Claremont School Board — October 7, 2020

OBSERVATION The two remote members could not hear the $845,000 motion when it was made; a remote vote was relayed by the chair, and the meeting adjourned by voice vote

Lovett and Towle took part on Google Meet. After the contingency motion was made and seconded, Lovett said "There's a lot of mix that are on. I can't even hear what is being asked right now." (1:38:29) and Towle "none of us can understand" (1:38:33). The chair had the motion restated for them (1:39:03) before the roll call, which cures the main problem. On the roll call Lovett's answer is transcribed "I don't know." and the chair relays "What Rob said. Yes." (1:40:47); the transcript may have garbled the answer, but the recording alone does not show clearly what he said. The meeting then closed on a voice vote (2:20:27) with both remote members still connected.

Governor Sununu's Emergency Order #12 (March 23, 2020) waived only RSA 91-A:2, III(b)'s requirement that a quorum be physically present, on conditions of public telephone access. It did not waive III(c), under which remote participants must be able to "simultaneously hear each other and speak", or III(e): "All votes taken during such a meeting shall be by roll call vote." Every substantive vote on this recording was a roll call (flag 7); only the adjournment was not. Recorded as an observation because the audibility lapse was corrected on the floor and the one voice vote was procedural.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, III(c) and (e) (2019 codification; source note ends 2018, 244:1, in force until 2023): members hear each other; roll-call votes; Emergency Order #12 (March 23, 2020): waives the physical-quorum requirement only.

OBSERVATION High school busing ended for the five-day return; the statement that the law requires busing only through grade 8 is broadly accurate but leaves out the distance rule

The September 23 vote returned cohorts A and B to school on October 19 with "no bussing" for Stevens High School (see the September 23 page). A Stevens counselor told the board that "By taking away bussing, we are inadvertently creating a barrier for students who want to come to school" (0:07:53) and asked for "even just 1 or 2 busses" (0:09:05). The administration answered with the 24-rider cap and transient demand (0:22:08), and an unidentified administrator said the district is required by law to bus grades 1 to 8 (0:27:24).

As in force from July 1, 2020, RSA 189:6 required a district to "furnish transportation to pupils in kindergarten through grade 8 who live more than 2 miles from the school to which they are assigned", and made transportation for grades 9 through 12 discretionary "when it finds that this is appropriate", unless the commissioner of education directs it. So the high school decision was within the board's discretion. The board took no vote on the counselor's request and asked for no count of affected students, although Zullo asked for one (0:26:36). Recorded as an observation: no rule was broken; the point is the trade-off the board accepted.

Sources: RSA 189:6 (as amended by 2019, 181:1, eff. July 1, 2020): K-8 transport beyond 2 miles required; grades 9 to 12 discretionary.

OBSERVATION The 5% retention rested on a statute ten days old; the record does not show the voter authorization it requires, and the motion called it a "contingency fund"

Seaman told the board that the retention limit had "just recently" risen from 2.5% to 5% and that the board must hold a public hearing before spending the money (1:28:07, 1:28:52). That is accurate: RSA 198:4-b, II was amended by 2020, 38:25, effective September 27, 2020, ten days before this meeting. Before that date the cap was 2.5 percent. The amended paragraph lets a district, "by a vote of the legislative body", authorize retention "indefinitely until specific rescission" up to "5 percent of the current fiscal year's net assessment under RSA 198:5", and requires that "Prior to expending retained general funds, the school board shall hold a prior public hearing" with newspaper notice at least 7 days ahead. The hearing duty attaches to spending, not to the vote to retain, so no hearing was needed tonight.

Two points a reader cannot check from here. First, paragraph II rests on a vote of the district's voters; Seaman says the board has retained 2.5% for "the last probably 7 or 8 years", which suggests such an authorization exists, but no warrant article is in the record, and whether it covered a figure above 2.5% is not stated. Second, the motion as restated speaks of appropriating 5% "To establish a contingency fund" (1:39:03); in RSA 198:4-b a contingency fund is paragraph I, established by a separate warrant article, while year-end retention is paragraph II. The business administrator's recommendation and the 5% figure match paragraph II. The minutes, not posted, would show which the board adopted.

Sources: RSA 198:4-b, II (2020 codification; source note ends 2020, 38:25, eff. Sept. 27, 2020); RSA 198:4-b, II (2019 codification: 2.5 percent cap, no hearing clause). Emergency Order 38, which Seaman mentions as an alternative, is his characterization and was not verified.

OBSERVATION Members and a former member disputed whether voters were told the transportation trust would buy vans; the board narrowed the purchase rather than resolve it

Seaman described the trust voters created in March 2020 as a "$500,000 transportation reserve specifically for the purpose of replacing busses when it was necessary, or vans" (1:41:45) and recalled a hearing figure of "Up to $400,000 for busses, and the remainder would be for vans" (1:45:11). Patrick Adrian recalled that "there was never a mention of bands" [vans] (1:56:32); Towle did not remember vans either (1:58:04). Once the vans were tied to a planned special education program, Whitney and Towle said the money should come from the special education trust, and Seaman agreed (1:59:22). The board replaced the $275,000 motion with $247,000 for two buses and one van (2:01:28), passed by roll call. Separately, Zullo said a board policy lets members see bids and that she had never seen one (1:52:26); the answer is garbled on the recording.

The warrant article, the hearing materials and the bid policy are not in the project's files, so whether the purchase fits the trust's stated purpose cannot be checked here. The narrowing and the open discussion of fund source are to the board's credit. Recorded as an observation; no statutory rule was verified for this flag.

Sources: no statutory rule verified; dialogue rows at 1:41:45, 1:45:11, 1:56:32, 1:59:22 and 2:02:30.

OBSERVATION A goal-setting retreat replaced the November 4 meeting, and a daytime budget committee continued; neither has a public record in the project's sources

The board agreed by consensus to hold its retreat on the regular meeting night of Wednesday, November 4 (2:11:00). A retreat of the full board is "the convening of a quorum of the membership of a public body" to discuss matters within its jurisdiction, so it is a meeting under RSA 91-A:2, I, with notice and minutes required. The corpus holds no recording for November 4, 2020 and MAP.md has no section for it; the next recording is December 2, 2020. The budget committee of three members (Sprague, Petrin, Benware) meets in the daytime with principals (2:03:28); as a committee of the board it is itself a public body under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d). No notice or minutes of either are posted online, which is the limitation of the district's online archive described in flag 6 rather than evidence that none were kept.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, I and II (2019 codification): meetings of a quorum; notice and minutes; RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (source note ends 2008, 354:1): "or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto".

OBSERVATION No agenda, notice or minutes for this meeting are posted online, though the recording shows minutes being kept

MAP.md records that neither district Drive share holds anything before July 2022 (checked 9/26/26). On this recording the board approves three sets of minutes (0:03:26), including those of the September 23 special meeting fourteen days earlier. In 2020, RSA 91-A:2, II required minutes open to public inspection "not more than 5 business days after the meeting" and naming the members "who made or seconded each motion". Whether that was met cannot be tested from here. The limb of the project's missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation, not a finding that minutes were never produced.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification; text in force in 2020); Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 132.