Participants
Everyone the recording shows taking part. Names follow the project's dialogue file; no minutes exist online to check spellings against, so unverified spellings are marked. Members are listed first. Because the roll call is not transcribed, members who attended without speaking cannot be listed.
| Name | Role | Participation |
|---|
| Michael Petrin | SAU 6 Board Chair (Claremont member) | Presided. Noted that the October minutes were not ready, ran the budget discussion, confirmed the budget vote for December 16, and asked for the nonpublic motion. The transcript renders the SAU as See you. Six and the superintendent as Mr. Pesta. |
| Frank Sprague | Member (Claremont; Claremont School Board chair) | Asked most of the budget questions: staff moved from the SAU to the Claremont budget, salaries paid above budget for the HR coordinator, special education director and technology director, the food-service coordinator's split position, a "floating 7000" for the assistant superintendent, the $100,000 in the prior year's column, and the audit line. |
| Steven Horsky | Member (Claremont), remote | Took part by video ("he's just on your screen", per the clerk). Asked why merit pay was budgeted at 3% when the board had suspended it; moved to enter nonpublic session at 0:37:40. |
| Nicholas Stone | Member (Claremont) | Seconded the agenda and the nonpublic motion; asked about the time-clock software maintenance cost and the merit-pool actuals. |
| Unidentified member | Member | Moved the agenda at 0:01:56; the voice is not identified in the dialogue file. |
| Michael Tempesta | Superintendent, SAU 6 | Superintendent's report: curriculum alignment work, a comparison of SAT and AP results with neighboring schools, Running Start college-credit results, the tech center and the Region 10 agreement, and COVID case counts. Said the original merit-evaluation documents had been found. |
| Dr. Janeiro (spelling unverified) | Curriculum administrator, SAU 6 | Presented curriculum mapping and scope-and-sequence work; reported that "61% of our teachers are new within the last three years". First name and surname spelling are not established in any record. |
| Richard Seaman | Assistant Superintendent for Finance, SAU 6 | Presented the proposed SAU budget: little change except the state retirement increase, merit modeled at 3%, receptionist reduced from 1.0 to 0.5 FTE, above-budget salaries explained as market adjustments, $100,000 of last year's surplus set aside for SAU office improvements, audits "behind" and catching up, and the Claremont apportionment up about $37,000. |
| Jeff Small | Director of Technology, SAU 6 | Answered on training for the new data person and on time-clock software support. |
| Mary Woodman | Clerk and recording secretary | Called the roll (the chair's request is heard as Derek). Explained that the October minutes were not done: "Giant to break my ankle. And having a computer that doesn't work. I didn't get them done." Relayed that the remote member had a question. |
| Citizens' comments | None | The chair moved past citizens' comments at 0:17:05 "as no one's here". |
Order of business (reconstructed)
No agenda for this meeting is posted in any district share, so this list is reconstructed from the chair's transitions on the recording. The chair refers to "the agenda in front of us". Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.
| Taken up | Item | Agenda text / disposition |
|---|
| 0:00:12 | Call to order, pledge, attendance | Called to order by the chair; roll at 0:00:59, mostly untranscribed. |
| 0:01:51 | Agenda | No amendments. Motion by an unidentified member, second Stone; voice vote at 0:02:03. |
| 0:02:03 | Minutes of the October meeting | Not ready; carried to the next meeting. |
| 0:02:26 | Superintendent's report | Curriculum alignment (Dr. Janeiro at 0:04:20), college-credit data, tech center, COVID. Questions invited at 0:17:00; none. |
| 0:17:05 | Citizens' comments | None; no members of the public present. |
| 0:17:05 | Discussion and action: SAU 6 proposed budget | Presentation and questions; no vote. The chair confirmed at 0:36:54 that the vote would be at the December 16 meeting. |
| 0:35:42 | Policy update | No policies. Seaman: "We really don't have a committee or anyone working policies for the essay." Follow-up promised. |
| 0:36:54 | Future agenda items; other business | Next meeting December 16 for the budget vote. No other business. |
| 0:37:40 | Nonpublic session | Motion Horsky ("State and personnel."), statute supplied as 91-A colon three, second Stone; the chair calls "All in favor?" at 0:37:57 and the recording ends. See flag 1. |
Discussion timeline
Chronological, from the dialogue CSV. Times are the start of the cited exchange, taken from the CSV's own second count. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped cell for the full entry.
| Time | Topic | What was said | Flags |
|---|
| 0:00:12 | Call to order | "Good evening. I'd like to call the November 18th. See you. Six school board meeting to order." Pledge and roll call follow; the roll is almost wholly untranscribed. | |
| 0:01:51 | Agenda approved | "Motion that we accept the agenda presented." Stone seconded; the chair called "All those in favor?" and "Opposed?" (a voice vote). | MEDIUM |
| 0:02:03 | October minutes not ready | Chair: "We don't have the October 20th minutes." Clerk: "Giant to break my ankle. And having a computer that doesn't work. I didn't get them done." Chair: "It's fine. We'll get them next time". | MEDIUM |
| 0:02:36 | Superintendent's report: strategic plan | Data prepared for the recent Claremont retreat; the Claremont restructuring proposal was tabled ("the board felt it's not the time to do that."); aligning middle school, Stevens and tech center schedules. | |
| 0:04:20 | Curriculum alignment | Dr. Janeiro: gathering data toward "a more data driven district"; curriculum maps and scope and sequence beginning in the spring; "61% of our teachers are new within the last three years". | |
| 0:08:00 | Comparisons and college credit | SAT and AP results shown against Plymouth, Lebanon (Leib), Kearsarge and Fall Mountain (Paul Mountain): "We're in the pack like everyone else, I think." In 2020, 26 students took 30 AP tests with 11 qualifying scores; last year 125 students earned Running Start credit. | |
| 0:11:00 | Tech center and Region 10 | Tempesta told business leaders that "there's no definitive, steps that have been taken to to pull out of the agreement with Newport", but that amending it was under consideration. | |
| 0:14:35 | COVID | 362 active cases in Sullivan County and 167 in Claremont, "highest that has been to date"; a public vaccination clinic on Sunday, December 5 at Claremont Middle School. | |
| 0:17:29 | Proposed SAU budget | Seaman: "There is really no change in the budget from last year to this year." The bulk of the increase is the state's 3% retirement increase; salaries modeled at 3% "because no one at the saw was a part of a negotiated entity." | POSITIVE |
| 0:19:17 | Merit pool | Horsky (remote): "I believe we suspended that until we get a formula put together that works." Seaman: payouts are "in abeyance" until the evaluation criteria are in place; unspent money "comes back down to the bottom line". Tempesta: "Ben found that", the original documents. | MEDIUM |
| 0:21:43 | Staffing; receptionist cut | Receptionist reduced from 1.0 FTE to 0.5 FTE, the only staffing change. | |
| 0:22:15 | Salaries above budget | Sprague asked how a budgeted salary of about $49,942 becomes $55,000 (HR coordinator). Seaman: the position was benchmarked against the market "and there were conversations and approved that that position would be raised from what the budget was to what the market position is". The same applied to the special education director and the technology director. | OBS |
| 0:23:45 | Food service and data position | A staff member working 0.2 on food service was hired as data system specialist; she keeps 0.2 food service. Seaman: "She gets point eight of tech and 0.2 of food service. So she'll be a 1.02." Also a "floating 7000" in the assistant superintendent line, explained as days worked by Donna Magoon this year. | |
| 0:26:04 | Technology lines | Small: training money is for the new data person; notes in the sheet were not updated. Stone questioned time-clock software maintenance; Seaman: "That's like buying insurance. Nick." | |
| 0:28:09 | $100,000 from last year's surplus | Sprague asked where a $100,000 figure came from. Seaman: the SAU was favorable to budget, "And the decision was made so as to do the additional improvements that the saw", paint, carpet and conference-room furniture after the building project. | OBS |
| 0:29:56 | Audit line and overdue audits | Sprague: FY20 budgeted and unused, FY21 $30,000 unused, current year $25,000: "Are the auditors coming." Seaman: "They're about to finish up the s a year 19 audit. As you know we've been behind on audits and catching up." Goal: FY19, FY20 and FY21 done this year; a single audit costs roughly $7,500 to $9,000. He agreed to revisit the line. | OBS POSITIVE |
| 0:33:46 | Apportionment | Apportionment by attendance and valuation: "Claremont is going up by 37,000 and unity is going up in this case by four." Approval planned for December. | |
| 0:35:42 | Policy update | No policies before the board; Seaman: "We really don't have a committee or anyone working policies for the essay." Tempesta said he and Donna had been working on it. | |
| 0:36:54 | Next meeting | Chair: the December 16 meeting "should be the night we vote to approve the budget, correct?" Seaman: "Yes, please." | |
| 0:37:40 | Motion to enter nonpublic session | Horsky: "I was just going to make the motion to go into public session. State and personnel." Chair: "So you got the RSA." Seaman: "91-A colon three. There you go." Chair: "Second Nicholas. Second. Set any discussion? All in favor?" The recording ends here. | HIGH |
Items flagged for review
Flags are a reviewer's aid generated by comparing the meeting against the law in force on November 18, 2021. Each flag cites the text as it then read. They are not findings of violation, and nothing here is legal advice. Where no verified rule applies, the flag says so and is recorded as an observation. Seven flags follow, ordered by severity.
HIGH The motion to enter nonpublic session named no exemption from RSA 91-A:3, II, and the chair put it to a voice vote
At 0:37:40 Horsky moved "to go into public session. State and personnel." (the context shows a nonpublic session was meant). Prompted by the chair, Seaman supplied only the section: "91-A colon three. There you go." The chair then took a second from Stone and asked "All in favor?" (0:37:57), which is the form of a voice vote; the recording ends at that point. RSA 91-A:3, I(b), as in force in 2021, required that "Any motion to enter nonpublic session shall state on its face the specific exemption under paragraph II which is relied upon" and that "The vote on any such motion shall be by roll call". The word "personnel" is not an exemption: paragraph II lists specific grounds, among them II(a) (dismissal, promotion, compensation or discipline of an employee) and II(b) (hiring). A member of the public could not tell from the motion which ground was claimed.
Mitigation: the recording stops as the vote is called, so a roll call taken afterwards cannot be ruled out, and the minutes that might show one are not available. The defect in the motion's wording is on the tape regardless. Four weeks later the same board, on the same member's motion, named II(a) and took roll-call votes both ways (see the December 16 page). No decision from this session is recorded anywhere this project can reach.
Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) and II (2019 codification; these passages read the same in the 2022 codification, so the 2021 amendments did not change them): motion must state the specific exemption; roll-call vote.
MEDIUM A member took part remotely, but the agenda vote was a voice vote
Horsky participated by video: the clerk said at 0:19:06 "I think Steven has a question. Yes. Sorry, he's just on your screen." The agenda was approved on a call of "All those in favor? Opposed?" (0:02:03). RSA 91-A:2, III(e) required that when a member participates remotely "All votes taken during such a meeting shall be by roll call vote", and III(a) required the reason in-person attendance was not reasonably practical to be "stated in the minutes of the meeting". No reason was stated on the tape and no minutes are available. The same problem affects the nonpublic vote in flag 1. The COVID-19 state of emergency, under which Emergency Order #12 had relaxed these rules, expired on June 11, 2021.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, III(a), (e) (2019 codification; source note ends 2018, 244:1, so the text in force in 2021); New Hampshire Public Radio, June 10, 2021 (reporting): state of emergency to expire June 11, 2021.
MEDIUM The minutes of the October SAU 6 meeting had not been written four weeks later
At 0:02:03 the chair said "We don't have the October 20th minutes." The clerk answered "I didn't get them done", citing a broken ankle and a computer that did not work. The project's recording of that meeting is dated October 21, 2021 (MAP.md section 154), so the chair's "October 20th" is probably a slip; either way the meeting was four weeks earlier. RSA 91-A:2, II required minutes to "be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting". Four weeks later again, on December 16, the November minutes were not ready either (see the December 16 page).
Limb of the project's missing-records rule applied: the recording itself shows the statutory window missed, so this is more than an online-availability observation; it is graded MEDIUM, not HIGH, because the record gives a reason (the clerk's injury and equipment failure) and the chair treated the minutes as coming. The duty belongs to the public body, not only to one clerk, and no one on the tape proposed another way of producing them.
Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2019 codification, in force in 2021): minutes open to inspection within 5 business days.
OBSERVATION Salaries were raised above budget and $100,000 of surplus was committed to office improvements on decisions the recording does not attribute to the board
Seaman explained at 0:22:43 that for the HR coordinator "there were conversations and approved that that position would be raised from what the budget was to what the market position is", and confirmed the same for the special education director and the technology director. At 0:28:32 he explained that the SAU ended last year favorable to budget "And the decision was made so as to do the additional improvements that the saw", setting aside $100,000 for paint, carpet and furniture. In neither case did he say who approved or decided.
RSA 194-C:5, III provides that the SAU board "shall fix the salaries of all school administrative unit personnel". If the raises were approved by the board, that approval is not in any available record; if they were approved administratively, the statute's allocation of that power is the question a reviewer would ask. This page found no verified statute governing how an SAU may carry forward or spend a year-end surplus, so that part is recorded as the speaker's account only. Sprague's line-by-line questioning is what brought both items into the public record.
Sources: RSA 194-C:5, III (1996, 298:3; never amended): the SAU board fixes the salaries of all SAU personnel.
OBSERVATION The SAU's audits were more than two years behind: the fiscal 2019 audit was only finishing in November 2021
Seaman at 0:30:23: "They're about to finish up the s a year 19 audit. As you know we've been behind on audits and catching up." He hoped to finish fiscal 2019, 2020 and 2021 within the year, and the budget had carried audit money in years when no audit was billed. At the time, no located New Hampshire statute required an SAU to obtain an annual audit: RSA 21-J:19 names towns, school districts and village districts, not school administrative units, and RSA 194-C:4, II(a) lists "audits" among the services an SAU must provide to its districts. A duty for SAUs to be independently audited came only with 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 272 (SB 586), effective July 1, 2026. Federal single-audit rules apply only where an entity spends $750,000 or more in federal awards in a year; the SAU's federal spending is not stated on the record. The lag matters to a reader because unaudited years were the base on which this budget was built.
Sources: RSA 194-C:4, II(a) (2010, 5:2): audits among required SAU services; RSA 21-J:19 (permissive; names towns, school districts and village districts); 2 CFR 200.501 (single audit at $750,000 in federal expenditures for fiscal years before October 1, 2024); 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 272 (SB 586), approved July 2, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026 (cited only to show the SAU audit duty came later).
OBSERVATION No agenda, budget document or minutes are posted online, and the recording omits the attendance roll and the end of the meeting
MAP.md records that neither district Drive share holds anything before July 2022 (checked 9/26/26). That is a limit of what the district posts online, not by itself evidence that records were never made. Here it combines with two gaps in the tape itself: the attendance roll at 0:00:59 is almost entirely untranscribed, so which members attended cannot be established, and the recording stops as the nonpublic vote is called, so the outcome of that vote, any return to public session and the adjournment are not recorded. The proposed budget exists for the public only as the figures read aloud. The limb of the project's missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation.
Sources: Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 156.
POSITIVE The proposed SAU budget was put before the board a month ahead of the vote and questioned line by line in public, with no hearing required by statute
Seaman offered to go "page by page" (0:18:40), sent the budget electronically days ahead, took detailed questions from three members, and agreed on the record to revisit the audit line ("I'll follow up on that as a point to see if we can bring that down.", 0:32:06). The vote was set for December 16, inside the RSA 194-C:9, I requirement that the SAU board adopt its budget "At a meeting held before January 1"; that section requires no public hearing. At the December meeting the audit line had been cut from $25,000 to $10,000.
Sources: RSA 194-C:9, I (source note 2003, 279:1; the text in force in 2021): SAU budget adopted before January 1, no hearing required.
Appendix: source files
Official and public sources
Project files
Working files this page was built from. The dialogue file is linked; the others are not published with the page.
Dialogue/12033 SAU6111821.mp4.CSV (188 attributed rows; the basis of this page)Input/Videos/12033 SAU6111821.mp4Input/Transcripts/12033 SAU6111821.mp4.jsonScripts/attribution_reports_2015_2023/12033 SAU6111821.mp4.mdInput/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md, section 156
Laws and rules cited on this page
- New Hampshire statutes, as in force on November 18, 2021. RSA 91-A:2, II and III(a), (e) (minutes; remote participation; 2019 codification, unchanged through 2022). RSA 91-A:3, I(b), II (nonpublic sessions; same text in the 2019 and 2022 codifications). RSA 194-C:5, III (SAU salaries). RSA 194-C:4, II(a) (SAU services include audits). RSA 194-C:9, I (SAU budget before January 1). RSA 21-J:19 (audits; does not name SAUs).
- Session law. 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 272 (SB 586), approved July 2, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026, cited only to date the later SAU audit duty.
- Federal. 2 CFR 200.501 (single-audit threshold, $750,000 for this period).
- Emergency orders. The COVID-19 state of emergency expired June 11, 2021 (NHPR reporting).