Claremont School Board Finance Committee — December 10, 2025

The two-member Finance Sub-Committee's first FY2026-27 budget work session — enrolment projections, the four-school and three-school models, health-insurance and vacancy assumptions — held in public at the tech centre so it could be broadcast, and the only surviving record of it is this recording. Generated from the meeting's diarized transcript; no packet, agenda or minutes for this meeting exists in any district share. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.

Body
Finance Sub-Committee of the Claremont School Board (SAU 6) — a two-member subcommittee: Candace Crawford (chair) and Heather Whitney
Date
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Start time
Scheduled 9:30 a.m. per the committee's own November 12, 2025 minutes ("Wednesday, Dec. 10 @ 9:30 am @ Tech Center with CCTV coverage"); the finance report given to the full board on November 19 said 9:00 a.m. The chair closed with "We adjourn at 1050" (1:15:09), which against the 1:15:11 runtime places the call to order near 9:35 a.m. No independent record of the actual gavel time exists.
Location
Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center — "we're having it here at the tech center so it can be broadcast" (0:00:05), matching the November 12 minutes
Recording
Cablecast: Claremont School Board - Finance Committee - 12/10/25 (recording runs 1:15:11; it opens on the chair's call to order and runs to adjournment).
Minutes
None located in any district public share as of 2026-08-23 — not in the 2025 Meeting Documents or FY 2025-2026 Meeting Documents archives, not in either candidate year folder of the Meeting Minutes share, not in the December 17, January 7, January 20 or January 21 board packets, and not in the district's own (empty) Claremont Finance Sub Committee folder. See flag 1.

Participants

Everyone who appears in the record of this meeting. No minutes exist, so names and roles are taken from the recording, from the committee's November 12, 2025 minutes (which list the same four people), and from the district's approved board minutes of the same period. No citizens' comment period was held; the chair stated that public input belongs at the regular board meeting.
NameRoleParticipation
Candace CrawfordSchool Board member; Finance Sub-Committee ChairPresided and set the frame: three reasons last year's budget cannot be the reference point, three priorities, three configuration models, and the meeting calendar through the January 21 budget hearing. 181 speaking segments — the largest share of the meeting.
Heather WhitneySchool Board Chair; Finance Sub-Committee memberThe committee's second member. Pressed on whether the four-school model is only defensible as a staging post to two schools, on capacity and scheduling data, on the mentorship and interventionist models, and on low-participation athletics. 171 segments.
Matt AngellSenior Comptroller / Interim Business Administrator, SAU 6Presented the NESDEC enrolment projections, the four-school payroll model, health-insurance plan costs and the vacancy census; described rebuilding the district's data by hand. 176 segments (rendered "Matt Angel" in places by the speech recognizer).
Kerry KennedyInterim Superintendent, SAU 6Answered on pre-K classroom space, school-improvement status, mentor training, stipends in the collective bargaining agreements, and the Superintendent's Advisory Council's request for a public forum. 105 segments.
Unattributed voices104 short rows (14% of the file) carry no named speaker. They are almost all one- to three-word interjections ("Okay", "Right", "Yeah") inside another speaker's turn; nothing on this page rests on them.

Agenda

No agenda was posted for this meeting and none has since appeared in any district share. The item list below is reconstructed from the chair's opening statement and her transitions on the recording. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell to read the full text.

Taken upItemReconstructed from the recording
0:00:051. Call to order and chair's opening statement"Good morning everybody. Today is Wednesday, December 10th, and this is the meeting of the Claremont School Board Finance Committee meeting. This is our first, budget analysis meeting, if you will. And we're having it here at the tech center so it can be broadcast. For folks who might not be able to make it here in the building" — Crawford.
0:00:392. Why the prior year's budget cannot be the reference pointThree stated reasons: "there [are] significant errors in the last year's budget… incorrect amounts entered in the approved budget"; "the actual spending over budget was significant"; and unforeseen expenses including special education, "the statewide building billing… for additional school care costs of 868,000", and health-care variances — plus prior-year bills paid out of this year's money, which makes current-year expenditure "artificially high". See flag 3.
0:02:363. The three stated priorities"Number one, it's student achievement… The second is the student achievement. Some of it is driven by school configuration… And third… we are always sensitive to the financial impact on the property tax rate. Those are three consecutive concentric circles that we we focus on." — Crawford.
0:05:324. The three configuration models named on the record(1) the current four schools, two K-5 elementaries, CMS 6-8, Stevens 9-12; (2) four schools re-aligned — Disnard K-2, Maple 3-5, CMS 6-8, Stevens 9-12; (3) three schools. The committee's November 12 minutes state the three-school model as "K-2, Grades 3-6, SHS with grades 7-12"; the speech recognizer garbles the chair's spoken version of it here. No decisions were to be taken: "there will be no, we're not making any decisions here, folks. We're just gathering data."
0:07:045. The calendar to budget adoption"Friday in two days, we will have an additional meeting here… Wednesday, December 17th is for the school board and we'll be giving a budget update to the full board. Heather and I will do that. January 7th is a school board meeting… Then on January 21st, we will have to have a hearing on the budget. And after the hearing, the board will adopt a budget." — Crawford. Every one of those dates was in fact met.
0:08:006. Enrolment projections (NESDEC)The projection service comes with the district's membership dues — invoice found on the spot, roughly $2,500-$3,000 in dues, "we haven't had to pay additional monies for that service." Ten-year projection presented. NESDEC is rendered "Nasdaq" throughout the transcript.
0:23:267. The state of the district's payroll and benefits dataAngell on rebuilding the census, health-insurance elections, vacancy counts and plan costs; Crawford and Kennedy on the SAU office's staffing and the manual processes behind the numbers. See flag 2.
0:53:248. What is to be delivered on Friday, December 12Angell: the four-school model finished, then the three-school model, and a default budget built on the four-school model — "if the school board decides the three school model, I'll have to redo the default budget." Capacity data from a fire-protection engineer still outstanding.
1:04:119. Other business raised from the tableAthletics and arts stipends fixed by the collective bargaining agreements; mentorship and interventionist staffing; transportation and the January bussing bid; the Superintendent's Advisory Council's request for a public forum on the models.
1:15:0910. Adjournment"We adjourn at 1050." Next meeting fixed for Friday at 9:30 a.m., same room.

Discussion timeline

Times are the Start (sec) values from the dialogue file (Output/Dialogue/17029 SchoolBoardFinance121025.mp4.CSV) and link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording. Flags link to the review items below.

TimeTopicWhat was said (leading text; hover or focus for the rest)Flags
0:00:05Call to order; why the room was chosenCrawford opens the committee's "first, budget analysis meeting" and states the reason for the venue: "we're having it here at the tech center so it can be broadcast. For folks who might not be able to make it here in the building." Nothing in the Right-to-Know Law required the committee to broadcast at all.MEDIUM POSITIVE
0:00:39Last year's budget is unusable as a baselineCrawford, on the record: "references to past budgets aren't going to work. Because their error is significant significant errors in the last year's budget. So to use that as a reference point is, is ridiculous. And that's because they were incorrect amounts entered in the approved budget." Then: over-spending against budget; unforeseen special-education costs; the SchoolCare assessment of "868,000" (the committee's October 5 minutes carry it as $868,014.78); health-care variances; and prior-year bills paid from this year's appropriation, so "to look at expenditures in this year's budget is… a little problematic because it's artificially high".OBSERVATION
0:05:32The three models, and no decisions todayModel 1: four schools as they stand (two K-5 elementaries, CMS 6-8, Stevens 9-12). Model 2: four schools re-aligned, Disnard K-2 and Maple 3-5 ("Disney" in the transcript). Model 3: three schools — per the committee's November 12 minutes, "K-2, Grades 3-6, SHS with grades 7-12". Crawford: "we're not making any decisions here, folks. We're just gathering data… the finance committee meetings isn't the place for that discussion. The public meeting, public school board meeting is where those issues will be addressed."OBSERVATION
0:07:04Calendar through the budget hearingFriday December 12 (this committee), December 17 (budget update to the full board, "Heather and I will do that"), January 7 (board), January 21 (public hearing then adoption). Each date was met: the models were presented to the board on December 17 and the budget was adopted on January 21.POSITIVE
0:09:14NESDEC projection: 1,379 next yearAngell, reading the invoice: the enrolment projection comes bundled in the district's membership dues; the projection for next school year is 1,379 students. He warns of a discrepancy ahead: the budget models use the building principals' enrolment numbers, "because they felt that the numbers that Nasdaq was projecting was incorrect."
0:10:091,089 students in ten years"Nasdaq [NESDEC] is estimating, k 12 to be 1089 students… you're really looking at a two school model." Five-year figure: 1,249 — "you could put 700 kids in the high school and 500 kids in… the existing middle school and go to a… two school model. Right. But the… problem is the middle school isn't set up for an elementary school." Angell judges the projections reliable: in his last district a ten-year projection was "off by 20 students".
0:10:48The four-school model as a staging post to twoAngell: keep four schools open next year so the middle school can be emptied — "you're going to move the middle school to the high school and then rehab the middle school into an elementary school." Whitney presses until it is explicit: the only fiscal or educational rationale for staying at four schools is that it is a step toward two. Crawford: "in order for the two school model, there has to be a interim year for a building to get rehabbed".
0:12:14"They asked if I'm going to be here to do it. And I said, I'm not."Angell reports talking to individual board members about the two-school model and rehabbing the middle school: "they asked if I'm going to be here to do it. And I said, I'm not okay. It's just not going to happen." He resigned in July 2026. The two-school conversion cost was later put to the full board on December 17 at between $1 million and $4 million.
0:16:44What Angell says will move test scores"There are three things that I've been trying to propose for the school board. One is intervention. One is, a robust evaluation model so that you can have targeted PD… The third thing is a good mentorship program." Grade alignment is what pays for the first: "with the two K-5 schools you can't get intervention teachers… When you align the grades you can get intervention teachers", six of them in the re-aligned four-school model (0:17:13).
0:17:58Whitney: the district proposed this same model in 2020 and the public refused it"I was on the board when we tried to move forward with the very model that you're proposing… There was a lot of resistance to that very model, because of making it inconvenient for our parents to pick up… I want the world to know that we're like the world that wasn't listening then… we heard it then, and we're bringing it to the table now." Crawford: "we're in a different position now than we were six years ago. Our our scores have gone down, our population has gone down and our resources have gone down."
0:23:26"I'm struggling with data and trying to… recreate a lot of stuff"Angell: "I've been working seven days a week on just the budget. Last night, I burned out when, I had to go and revisit health insurance." Crawford asks him to say plainly what that means, "because people don't understand that phrase" — and then narrates it for the public: about 500 employees, each with a different election, and the entries in the system are "often incorrect."MEDIUM
0:24:53Health-insurance census: 44 of about 270 records need rework"it's about like 270 that are on the health insurance. And I found 44 where I need we need to revisit as a team." The plan he had hoped to use — download current premiums and multiply by the rate increase of "11.8%" — could not be run until the underlying elections are correct.MEDIUM
0:26:00First hard number: payroll up about $79,000 in the four-school model"I had told the two committee members here that… I anticipated that, the budget was going to be flat or lower than the current year… And so just looking at just payroll, it's almost $79,000 increase over the current year." Crawford puts it against a payroll base of roughly $20 million: "a $79,000 variance on 20 million is marginal." The current-year budget was built on a five-school district; Bluff's positions are already out (0:27:03).
0:29:12Why the number is so tight"if there were no changes to the educational model, the budget would not actually increase because all the bargaining groups move up one step… the reason why it's so tight… is because we've eliminated one school and we're realigning." Re-alignment converts surplus sections into intervention posts, and Crawford confirms the reductions happen "with attrition".
0:32:46The SAU 6 restructuring is not yet in the payroll number"in my payroll projection that I just shared with you, it does not include adding back saw [SAU] employees… with the new model beginning July 1st, the superintendent, business administrator, you're going to have those positions for Claremont." Crawford notes Claremont currently carries about 90% of SAU costs because Unity is about 10%, so the change "might be a wash" — Angell has not yet done that analysis and warns the current-year SAU services estimate looks tightened.
0:36:52Vacant positions were budgeted with salary but not benefits"it looks like what they did is they budgeted for people that were currently in their positions. So they didn't put in an estimate for vacant positions." Crawford recalls being told during last year's build that the two-person plan was being used for vacancies, and Whitney remembers a stated 15% healthcare increase. Angell: comparing to the current year gave "this big, huge, wild number"; roughly $600,000 was "freed up" in health insurance and "the numbers don't add up".OBSERVATION
0:42:31What a plan actually costsGross annual cost, employer and employee share combined, on the more expensive ("yellow") plan: family $45,036; two-person $33,360; single $16,680. The district pays 95% for its largest bargaining group; cash-in-lieu runs about $2,500. Crawford and Whitney direct him to budget vacancies at the two-person rate: "I think you have to do the two persons. I agree to be safe."
0:43:42Vacancies: 78 now, 63 in the modelled four-school yearCrawford: "There are 78 vacant positions this year compared to last year." Angell: "what's vacant in my census data is… for the for school model 63. Okay. That does not include the saw." A normal year would carry 20 to 30. Multiplying 63 vacancies by a two-person premium is what pushes the benefit line.
0:45:21What the three-school model would change"you're going to be going down. Administrative, custodial. A nurse. Probably another librarian. But then… we might be able to go up from six intervention teachers in a… for school model to like 8 or 10 intervention teachers with a three school model." Crawford confirms the three-school model is the one that moves grades 7 and 8 to the high school. Whitney: the pros and cons are "a Friday discussion", but the feasibility "must be more than 50%".
0:48:25Which elementary school would close is a board vote"when we talk about the three school model in which elementary school to choose, I'm choosing for the model. I'm modeling maple, but I think the cost will be, similar between the two… So it's going to be a school board vote." Kennedy: Maple has ten students more than Disnard. Whitney: Maple is physically larger; the tax map shows Disnard on a larger lot with room for parking or portables.
0:49:27A closed building still costs money"with any close[d] school I'm putting in the operating budget money to heat the buildings until they['re] sold or they're leased, because we got to maintain it because it's an asset." Snow removal and fire-protection upkeep too. This is the line that returns on December 12 as the Bluff School question.
0:50:10The SAU office cannot answer the phoneCrawford, deliberately for the public: "The saw [SAU] office is working on extremely low staff… if people call the s a you or even go in, the staff isn't there to open the door or answer the phone… or to respond to emails or to update the web page. Those are all challenges that are due to significantly reduce[d] staff at the office." Kennedy: the office could stay lean if the backlog of tasks that "should have been done under other positions" were cleared.MEDIUM
0:51:14"a manual model with an automated system"Angell's summary of the district's data: "we're operating a manual model with an automated system. And so, a lot of data gets recreated each and every year, like the state reporting of the FT[E]s is manually recreated each and every year. And they're not utilizing the system. Right. The system has the field for it, but the field isn't accurate or it's empty in most cases." Whitney: "the district was provided the resources. They just were not using them." Contracts illustrate the cost — four weeks of one person's work by hand against "a day's worth of work" in the system (0:52:50).MEDIUM
0:53:24Friday's deliverables, including the default budget"I'll have the, the three school model and the four school model. I can probably get a default budget done for the four school model… But then if the… school board decides the three school model, I'll have to redo the default budget." Supplies follow the student; breaking supplies out by grade is a known problem.OBSERVATION
0:55:20Building capacity is not yet knownWhitney asks how capacity is determined and how accurate it is, because she does not want time spent modelling something the buildings cannot hold. Angell: "we have engaged a fire engineer… who just specializes in fire, life safety stuff. And what he's going to do is he's going to calculate what the capacity is." That study reached the board as the 22 December occupant-load memo for CMS and Maple Avenue, in the January 7 packet.
0:59:15A legal position on the default budget, stated by staff"legally, we can… move positions around within the… organization. So… we're not eliminating a position as it relates to the default budget… There are some who think that if you make a move, say, from a para to a teacher, that that one's an elimination and one's a brand new position that doesn't exist under the law… the school program is just one big giant pool, and I'm moving within that. And then whatever… is left over, that's what's getting removed." No counsel was present and no written opinion is referenced.OBSERVATION
1:01:01Mentors were trained, then the mentees were cutKennedy: "this summer, we did some mentor training. It was excellent. Melissa Lewis and Paige Jarvis did some training… for veteran staff who were mentors. The unfortunate part is right now, the existing, new folks we rift [RIF'd]… So they're not being utilized". Crawford turns it toward existing staff: "existing staff need mentors." Angell floats partnering with a local college — Keene State or Plymouth State — to supply non-evaluative mentors (1:03:22), labelled "just brainstorming at this point."
1:04:11Athletics: the contract fixes most of itWhitney asks for an evaluation of low-participation, high-cost programmes — "I know I'm a bad guy, but" — and is careful to ask only for the investigation. Angell: "a lot of the stipends are in the CBA agreement. With this budget money in there whether they're using it or not." Kennedy extends it to the arts: "there are stipends for chorus[,] bands[,] things like that too." Crawford's counter: the money need not be spent unless the programme is offered.OBSERVATION
1:07:35Transportation stays in-house — and goes out to bid"I'm budgeting based upon us maintaining our own bus company… but we are looking at going out to bid for, for bussing services… like in January." On the split-elementary objection — parents driving to two schools — his answer is the bus, plus before- and after-school programming of the kind the district once contracted from the YMCA.
1:10:35The Superintendent's Advisory Council asks for a public forumKennedy: the council met Monday, was told models were coming, and asked for "a school forum, you know, open public more than just during the board meeting" — they floated December 18, the day after the board presentation, and she held off pending what the board is actually shown. Whitney asks her to gather local experience of 7-12 configurations, naming Newport; Kennedy offers to call Superintendent Ransdell. Whitney: "they don't care what happens in Arkansas that I read about. They want to know what happens" here.OBSERVATION
1:15:09Adjournment"We adjourn at 1050." The committee reconvened two days later at 9:30 a.m. in the same room — see the December 12 page.

Items flagged for review

Flags are a reviewer's aid, produced by reading the recording against New Hampshire and federal law. They are not findings of violation and they are not legal advice. Each card names the rule it rests on; where no verified rule was identified, the card says so and is graded OBSERVATION. Severity tracks legal grounding, not importance.

MEDIUM A televised meeting of a public body with no minutes anywhere the public can find them

A committee or subcommittee of a school board is itself a "public body" under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d), and carries the full duties of the Right-to-Know Law — including RSA 91-A:2, II, which requires minutes recording the members present, the persons appearing, the subject matter discussed and any decisions, "promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting." This meeting was noticed, held, and broadcast; eight months later no minutes for it exist in the 2025 Meeting Documents archive, the FY 2025-2026 Meeting Documents archive, either candidate year folder of the Meeting Minutes share, the December 17 / January 7 / January 20 / January 21 board packets, or the district's own Claremont Finance Sub Committee Drive folder, which exists, was last modified on 1 December 2025, and holds no files (all verified 2026-08-23). Across five finance-committee meetings spanning nineteen months — 1/6/25, 12/10/25, 12/12/25, 6/19/26 and 8/12/26 — no packet or minutes has ever been posted to a district share.

Three things cut the other way and are the reason this is graded MEDIUM rather than HIGH. First, the statute requires availability for inspection, not publication to a website; nothing in this record shows anyone asking to inspect these minutes and being refused. Second, at the November 19, 2025 board meeting Crawford reported to the board that the finance committee's minutes were on the website, so minutes may exist somewhere this review did not reach. Third — and most concretely — this committee plainly does minute its meetings: the chair writes them herself, and her minutes for 10/5/25, 10/27/25 and 11/12/25 exist. The 11/12/25 set even reached a district public share, as Copy of Finance 11.12.25.docx inside the December 3 board packet; this page relies on it for the start time and location. That the same routine produced nothing discoverable for December 10 or December 12 — the two meetings where the restructuring models were actually built — is what makes the gap pointed rather than ordinary.

What would move this to HIGH: a documented request to inspect these minutes that went unanswered or refused, or a district statement that no minutes were taken. What would clear it: production of dated minutes for December 10 and December 12, or a working public link to wherever the committee's minutes are in fact posted.

Sources: RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — "public body" includes any committee or subcommittee of a school board; RSA 91-A:2, II — minutes promptly recorded and open to inspection within 5 business days; RSA 91-A:4 — access to governmental records; Copy of Finance 11.12.25.docx (the committee's own minutes, in the 12/3/25 board packet); November 19, 2025 board meeting — the finance report to the board.

MEDIUM State reports rebuilt by hand each year from fields the district leaves empty or wrong

Angell described the district's data plainly at 0:51:14: "we're operating a manual model with an automated system… the state reporting of the FT[E]s is manually recreated each and every year. And they're not utilizing the system… the field isn't accurate or it's empty in most cases." The same session put 44 of roughly 270 health-insurance records in need of rework (0:24:53) and described employee contracts taking four person-weeks by hand that the system would do in a day (0:52:50). Staffing reports to the New Hampshire Department of Education are statutory: RSA 189:28 requires school boards and superintendents to furnish statistical reports on blanks and by deadlines the department sets, and state aid may be withheld from a district until complete and accurate information is submitted. Reports assembled by hand each year from empty or incorrect source fields are, by the district's own account, at risk of being neither complete nor accurate — and the same underlying data drives the budget these meetings produced.

In mitigation: this is a description of a condition being remediated, not of a refusal to report. Nothing in this recording says a specific state report was late, rejected, or found inaccurate, and no withholding of aid is mentioned. Confirming or clearing this requires the department's own record of the district's submissions.

Sources: RSA 189:28 — statistical reports to NHDOE; aid withheld until complete and accurate information is submitted; RSA 21-J:19 — audits by independent public accountants.

OBSERVATION The adopted FY2025-26 budget is described from the chair as containing significant errors, and prior-year bills were paid from current-year money

Crawford's opening statement (0:00:39) is a chair of the finance committee telling the public that the district's adopted budget cannot be used as a baseline because of "significant errors in the last year's budget… incorrect amounts entered in the approved budget", spending materially over budget, an unbudgeted SchoolCare assessment of about $868,000, health-care variances, and prior-year bills paid out of the current year's appropriation, which leaves this year's expenditure "artificially high." Angell added the mechanism at 0:36:52: vacant positions were budgeted with salary but without a benefits estimate.

No verified rule was identified that a budget containing estimation errors, or the payment of a prior year's invoices from the current year's appropriation, violates on its face — within a single appropriation year a school board has latitude in how it spends and reports. What these facts bear on is auditability: RSA 21-J:19 provides for annual audit by independent public accountants, and the audits that would test these statements were still outstanding for FY2022 and FY2023 at this date. Treat this as the record of what the district's own officers said about their books, not as a finding.

Sources: RSA 21-J:19 — audits by independent public accountants; RSA 21-J:34, V — annual school district financial report to DRA due September 1; committee minutes of 10/5/25 (SchoolCare assessment recorded as $868,014.78).

OBSERVATION The default budget's composition was worked out here, on a legal reading given from the staff table

Claremont votes its school budget on the official ballot, so a defeated operating budget takes effect as the default budget — a statutory calculation, not a discretionary one, under RSA 40:13. At 0:59:15 Angell told the two members that moving a position from one classification to another is not an elimination for default-budget purposes — "the school program is just one big giant pool, and I'm moving within that" — and that the contrary view "doesn't exist under the law." He also committed to producing the default budget against whichever configuration the board picks (0:53:24). No counsel was present, no written opinion was cited, and because no minutes of this meeting exist, the reasoning that shaped the default budget the voters would later see survives only in this recording.

Nothing here is a violation: staff may advise, and a default-budget figure is ultimately the board's to certify and defend. The point is provenance — a contested statutory interpretation entered the budget in a room with no written record.

Sources: RSA 40:13 — official ballot (SB 2) form of meeting, including the default budget; RSA 91-A:2, II — minutes must record the subject matter discussed.

OBSERVATION The configuration decision was shaped where the public could watch but not speak

Crawford was explicit at 0:05:32: "the finance committee meetings isn't the place for that discussion. The public meeting, public school board meeting is where those issues will be addressed," and at 0:07:04 she described these as work meetings where "there'll be time for questions from the public about just technical things, but input will take place at regular school board meetings." That is lawful. RSA 91-A guarantees the public the right to attend and observe a meeting of a public body; it confers no right to speak, and a public body may confine comment to sessions it designates. The reason to record it anyway is that the substantive comparison of the four-school and three-school models — the material that decided which schools children would attend — happened in these two sessions, and by the time it reached a meeting where residents could respond, on December 17, it arrived as two finished models. Kennedy reported at 1:10:35 that the Superintendent's Advisory Council had already asked for a public forum beyond the board meeting.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2 — open meetings; notice; minutes (no public right to speak); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) — a subcommittee is a public body; December 17, 2025 board meeting — where the models were first put to residents.

OBSERVATION Athletics and arts stipends are fixed by the collective bargaining agreements, not by the budget

Asked to look for low-participation, high-cost programmes, Angell answered that the choice largely is not the board's: "a lot of the stipends are in the CBA agreement. With this budget money in there whether they're using it or not" (1:04:44); Kennedy extended the point to chorus and band. On December 12 he returned to it with the contract in hand — the agreement "specifically says which teams have to be funded" and how many coaches each carries. Terms of a ratified agreement between a public employer and its employees are governed by RSA chapter 273-A, and the board cannot unilaterally set them aside inside a budget cycle; what it can decide is whether a programme is offered. No verified rule is breached here. It is recorded because the constraint explains why the athletics line resists the kind of trimming residents later asked for at the budget hearing.

Sources: RSA ch. 273-A — public employee labor relations.

POSITIVE The committee moved the meeting to be televised, put the whole calendar on the record, and said plainly what it did not know

Three practices here exceed the legal minimum. The venue was chosen for broadcast — "we're having it here at the tech center so it can be broadcast. For folks who might not be able to make it here in the building" (0:00:05); nothing in RSA 91-A requires a public body to record or televise anything. The chair set out the full path to adoption — December 12, December 17, January 7, January 21 — before any figure was discussed (0:07:04), and every one of those dates was met. And the officers stated the limits of their own numbers on camera rather than presenting them as settled: the enrolment projection is free with dues but the principals dispute it (0:09:14), the health-insurance model is not finished (0:24:53), the SAU restructuring is not yet in the payroll figure (0:32:46), and building capacity is still with an engineer (0:55:20). Crawford also used the meeting to explain to residents why the SAU office does not answer its phone (0:50:10).

Context: RSA 91-A:2 — the open-meeting minimum these practices exceed.

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