "by majority vote," a phrase the record does not test against three of six. Second, the process objections came from inside the board as well as outside it: Hawkins said reinstatement "undermines the process," Madden said it "feels like a back door deal" and voted for it anyway, and residents Lavallette, Bean and Lowney each said the board was abandoning a process it had asked them to enter. Those characterisations are the speakers' opinions, not findings, and Petrin answered them directly at 2:52:21: the letter "came to me requesting to be reinstated[,] not of any sort of backroom deal," while conceding "there is no set process to assigning someone to the vacant school board seat[;] the process needs to be" clarified. No verified rule requires a school board to run an application process or to prefer applicants over a former member.
Sources: RSA 671:33 (school board vacancies; selectmen appoint where the remaining members cannot agree by majority vote); draft minutes, 11/5/25, which record each member's position on all three votes. The board's by-laws were read from the district website on the recording and were not separately retrieved for this page; whether three of six satisfies RSA 671:33's "majority vote" is an open question this page does not resolve.
MEDIUM Federal non-compliance letters went to administrators and never reached the governing board
At 1:56:54 the chair reported the outcome of a records request for the 2024 correspondence about withheld federal grant funding: a Letter of Non-Compliance dated April 2024, a second dated August 2024, a Letter of Compliance dated October 2024, and the closeout of the FY23 ESEA programmatic monitoring. In her words, these "were letters sent to the administrative team regarding withholding of federal funds from the Claremont School District that were addressed only to the administrative team, and the information was not presented to the board." The board learned of them from a newspaper article and a Right-to-Know request, more than a year after the first of them. 2 CFR 200.303 requires a non-federal entity to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards, providing reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with the terms of the award and with federal statute and regulation. A control environment in which a formal finding of non-compliance from the pass-through agency is filed with staff and never surfaces to the body that appropriates, approves contracts and answers to the electorate is the kind of weakness that provision is aimed at; the connection is stated at that level of generality because this page has not read the four letters, which are not in the packet. The mitigation is that the board itself surfaced them, published quick links on the posted agenda so any resident can read them, and — at 3:11:50 — has an administrator working through corrective action plans for "the audits that are about to be filed" and "another set" required by the state. No finding is made here about the merits of the underlying non-compliance.
Sources: 2 CFR 200.303 (effective internal control over federal awards); draft minutes, 11/5/25, which list the four documents by name; CSB Agenda 11.5.25.pdf, which carried the quick links. The letters themselves were not retrieved for this page, so nothing is asserted about what they found or about any consequence for the district's federal awards.
OBSERVATION A counsel non-meeting was held inside the nonpublic session, on a form recording one session under one exemption
The board entered nonpublic session at 1:04:09 under RSA 91-A:3, II(k), the school board pupil-tuition-contract exemption, on Hawkins's motion with a roll call both ways — the procedure RSA 91-A:3, I(b) prescribes. The chair's stated reason for taking it early was practical rather than statutory: "we get bill[ed] by the 15 minute increments. So this is because our nonpublic will include our attorneys." The unsealed nonpublic minutes then record two different things on one form: that Angell "discussed tuition rates" and his recommendation to the board, with "No vote taken during non-public"; and, in a separate hand, "non-meeting & district legal counsel", with the chair's own note that she "questioned if ok to have non-meeting during non-public" and that counsel "stated it was ok to do so." Those are two distinct legal categories. RSA 91-A:2, I excludes "consultation with legal counsel" from the definition of a meeting altogether, so a non-meeting carries no minutes duty; a nonpublic session under paragraph II is a meeting whose minutes must be kept and disclosed under paragraph III. No verified rule was identified that prohibits taking counsel's advice during a nonpublic session or that requires the two to be minuted separately, and the chair asked the right question at the time and got an answer on the record. It is flagged so that a reader who compares the minutes with what was announced afterwards — the termination of an employee, a subject that belongs to II(a) rather than II(k) — can see how the evening was structured: the termination was announced in open session on the board's return, at 1:05:57, not decided in the nonpublic session, and the nonpublic minutes record no vote of any kind.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I (consultation with legal counsel excluded from the definition of "meeting"); RSA 91-A:3, I(b) and II(k) (motion stating the specific exemption; pupil tuition contract) and RSA 91-A:3, II(a) (dismissal or discipline of a public employee); 11.5.25 CSB nonpublic minutes unsealed. The nonpublic minutes are a scanned handwritten form; quotations from it are transcribed as legible and no verified rule was identified that this arrangement breaks.
OBSERVATION Past tax rates were set on anticipated revenues the district did not receive, by the board's own account
Explaining why no new vote was needed for the rate adjustment — "the tax rate is being adjusted to reflect the actual budget[;] the public voted to approve the budget" — Crawford set out at 1:31:38 how the shortfall was built: "there's the amount that was voted and then there are some provisions for anticipated revenues. In the past, some of those anticipated revenues were either artificially set higher than real. Therefore, the money raised through taxes in the past wasn't enough to cover the budget that was voted on." Her example at 1:32:51 is specific: tuition revenue that historically ran "around … 200, 250,000 per year" was reported at "780,000, which was artificially inflated by 500,000. So there was $500,000 less raised in taxes to cover the budget that had been passed." The chair's response was one word longer than the question: "And this was — this was wrong. Right." That description matches what the same officials told the board three weeks earlier, when the October meeting recorded that the previous rate had been "improperly calculated too low" and named optimistic revenue and fund-balance figures as the cause. The revenue estimates in question are those reported on the district's financial report to DRA under RSA 21-J:34, which is why that provision is cited. This is recorded as an observation rather than a violation because the errors are in closed prior years, were described by the current administration rather than established by an audit or an adjudication, and were being corrected in the open at this meeting.
Sources: RSA 21-J:34 (school district financial report to DRA); draft minutes, 11/5/25; the October 15, 2025 page, flag 2. No audit finding supports these figures; they are the administration's and the finance chair's statements on the record.
POSITIVE Counsel confirmed on the record that the separation agreement and the employment records are public
Separation agreements are where public bodies most often go quiet. Here the district's counsel announced the termination in open session at 1:05:57, immediately on the board's return from nonpublic — naming the contract term that was cut short (through 30 June 2027), stating that the agreement was signed and executed and effective the previous day, and identifying the document by its actual title: "The details of the agreement are in a termination[,] separation agreement and release. That document will be on file at the [SAU]." A board member then asked the question that decides whether any of that is usable by the public — whether the records related to her employment are public under the Right-to-Know law — and counsel answered "Yes they are." The draft minutes record the exchange as Hawkins asking whether the details will be on file in the employee records and available under the Right-to-Know law at the SAU office, with counsel confirming. RSA 91-A:4 makes governmental records available for inspection and copying, and a settlement of a public employee's contract is exactly the record a taxpayer would want; naming the document, saying where it lives and confirming its status without waiting to be asked in writing is more than the statute compels.
Sources: RSA 91-A:4 (access to governmental records); draft minutes, 11/5/25; the October 15, 2025 page, flag 6 for the suspension announced three weeks earlier.
POSITIVE The board authorised a forensic audit at the State Police's request, unanimously, and required the contract to come back before signature
RSA 21-J:19 sets the ordinary floor: political subdivisions are audited by independent public accountants. A forensic engagement aimed at a specific question — here, stipends — is well beyond that floor, and it was authorised in public, on a named request. Angell told the board at 1:38:56 that he was "speaking with law enforcement … specifically about stipends" and that "Lieutenant Eaton has asked the school board to hire a forensic auditor," identifying the agency as the New Hampshire State Police when asked. Crawford moved, Hawkins seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Two features of the motion are worth recording. Madden's objection was not suppressed: he said he was not comfortable approving the engagement because Angell had told the board the finances were in such a state that he was not hopeful of finding anything, and the answer given — that the scope would be tailored to what law enforcement says it needs — is on the record for anyone to test later. And the motion was amended on the floor so that the contract itself returns to the board for approval, keeping the spending decision with the body that must order the payment under RSA 197:23-a rather than delegating it with the authority to engage. Hawkins put the reasoning plainly: "There's no question that we should do a forensic audit. It's coming from the state police."
Sources: RSA 21-J:19 (audits by independent public accountants); RSA 197:23-a (treasurer pays out only upon orders of the school board); draft minutes, 11/5/25.
POSITIVE The nonpublic minutes were not sealed, and they record that no vote was taken
RSA 91-A:3, III requires that minutes of a nonpublic session be publicly disclosed within 72 hours unless, by recorded two-thirds vote of the members present, the body determines that disclosure would adversely affect the reputation of a non-member, render a proposed action ineffective, or pertain to terrorism. Sealing is the default habit in many districts; it was not the habit here. The form for this session is in the district's Unsealed Minutes share, and the sealing block on it is left blank — no motion, no seconder, no roll call, none of the three statutory grounds ticked. What the released form shows is the exemption relied on (II(k), pupil tuition contract), the roll call to enter, the names of the three non-members present, the substance — "Matt Angell discussed tuition rates" and "his recommendation regarding tuition rate to be set by Board" — and the line that matters most to a reader checking whether business was done out of sight: "No vote taken during non-public." The tuition rate was then moved, discussed and set at $17,000 in open session at 1:53:09, which is the sequence RSA 91-A:3, II(k) itself contemplates, requiring approval of such a contract to occur at a meeting open to the public.
Sources: RSA 91-A:3, III (disclosure within 72 hours unless sealed by recorded 2/3 vote with a statutory finding) and RSA 91-A:3, II(k) (pupil tuition contract; approval at a public meeting); 11.5.25 CSB nonpublic minutes unsealed.
Appendix — source files
Official and public sources
Project files
Relative links work when this page is opened from Output/HTML/.
Laws and rules cited on this page