| 0:00:17 | Opening; four assistant moderators appointed | The moderator opens: “I'd like to welcome you in order the February 7th, 2026 deliberative session.” At 0:00:33 she explains why there are four assistants: “And anticipation of Elijah turnout than I expected. I have appointed four assistant moderators. They will be counting ballots and assisting me throughout today's meeting. I'd like to introduce them to you. Will you please stand when I call your name?” She names them across 0:00:33 and 0:01:00. She later thanks her husband for a role the recording renders as “one of my face moderators because he's, my ears and my eyes” (0:04:52) — identifying voters wishing to be recognised. | — |
| 0:05:48 | Thanks to CCTV, whose recording this is | “I'd like to thank Josh Nelson, the executive director of CCTV, who spoke in today's meeting, which is being televised live on CCTV channel. A thank you, Joshua, for your tireless efforts at keeping the citizens of Claremont informed.” Every recording this project works from comes from Claremont Community Television, which is why the thanks is recorded here rather than passed over. | OBS 17 |
| 0:07:05 | Handouts: an amendment sheet, a secret-ballot sheet with the statute, two pre-drafted amendment forms | “These handouts are informational sheet on amendments and the informational sheet with on secret ballot thing with the RSA, a secret ballot request form. So it would be easier for people and deadline for of Warren Adams, one of the handouts of Gill today when we registered was the rules of procedure.” At 0:10:00 she adds: “Also, there are two specific amendment forms created for you where you would just have to fill in the blanks”, and at 0:10:13 names them: “It's written in the RSA. These are for articles two and eight.” Pre-drafted amendment forms for the two articles whose wording the law prescribes — the operating budget and the budget cap. Neither form, nor the rules sheet, nor either information sheet is in any district share. | OBS 10 |
| 0:07:35 | The rules as read: ten minutes, two minutes, written and signed amendments, one amendment at a time | “Proponents presenting an article will speak first and will be given ten minutes to speak, to be limited to two person per speaker after that.” She corrects herself at 0:08:14: “I'm sorry. This is a new rule. I just found out about that. That if it's a warrant, adequate, that, the first week of presenting it is given ten minutes to speak rather than five.” At 0:09:29: “Amendments must be in writing, presented to the moderator, signed by the person making the motion, and the perfect person seconding the motion.” At 0:10:42: “One of the most important things I'd like to know for everyone is that only one amendment at a time can be on the floor.” The writing-and-signature requirement is the district’s own rule, not the statute’s — RSA 40:13 imposes no such condition on an amendment, and the same rule was flagged on the 2024 page. It was enforced twice here, at 0:50:47 and 1:36:25, and both times the amendment satisfied it. | OBS 12 |
| 0:10:13 | The moderator states the SB 2 rule correctly | “I'd like to clarify articles to the warrant. I discussed and debated tonight. If there are no amendments, the article is automatically passed on to the ballot as presented. There is no vote necessary. The only voting tonight will be on any motions made.” That is RSA 40:13, VI stated accurately — “All warrant articles shall be placed on the official ballot for a final vote, including warrant articles as amended by the first session.” She departed from it once, at 0:39:35, and caught herself. Counsel restated it at 3:54:33: “You don't have that choice. It goes to the ballot timeout and goes to the ballot by operation law. You can't vote it up or down.” | GOOD |
| 0:14:29 | Article 2 read: $42,957,713 against a default of $44,449,704 | Crawford reads the prefatory line at 0:14:29: “The average cost per pupil for the preceding year, as calculated in accordance with RSA 189. Colon 75 dot. I friends say it's 26 million.” — the warrant prints “RSA 189:75, I(a) is $26,012.84”, and the transcript’s 26 million is the ASR mishearing $26,012.84. She gives the figure correctly a second later. Then the article: “totaling 42,000,957 zero $713” (the warrant: $42,957,713) and “the default budget shall be $44,449,704, which is the same as last year as last year's budget, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Claremont School District or by law”. Her reading of the proficiency line at 0:14:48 drops a digit — “Ela proficiency is 35% and proficiency 5%, science proficiency 29%” — where the warrant prints Math Proficiency 25%. | — |
| 0:17:01 | The business administrator’s presentation: a budget below its own default | “Okay, so, I'm Matt Angel. So this slide here is for schools line grades. Under this model, there will be one k two elementary school and 135 elementary school, one middle school and one high school. The proposed budget is $42,957,713, is a change of a negative of $221,851 from the prior year, and it's a reduction of 0.51%.” At 0:17:34: “The budget is $44,449,704. The dollar change is $1,270,140. As an increase in the percent change is 2.94%.” Both figures resolve to the same FY2025–26 base of $43,179,564 — $43,179,564 less $221,851 is the proposal, plus $1,270,140 is the default — and he states that base explicitly at 0:20:37. The listed benefits of the aligned model close with “reduces SA costs by $828,376” (0:17:55), the SAU assessment reduction that reappears as a line in the default worksheet. | — |
| 0:18:36 | The tax rates: $17.45 now, $17.27 proposed, $18.48 on the default | “So the current tax rate, it's a total of $17.45, which represents $1.23 for state and $16.22 for local.” Revenues “estimated… to be flat as compared to the past tax rate setting”: local $4,815,880, adequacy aid $16,931,007. Proposed total “estimated to be $17.27”, of which “$1.23 for state and $16 or $0.04 for local. It's a 18 cent reduction from the current tax rate.” Default: “estimated to be $18.48. It's $1.20 3% and $17.25 for local. It's $1.03 increase from the current tax rate.” Every one of those adds up: 1.23 + 16.22 = 17.45; 1.23 + 16.04 = 17.27; 17.45 − 17.27 = 0.18; 1.23 + 17.25 = 18.48; 18.48 − 17.45 = 1.03. The draft minutes do not (flag 7). | MEDIUM 7 |
| 0:20:11 | RSA 40:13, IX(b) read aloud — with the clause the district used to leave out | “The same appropriations as contained in the operating budget authorized for the previous year. Reducing increase as may be the case by debt service contracts. Other obligations previously occurred and or mandated by law and reduced by one time expenditures. Detaining the operating budget and by salaries of benefits of positions that have been eliminated in the proposed budget.” He names the section at 0:20:04 and 0:20:07: “For the to RSA 4413.” / “Roman numeral. Nine for.” — RSA 40:13, IX(b). The eliminated-positions clause is there. The district’s published default-budget worksheets of February 2023 and February 2024, and the reading given to the board in December 2024, all stopped before it. He does stop before the paragraph’s second half, which excludes “vacant positions under recruitment or positions redefined in the proposed operating budget” from the eliminated-positions reduction. | GOOD 13 |
| 0:20:37 | The default-budget worksheet, line by line | “The calculation for the default budget starts off with the fiscal year 2526 operating budget of $43,179,564. That service is a reduction $7,693.48. Contracts, salaries and related benefits, not including health insurance, including eliminated positions, is an increase of $876,001.63. Health insurance is $1,053,360.60. School lunch $190,000. Saw services. The reduction of $828,375.77, mandated by law for special education, $148,240.50.” Then at 0:21:27: “One time Bluff Elementary School closure and non salary $161,350. The total default budget is $44,449,703.53.” The lines as transcribed sum to $44,449,747.48 — about $44 above the stated total, a gap consistent with one mis-transcribed figure rather than an error in the arithmetic; the stated total rounds to the warrant’s $44,449,704 exactly. Saw services is this corpus’s standing rendering of SAU services; That service is debt service. | — |
| 0:21:41 | Crawford on the year, and on her own vote against this budget | “The financial crisis discovered in August, put a huge strain on the schools this year. We were not able to hire as many teachers as we needed. We had to close Bluff School. We.” Continuing at 0:22:30: “Had to defund athletics. We had to do make do with a lot less.” At 0:23:44: “at the January 21st school board meeting.” the board “voted to approve 42,000,700. Excuse me. $957,714 for the 2627 proposed operating budget. This figure was based on funding for a four school model aligned by grades, with about $2 million in cuts from what had been presented two weeks prior. But in a surprise move, there was an additional requirement to find another 865,000 to cover athletics at the time.” And at 0:24:24: “I agreed with the $2 million in cuts, but I did not know where another 865,000 would could be found. Even though I support athletics. Therefore, I voted against adopting this budget.” She then explains the change: “Some requests for additional staff were withdrawn and some other program changes were suggested. Identifying these changes allows me to support this budget” (0:25:04). | — |
| 0:26:19 | “a budget is a plan” — the Finance chair on what the bottom line does and does not fix | “It is not a fixed, unyielding document. While it is absolutely true that the bottom line approved is a fixed number. It is also true that various line items making up that budget are subject to change.” She names three sources of change — the June 30 balance, unknown expenses (“a new student moves into the district with specific additional required services”) and staffing variation — and closes at 0:27:42: “Savings can then be applied to next year's budget and or go into a much needed capital reserve fund.” The transfer power she is describing is RSA 32:10, which lets the governing body move unexpended balances between appropriations but not exceed the total the meeting voted. | — |
| 0:28:19 | Nobody speaks on the $42.9 million budget | “Thank you, Miss Crawford. Do I have anyone wish to speak against the.” (0:28:19) — “Seeing? None. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this article?” (0:28:37) — “Same one. I will close discussion on two.” (0:28:50). The largest article on the warrant drew no floor speaker at all, in a room that produced 141 counted votes twenty minutes later and 201 counted votes at the end of the day. The draft minutes record it the same way: “No one spoke against the article / No one spoke in favor of the article”. | — |
| 0:29:17 | Restriction of reconsideration, Articles 1 and 2 | A voter tries to move it first at 0:29:17 — “Can we make a motion to not reconsider? Yep.” — and the moderator holds him off: “We're going to be doing that after. I do it. The moderator recognizes Heather with me.” (0:29:25). The chair moves it at 0:29:35: “About a moderator. I move to restrict any further considerations to warrant one and two.” Seconded and carried at 0:29:55. The draft minutes record “one person voting in opposition”. The section is RSA 40:10, whose paragraph III limits the restriction to “final adjournment of the meeting at which it is adopted” — so it binds this session, not the March ballot. | — |
| 0:32:44 | Article 3: a nought per cent first year the administrators proposed themselves | Hawkins: “The agreement does the following three things in year one. As you can see, $0. It is cost neutral. Year two a range of salaries based on user service and credentials. The wage scale will be increased by a cost of living adjustment. Cola equal to the northeast CPI year in effect for December of the preceding calendar year, provided that the Cola shall be at least 1%, but no more than 4%.” The third element at 0:33:22: “This agreement creates a joint committee to research and evaluate the current administrator compensation package”. And at 0:33:54: “During the negotiations, our administrators proposed, they proposed the 0% salary increase. They know the depth of our financial crisis, and they were living it every day”. | — |
| 0:34:56 | “97%” — the district’s share of administrator health insurance | “My only concern with with this article is that it locks us into a two year continuation of a, of an issue that I think we need to solve sooner than that, which is the, the public percentage for the insurance for the administrators is currently 97%. That means 97% of the cost of their insurance is funded by taxpayers, which is very unusual.” He adds at 0:35:27: “I wasn't able, in my research to find any other school districts in the region that do that… I think we're paying our administrators fairly.” And the mechanism at 0:35:52: “by voting against this, what you're basically doing is you're not locking this in for a two year term. You're sending it back and you're letting them renegotiate something next year”. The figure is unverified on this page — the collective bargaining agreement is in no district share this project has been able to open, so 97 per cent stands as the speaker’s characterisation. | — |
| 0:37:22 | The second speaker against Article 3: the second year | “I'm Sonya Stephan.” / “Ward one. My concern is with.” / “Locking ourself.” — the diarizer breaks her opening into seven fragments. The argument, from 0:37:31: “2728 period of time. I don't have a crystal ball. None of us do. And since we meet every year to discuss different things about budgets, I believe it would be prudent for us to see how the next year goes and then decide with how everything is going. I don't want anyone to go without, but I also don't want to overcome either, because that's where the problem comes in when you're overcompensating.” And at 0:38:25: “We might end up with more students. We might end up with less students. And I think it's very foolish for us to decide on something that's in the future, without seeing how the next year is going to go.” | — |
| 0:40:43 | Article 4 read as it should have been printed | “Is that better? Article four authorization for special meeting. Shall district. If three is defeated, authorize the governing body to call one special meeting at its option to address article three cost items only.” The warrant prints Article 4 in both places. Nobody at the meeting mentioned the difference, the article was not amended, and under RSA 40:13, VI it goes to the March ballot as printed. Hawkins spoke to it in one sentence at 0:41:17: “Should article three fail? This allows the board to call for a special meeting. Thank you.” | HIGH 1 |
| 0:43:28 | A voter asks what Article 4 actually authorises | “Patrick. Adrian. Ward one.” / “I guess I want to clarifying question. I'm a bit confused about this. I mean, my feeling is if the voters reject article three in March, to me, that should be the end of any kind of discussion for this for regarding a compensation, cost of living compensation for the administration.” And the substance of the worry, at 0:44:09: “is that that authorizing the school board to approve a cost of living adjustment for the administration, because that I would have a problem with I do not want to authorize that special meeting.” | — |
| 0:45:15 | Counsel on the cost-item special meeting | “So in collective bargaining, the.” / “Administration and the association of have one opportunity to reach an agreement on cost items and present them to the voters. If the voters don't approve the cost items, then there are really two options at that point. One, the there is no agreement to move forward, and the employees don't get a raise and don't get a change in benefits, and that the status quo doctrine comes into play and everything stays the same until they renegotiate and come back next year.” The second, at 0:45:49: “The other option, which is allowed under 1973 Roman numeral three and it is also allowed for towns, is theoretically, the board could renegotiate, change the terms and come and call a special meeting and come back and ask you to approve those costs.” The transcript’s “1973 Roman numeral three” is RSA 197:3, III, which the draft minutes render “RSA 197-3(III)”: it lets a school board “call one special meeting for the sole purpose of addressing all negotiated cost items without petitioning the superior court for authorization”, on a contingent warrant article. His practical point at 0:46:24: “it's not customary for boards to actually call that special meeting because of, you know, it's this is a lot it's expensive.” | GOOD |
| 0:49:44 | Article 5: the amendment to strike or lease | “Kevin Tyson, Ward two I wish to propose a modification to this article. I want to remove the words or lease the only acceptable conclusion for disposing of this property is a sale. The reason being, leasing it leaves us with lingering obligations. Should the boiler blow up? Should things happen, then our well endowed capital fund will have to step up.” And at 0:50:14: “You don't have one. It also requires a tremendous amount of trust in the operation of the school board. And frankly, we're here because the trust hasn't been there.” Seconded at 0:50:34; the moderator required it in writing at 0:50:43 — “If it's an amendment needs to be written and presented to the moderator.” — and it was. Maintainer disclosure: the mover of this amendment maintains this project. See the participants table and the method footer. | — |
| 0:52:45 | Against: striking the lease option removes the fallback | “Well, I appreciate the sentiment of Mr. Tyson because I think it's not without merit. When adding the or removing the wording or lease, remove the option for us to make money on the property in the event that it cannot be sold.” The two scenarios, from 0:53:37: “We prefer to sell it. Option two. Now, as amended, we remove the wording to lease it. Or or at least it. So if we sell it, great.” and at 0:54:00 “We now can't lease it. So now we are just on the hook for those prices. For all of those costs anyways. But we also have no option for actually making money on the building”. He closes at 0:54:22: “I agree that we should absolutely be looking to sell the building if we possibly can.” | — |
| 0:55:42 | For: the district is not a landlord | “I don't feel like our district needs to be in the landlord business. Having been a landlord, it's a headache to begin with. You can't ever trust who you're going to get in there to rent anything. Finding a renter, you don't. There's a ton of liability with it that I don't think we need to take on as a district.” And at 0:56:04: “I believe the only true option is to sell the property and get it out from underneath us.” A second speaker for the amendment at 1:00:54 is a landlord too: “I am a landlord. When you least that building and someone comes along and wants to purchase it.” / “Where are we at?” / “There's a huge liability to keep me building, so I am very much in favor of removing or lease.” | — |
| 0:57:11 | Against: a forced sale at a low price | An unnamed voter, in fragments from 0:57:11: “Heating and maintaining.” / “Systems throughout that building. It's a large building.” / “If we don't.” / “Have the option, if we can't sell the building, we're going to be holding on.” / “All those carrying costs. Maintenance costs. We get a mobile offer that is way below what the building is worth.” And the conclusion at 0:57:42: “Are we going to be forced to sell it for that unreasonable. We should at least have the option to lease it, to be able to regain those those costs and still in the future, sell it at some point.” The draft minutes place Brian Rapp of ward 2 in this slot. | — |
| 0:59:01 | Against: taking an option off the table lowers the value | “As noted by previous speakers, we are just limiting our capacity in this facility now. So which I think every single board member here has understood that that is the general will of the people, that that's our first goal. But if we don't, as Chris pointed out, if we don't sell it. So no one I don't know how many here wants to go buy a school right now.” At 0:59:30: “That means we're limited in our capacity. What to do with that? And that also limits our valuation to be able to sell it. So we're a string ourselves. We're cutting off our investment because we're taking an option off the table.” | — |
| 1:08:23 | Counsel: the board cannot convey without the voters, and cannot be compelled by a sense of the meeting | “Just to clarify, the board doesn't have authority to sell or convey a title of the property without the authorization of the legislative body. Once the legislative body gives in that authorization, the board has the authority to determine what it does. At that point, it can decide to sell, it can decide to lease, and it can decide to do nothing and repurpose the building.” At 1:08:47: “So the type of amendment is more of a sense of the voters idea that you convey to the board that you would prefer strongly that you sell the building, but if that's not an option, you at least the building.” And at 1:09:05: “what they're asking for is the authority to do either so that they're unlimited.” That advice killed the third-way amendment a Ward 3 voter had floated at 1:07:32; it was never moved. | — |
| 1:09:40 | For: get the liability off the books | “We need to get this liability off of our books. For two reasons. One, any sale from that property is going to go back to the taxpayers or to fill that capital fund that we all so desperately say we need. And two, we just exited a situation where our school administration couldn't keep its own books or pay his bills, and we want to add a landlord to their responsibilities.” A later speaker adds the tax point at 1:11:58: “Seems to me it's a greater win to sell even at a loss, and then get the tax revenue for years to come.” | — |
| 1:13:54 | A board member, from the floor: “people don't trust us” | The speaker identifies himself only as one of the board. “That, in others, that there's a real lack of trust. I think that the board and the administration will handle the sale or the lease with the best interests of the taxpayers at heart. And I think that's I think that's talent, given what we've all been through. It's going to take a while for me to get and trust that, I'm sure.” At 1:14:18: “I've heard people talking about making sure we get the market value for the building. I'm not sure that's really what should be the main objective.” And at 1:14:45: “I think the basic problem we have, and again, with all the people in the room, is people don't trust us. And I think that that's something that the board needs to overcome.” He closes at 1:15:08 asking the board to act “in the public interest and not allowing special interests or pet projects of the administration to influence us as a board.” The draft minutes place Frank Sprague in this slot, speaking for the amendment. | — |
| 1:16:35 | A voter asks for a secret ballot and is refused as out of time | “John seven, Ward three.” / “I requested ballot vote.” The moderator, at 1:16:41: “You have to have ballot in writing. Five signatures prior to the vote in the book is already on the floor.” That is RSA 40:4-a substantially right — five voters, in writing, before the vote — and it is a marked improvement on the rules sheet the district used in 2023 and 2024, which told voters a doubted vote could be met with a counted show of hands on one voter’s request. What she did not mention is RSA 40:4-b, which lets seven or more voters question a declared voice vote immediately after it is declared and requires a retake by secret ballot: the route that was still open to this voter and to the room (flag 12). | OBS 12 |
| 1:19:23 | The moderator calls the voice vote too close and orders a count | “Would say that the I have it. However, it was really close. And I suppose it's going to be questions. I'm going to take a standing vote before I do the vote. I'd like to call the counters. The moderators board.” The count runs from 1:22:23 to about 1:28:14 — nearly six minutes, with the moderator separating registered voters from non-voters at 1:22:23 and the draft minutes recording two points of order during it. The draft minutes give 105 for and 36 against; the amendment passed. No count is spoken on the recording. This is the moderator exercising the RSA 40:4, I power to “make a public declaration of every vote passed” and to regulate the business, without waiting to be challenged. | GOOD |
| 1:33:26 | Counsel stops the meeting taking Article 6 out of order | “It is more efficient to do what you're doing. But the article itself hasn't been brought to the floor. And then there's a board member who's going to introduce it, at which point then you would propose their amendment. So I think we're getting out of order. And I just want to make sure it's just pause and I'm going to pass it back in order.” The article is then read from 1:34:13 and the amendment moved at 1:35:47: “My amendment is to remove the words or lease from the article as written. The excellent have already been expanded upon. Let's get this property back on the tax roll.” The moderator confirms the paperwork at 1:36:38: “For everyone's information. The moderator did you see this ad 12 amendment? And it's in writing with all the prosecutors.” Nobody spoke against it. Carried on a voice vote at 1:41:57. | — |
| 1:46:08 | Article 7: why a district would vote to shut its own residents out of open enrolment | Crawford: “RSA 194 D sections three and four for annual meeting districts and Open Enrollment school must be established by a warrant article voted on by the school district. Because in last October, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that unless a school district voted on how to manage open enrollment, the school district would be responsible for 80% of the costs of students going to another district.” The arithmetic, at 1:47:14: “the average cost per student in New Hampshire is $21,545. 80% of that cost is $17,236. If just six students were to leave Claremont, taxpayers would pay over $100,000 to another town.” (21,545 × 0.8 = 17,236.) And the pending state bill, at 1:49:31: “That makes all schools in New Hampshire subject to open enrollment, regardless of whether or not the district has an open enrollment policy.” Her account of the court ruling is borne out (flag 9). | OBS 9 |
| 1:51:59 | Against: a right you cannot afford to use | “You say that this article doesn't remove the parents right to send them to a different school in another town, but by removing the ability for them to use the. By removing the ability for them to use the tax allotted funding for the student, then you're putting 100% financial burden on the parent, which I think most parents can't actually afford to do.” At 1:52:24: “So you are, in a way, stripping them their right to choose which school to go to. If they don't feel that Claremont is a good enough school, then why not let our taxpayers to go tax dollars go to a school that's better and maybe in Claremont should improve.” | — |
| 1:55:47 | “What is our ability to say no?” — and the answer | “My question would be the not to exceed 10% kids that we're willing to receive. What is the criteria of who we're willing to receive?” (1:55:47), pressed at 1:56:51 and 1:57:32: “As of right now, we do not have a criteria that says if you have a student, for whatever reason, that would cost this district $250,000. We have no criteria to say no, I'm sorry, we don't have a spot for your child. Is that true?” Counsel, at 1:56:55: “Under current law, there's no criteria for saying no. We're saying yes.… I think the board would have to adopt the Policy Center criteria. There is no criteria now is open enrollment hasn't been adopted yet.” And the interim superintendent at 1:58:33: “we would be looking at the board to create that policy as soon as possible if we were, in fact, to pass this article today and send it to the ballot.” RSA 194-D:4 does supply a rule for the over-subscribed case — a school “may select pupils on the basis of aptitude, academic achievement, or need” and must use lottery selection when applications exceed the maximum — and nobody put it to the meeting. | OBS 9 |
| 1:58:50 | The special-education exchange — the board member and counsel disagree | Crawford, in a passage the diarizer shreds into eleven fragments from 1:58:50: “If if the child coming into our. District happens to be” … “Associated descending district is” … “Therefore, in your example, if it was a student that perhaps would cost $250,000 a year, chose” … “To come.” … “To our district, the sending district would be responsible for those costs, not the district.” Counsel interrupts at 1:59:26: “Can I interdict for a second, candy? Yes. Sorry. Clause not delineate who is responsible for the special ed costs between the sending receiving district.… That's not in the current law.” And at 2:10:29: “in all likelihood, you will be responsible for the special interests of your resident districts attending schools outside Claremont… You're the local education agency under the idea.” The statute is not silent. RSA 194-D:5, II provides that the “funding and educational decision-making process for children with disabilities attending a chartered public or open enrollment school shall be the responsibility of the sending school district”: flag 9. | OBS 9 |
| 2:05:39 | A voter asks the meeting to say plainly what the two percentages do | “Just want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly and that the community is hearing this correctly. We're talking about being able to send our kids anywhere in the way I'm reading the 0% is that we would be limiting the number or percentage, in this case of Claremont School District. Students who may attend open outside of Claremont to zero.” (2:05:39) and, at 2:06:41: “can you please explain what the 0% is that limit the percentage of students residing in the school district who may attend open enrollment schools located outside the school district to 0%, because I'm reading that apparently incorrectly.” The interim superintendent’s answer at 2:07:15 did not address it. A voter at the podium did, at 2:08:55: “You are still, as a parent, able to stand here to another school. The difference here is that you are responsible for paying for that 0% is how much money incorrectly Claremont taxpayers are responsible for when sending a student to another school district.” The interim superintendent confirmed it at 2:09:40: “That's absolutely correct.” | — |
| 2:16:40 | A Unity official is voted the floor | The moderator puts it to the room at 2:16:01: “In order for you to speak, we have to take a voice vote”. The speaker, from 2:16:43: “I have a point of order. I just want to verify how does this policy of 42 students coming from school school districts like unity, where they don't offer the high school services, that 10% apply in those situations?” Counsel at 2:17:23: “This doesn't apply to students that ten year through an agreement or other arrangement with the board. So this is only with respect to the open road program.” Unity sends its secondary pupils to Claremont under a tuition agreement, which is why the SAU is styled Claremont/Unity on the warrant’s masthead. | — |
| 2:18:23 | A state representative, by leave, after the question was moved | The moderator at 2:18:23: “I will recognize your point border and ask for a second to public. But as I talked about one of my representatives and is out of town, resident to speak and the moderator I'm allowing this.” The draft minutes are clearer: “Ms. Pope stated that she will honor it, but would like to give Hope Damon a moment to speak.” Damon then spoke for six minutes on House Bill 751 and Senate Bill 101, on why open enrolment does not travel to a state that funds schools “70% by local property taxes”, on paying twice for a departing pupil, and on three gaps in the state bill — transportation, an undefined capacity limit, and silence on existing tuition agreements. Counsel noted the pending motion afterwards, at 2:25:48: “I will note that there was a motion to call the question that was made, and she allowed a speaker. So I think that's on the floor right now.” A moderator may regulate the business of the meeting under RSA 40:4, I; recognising a further speaker after the question is moved and before it is put is within that power, and is recorded here as an observation rather than a defect. | OBS 18 |
| 2:25:10 | Can Article 7 be split in two? No | A voter: “I just want to know what our ability is to to break this into two questions. Can we amend this, this article to break it into two questions.” and, at 2:25:31, “Maybe you want to vote yes on receiving. Maybe you want to vote no on savings, but you don't have the ability to do it in this current working.” Counsel at 2:25:48: “That's not a proper amount. You can't create a second additional article. You can propose amendments to this morning article.” That is right: RSA 40:13, IV permits amendment of warrant articles, not the creation of new ones, and RSA 40:13, IV(c) bars an amendment that eliminates an article’s subject matter. | GOOD |
| 2:28:25 | Article 8 read: the petitioned budget cap | Sprague reads it in fragments from 2:28:25, including at 2:28:58: “Budget cap.” / “Whereby the School Board or budget Committee shall not submit a recommended budget that is higher than the 20 2025 2026 fiscal year per pupil cost times the average daily membership in residents of the school district. As of October 1st of the year immediately preceding the proposed budget year, plus an annual increase for inflation using CPI, you for the Cambridge.” and at 2:29:32: “Boston, Cambridge Newton, mass. New Hampshire area, published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of January 1st. This requires a 3/5 majority of the school district. This has been submitted by the school board. Does not recommend this article.” The last sentence, as transcribed, fuses the warrant’s “(Submitted by petition)” with its recommendation notation. He corrects himself at 2:30:35: “So yes. So we do not recommend this article.” | MEDIUM 4 5 |
| 2:31:23 | The petitioner’s case: income down, cost per pupil up | “In 2016, the median household income in Claremont was just over $60,000 in 2020. For nine years later, the median household income had declined to $59,000. And that's not even a testing for inflation.” (2:32:33) Then the other series, at 2:32:53: “In 2016, the Claremont pupil cost was $16,520. In 2024, it was $23,266, according to the state Department of Education. That's a 41% increase.” At 2:33:28 the income figure is restated as a much larger fall — “When we are household income actually declined by 25%” — which does not follow from her own numbers; both readings are printed as recorded and neither is repaired. Her argument for the override, at 2:35:49: “if the school district wants to be spending beyond the rate of inflation, the voters have to pass the budget by 60% margin. That's actually a very manageable margin if the budget is honest.” And at 2:36:19: “It takes a school to bankrupt a village really is long overdue.” | — |
| 2:39:54 | A board member: this is a no-confidence vote, and it lands on the wrong year | Sprague, speaking as a Ward 2 voter: “I see this, this article eight as the. What I see is the vote of ultimate no confidence in the board and the administration. And I think that's what we just heard from our previous speakers. But I want to push back and say that, that the board did hear you at the public hearing and actually brought forward a budget that is a reduction instead of an increase.” The timing point at 2:41:07: “This will take place not next year, but the year. Not it doesn't affect the budget we voted on today. It's the budget in 27, 28 and the budget that this is based on is an extremely low budget, based on all of the reductions that were made to recover from the mismanagement that we've all experienced.” And the number at 2:41:47: “the this cut, the the cap would result in an approximate $9 million reduction in the 2728 budget, and that's really unsustainable. That would gut the district.” | MEDIUM 8 |
| 2:42:25 | Where the $9 million came from — and what it was measured against | Angell: “I calculated with her pupil cost with the peace of mind.” / “So when I look at the information, what it is, it's a budget versus actual and, and it's, what I'm saying for expenditures through the end of the year. And that's how I cut the, the $9 million reduction that, board member spoke about.” At 2:42:55: “because I got so much out of the budget just to get through this fiscal year that, that created the $9 million reduction”. And at 2:43:22: “I'm going to be making recommendations such as closing the test center, eliminating athletics, closing the two remaining elementary schools. Okay. It is going to be deep.” Neither he nor Sprague said which budget the $9 million was subtracted from. The board’s approved minutes of 20 January do: it is the difference between his capped estimate of $35,700,906 and the Option A budget of $44,844,373, an option the board replaced the next evening. Against the $42,957,713 actually before the voters, the same estimate is a reduction of about $7.26 million (flag 8). | MEDIUM 8 |
| 2:43:52 | Counsel gives the meeting the statute, and the defect in the article | “Pulling out the statue right now. I spoke about this at the hearing. The the legal concern I want to bring to the community's attention is, not with the concept itself. The statute allows the adoption of a budget cap. The law in question is are, say 325 dash. The method of adoption is RSA 32 colon 5-F” At 2:44:18: “That law says that the wording of the question shall be and then it provides the wording of the question. So that's what we call the mandatory language.” And the point of departure: “the law says that the form of the question is, shall we adopt the provisions of our, say, 32 polling five and implement a budget cap whereby school board or budget committee not submit a recommended budget as higher than.” / “And this is the part where this petition is different than the law, higher than a blank dollars, and it literally has a line in the lower dollars per pupil cost.” (2:44:55) His conclusion at 2:45:28: “My understanding is that the legislature wanted you to put a dollar amount there. That's the language of the statute. So the best I can do is say, if you adopt this, I can't provide certainty.” and at 2:45:54 “you may end up having to resolve this adoption through litigation with the Dre.” The statute bears him out — and carries a second departure he did not name (flag 4). | MEDIUM 4 |
| 2:47:22 | Against the cap: the crisis, every year, on purpose | “So first off, I will say I think everybody in this room agrees that this last year was a crisis. Right?” (2:47:22) “This budget cap would institute that crisis every year going forward. Plus 3%, which isn't really anything because you're under.” (2:47:45) The speaker then argues from the Cato Institute’s cost-of-living figure at 2:48:20: “to live in New Hampshire at a bare minimum level of security that is lower middle class, you need a minimum annual household income of $108,000.” and at 2:48:46 “a two adult household needs to make $54,000 each to be considered lower middle class. And the average teacher in Claremont makes less than that.” He closes at 2:49:37: “taking money from our kids future because insurance companies keep raising prices is not the right decision.” | — |
| 2:50:09 | Reassessment, and a senior’s arithmetic | An older voter, in fragments from 2:50:09: “if you turn around and have your place reassessed in with the possibility of two years being back up, the same amount of money to pay out again.” / “Where are you going to get it? You have in your front yard or in your backyard that's going to produce these bills.” At 2:51:23: “I know 3% is hard, but are you?” / “Seniors don't get much more than that.” And at 2:51:34: “We've got to come up with a solution that works for everybody. I like it here, but I don't want it to be pushed out of this town.” A second speaker returns to reassessment at 3:19:46. | — |
| 2:53:01 | Against the cap: per-pupil cost rises when pupils leave | “I have.” / “Some issues with this simply because it's out on a few budget committees myself, and I explained certain expenses can often go well beyond the consumer price index increases in an movie year. Insurance retirements, they 1037 over 2% a year” (2:53:01). The core of it at 2:53:35: “If you remove two students from a class, the average cost per pupil actually increases. Because of that. It's basic math”, and at 2:54:03: “it still cost the same amount to run in that classroom, and it still costs the same amount to to run the school and to heat that school in all of those settings.” The same argument, from the other direction, closes the debate at 3:50:02. | — |
| 3:01:33 | A point of order: is the article lawful at all? | “To make the same point. Point of order, Chris. As far as I understand it, per legal counsel, this one article may not even be legal. Is currently written because it does not follow RSA 325 be by giving an actual number.” and at 3:02:33: “my argument would actually be based on the point of order here that the entire warrant article has written is illegal, and does not actually follow the rules required for to put it on the ballot at all.” Counsel answered at 3:02:53: “the form of the question in the petition Warren article has all of the prescribed linkage correct, except with respect to the part that says the 2025 2026 fiscal year. The statute says it's supposed to say blank dollars”. He did not accept that the article could be kept off the ballot; RSA 40:13, VI gives the first session no such power. | MEDIUM 4 |
| 3:03:30 | Counsel on what may and may not be amended | “But there are two other places where this article, by design, is amendable. One is by naming the particular index, there are different index indices that can be used. The other is by changing the name of the U.S..” / “Bureau of Labor Statistics, city or county. So with these articles, you can't amend the prescribed language. You can't amend it to change the subject matter, because no article can be amended to change the subject matter.” (3:03:50) And at 3:04:22: “Once you get here in front of this body, that intent is a first session and modification by the person.” Those two amendable places are exactly the two parentheticals in RSA 32:5-f, IV, which reads “using (the index) published by (the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or American City and County)”. What he does not say is that RSA 40:13, IV(c) expressly permits an amendment that changes a dollar amount — which is what was moved next and what the statute’s own blank calls for. | MEDIUM 4 |
| 3:04:50 | The only amendment to Article 8: insert a per-pupil dollar figure | The mover: “About a budget cap, and I'm just changing it to make it more legal, actually, and putting a number for people.” (3:04:55) and “So it would state now shall not submit a recommended budget that is higher than a 500 per pupil cost times the average, and everything else is the same. So we are now putting a right to average about for people who want to make this cap actually make sense.” (3:05:26). The transcript garbles the figure throughout; the draft minutes give it as $50,000 per pupil and name the mover as Amanda Barton, seconded by Matt Bean. Speakers used the same figure — “Setting a dollar amount of 5000” (3:09:22), “the $50,000 Kaplan” (3:19:24), “The 50,000 cap” (3:28:12). Against Claremont’s own $26,012.84 the amendment would have set a ceiling at nearly twice current spending, which is what its opponents said: “It's way above what we currently spend per pupil.” | — |
| 3:06:46 | “why we're trying to pigeonhole it into a certain year” | “I don't know if I'm the only one that's not that is seeing the obvious issue here. I don't know why we're trying to pigeonhole it into a certain year, and I don't know why we're trying to pigeonhole it into a dollar amount.” and, at 3:07:42: “I would be 100% support of this if the wording said budget that is higher than the previous fiscal year, and then adding the other items in line with inflation and what is recommended.” That is a description of what RSA 32:5-e, I actually does — the cap rolls forward year by year — and it is not what RSA 32:5-f, IV lets a district write into the question, which is a fixed dollar figure. | — |
| 3:08:02 | Counsel distinguishes a tax cap from a budget cap | “There has been, in the law, a local tax cap revision. That's our say 325 B and the adoption provisions is subsection C. As far as I'm aware, that's been on the books of 2011. That allows you to set up for, for increasing your budget year to year.” and at 3:08:29: “This is a school district budget cap, which is it's like a pass to have, but it's a gas theoretically different, a more restrictive. It's new. This was adopted in 2024. It went into effect last year. So last year was the first year any district would have adopted a school district budget cap.” Both dates check out. RSA 32:5-e and 32:5-f were inserted by 2024, 353:2, effective 1 October 2024, and amended by 2025, 183, effective 13 September 2025 — the amendment he elsewhere calls “its adoption in September of 2025”. | GOOD |
| 3:11:32 | A student asks leave to speak, and the meeting gives it | “My name is John. I am from four three and although I am not a voter because I am a minor, I would like to ask if I can have the opportunity to speak.” The moderator: “I have to take a voice vote. Anyone wishing to speak to us.” (3:11:50), the room answers Aye at 3:12:13 and a scattering of No at 3:12:15, and he speaks. His case, from 3:12:30: “I know, and I will say with my whole chest, this even high school is a shining example of what the people of Claremont have to stay and fight for.” and “Any variation of this budget cap would place not just the school arts programs, but all of the other extracurriculars like the Tech Center, which have all guided countless students to successful futures at dire risk.” He closes at 3:13:28: “Defunding the extracurriculars of the district is unacceptable, and I call upon every citizen of Claremont to work together and not only vote accordingly, but keep pushing us.” | OBS 16 |
| 3:15:13 | Unfunded mandates, from a second student the dialogue file does not separate | After a 105-second silence a second voice — labelled with the same name in the dialogue file, named separately in the draft minutes as an SHS senior — runs the list: “a budget cap would not account for the variable costs of the things which the sleeve requires but does not pay for. For example, school nurses, which every school is required to have a New Hampshire does not pay for transportation.” (3:15:13) and at 3:15:49: “There are also certain standards that be met for public schools of stars, facilities and maintenance. Go. But you guessed it, the state doesn't cover those either. Teachers, aides and educators are also not covered, but are required as much as for special ed programs, technology and security equipment.” Closing at 3:16:20: “I would also like to end this by saying that it takes a village to bankrupt a school district.” The nurse example is not right as stated — this project has verified that New Hampshire does not require a district to employ a school nurse — and it is quoted here as the speaker’s characterisation. | OBS 16 |
| 3:22:16 | “a cap of 90 miles an hour on Broad Street” | “A substitution of a 50,000 per kid.” / “Per year. I would offer this as a comparison with our law enforcement community. I propose a cap of 90 miles an hour on Broad Street.” / “All in favor, say I see the cap.” The petitioners answered it directly at 3:22:38: “I said the campus is in generous and defeats the purpose. I agree with, you know, the unintended consequences. But we, again had no choice. We're working with state law, and we had to follow the RSA to do this.” and at 3:23:03: “Except I can't come here and break the law and expect you to listen to me.” And at 3:23:52 the sharpest description of the instrument anyone gave: “on this campus, it's a growth cap.” / “It's not fair to call it a true spending cap because it's not fixed. This number will go up every year with inflation.” | — |
| 3:26:55 | The meeting votes on the wrong question, and counsel unwinds it | The moderator declares a vote at 3:26:55 — “Days. Have it.” — and counsel intervenes at 3:27:17: “So just be clear. That was just a vote on calling the question. This is what the moderators ruling is. I know it's been confused a little bit. The amendment is still on the floor until you vote to call the question on the internet. All right. So some of you may have voted thinking you were voting against the amendment.” and at 3:27:37: “Then you actually voted against calling the question. So right now the amendment is on the floor. Still, someone can make a motion to call the question again. Fix that.” It took three further motions and two more votes to reach the amendment itself, which the moderator then put to a counted standing vote rather than a voice vote — “Because there's been so much discussion on this. I'm going to ask for a standing vote rather than do a voiceover.” (3:32:21). The draft minutes give 80 for, 121 against; the amendment failed. | — |
| 3:40:50 | The petitioner’s closing: the override, and who is trusted | “Is Emily San blade and I still live in Ward three.” / “The most important thing that that that everybody needs to realize is that if the board needs to exceed the spending cap, they have the means to do so, and they're not. Difficult means what they do have to do is they have to be straightforward about what they want, and they have to persuade the voters that that the increases are justified.” The inversion, at 3:41:45: “Anybody who.” / “Thinks that the voters shouldn't be able to, make a decision to exceed the spending cap doesn't trust the voters.” / “They don't trust you.” She then challenged the administration’s figure at 3:42:38: “he said that the spending per capita per student was 35.7 million.” and gave the denominator at 3:43:15: “Was 1496 students. That's how many people were attending regularly in Claremont schools.” The $35.7 million she names is the capped-budget estimate, not a per-pupil figure. | — |
| 3:44:02 | A board member concedes the support and argues the timing | Sprague, at the end: “I have to say, I was surprised, that there does seem to be support for a tax act. We we saw. I think the problem we're facing is I'm going to use Tom Luther's example of the 90 miles an hour on, on Broad Street or Pleasant Street. I think that that's sort of the 5000 equivalent of that.” and at 3:44:31: “On the other hand, are the catastrophic cuts will have to make if we adopt this particular article this year. I think it's a matter of bad timing. I think that there is support for this. I just think that right now is the wrong time. And so I'm a no vote on it at this point, because I just feel that it's based on numbers that aren't truly representative of what our budget is.” | MEDIUM 8 |
| 3:45:13 | For the cap: the loss, and the year | “Cynthia Howard, Ward two I have worked on spending caps for several years, and it is something that's near and dear to my heart and I hope this passes. And I think the time is right with all the fraud and abuse which should have never happened. Losing $5 million of taxpayer money. I think that's a disgrace to this district.” And at 3:45:53: “this is the high tax city, small population, very few jobs. And if any time this needs to pass, it would be now.” The $5 million is the speaker’s characterisation of the deficit discovered in August 2025; the district’s own forensic audit was still at the conflict-check stage on 4 March 2026, per the board’s approved minutes of that date. | — |
| 3:49:00 | The last argument: how hard an override really is | “It's going to be a real damage tax cut. Communities have real problems. They really override them.… It isn't 50%. It's £0.03.” — the transcript’s rendering of three fifths — and at 3:49:32: “You need to override this. You need to it's very difficult to override these caps. So we're hamstring us ourselves. And I'd like to point out that the renovations for Stevens remember that we needed a 60%. We couldn't get it. We missed it by one vote for that. And we we lost out on a significant amount of money. That's how bad these caps are.” The speaker then joins the two articles at 3:50:02: “in line with the opening Roman, what's going to happen is you have your student leave. The funding is the same that goes out of district. That still counts.” The three-fifths override is RSA 32:5-e, III, and the statute requires that override vote to be by ballot. | — |
| 3:53:55 | Counsel: nothing more to vote on — it goes to the ballot by law | “So this is a great question. So you're in a deliberate session right. You are discussing and debating and amending board articles. Then they move to the ballot. We've had a proposed amendment. That amendment failed. The original Division Warren article was back on the floor. You had a someone moved to call the question. That is debate. It passed.” and at 3:54:33: “We were voting if it was going to go to the ballot. You don't have that choice. It goes to the ballot timeout and goes to the ballot by operation law. You can't vote it up or down.” Before that, at 3:53:31, he flagged the warrant’s own notation: “So the language that was added. The school board recommends the circle is misleading that. So that's what's there right now. So let me just explain the the notation at the bottom of the word article is for the board to correct. Prior to putting it on the ballot it's not for the meeting.” (flag 5). | MEDIUM 5 |
| 3:55:11 | The third restriction motion, and what it does | The chair: “Moved to restrict any further consideration to more articles six, seven and eight.” A voter questions it at 3:56:11 — “Say no, we can just.” — and counsel explains at 3:56:57: “If you pass a motion to restrict reconsideration. There is no further reconsideration. That's on the ballot end. That's it. No further discussion.” and at 3:57:14 “you could make a motion or you consider something that hasn't been restricted. If this motion that you're about to put on does not ask.” Carried on a voice vote at 3:58:21. Article 6 is restricted twice, by this motion and by the chair’s earlier one at 1:44:04. Under RSA 40:10, III the restriction expires at final adjournment of this session; it does not reach the March ballot, and counsel’s “That's on the ballot end” should not be read as saying otherwise. | — |
| 3:58:33 | Close | “Thank you for your attention and patience today. Could I please have your attention just for a moment?” and, at 3:58:45: “Is.” / “Tuesday, March 10th, 2026, and it will be an all day balloting.” Last words at 3:58:59: “Have a great rest of your day.” The draft minutes give adjournment at 1:24 p.m. No motion to adjourn appears on the recording or in the minutes. | — |