SAU 6 Board, Budget Public Hearing — December 12, 2024

The joint Claremont–Unity SAU #6 School Board's FY26 budget hearing and the meeting that adopted the budget, built from the recording's dialogue transcript, the eight-document posted packet and the later SAU 6 draft minutes of 10 April 2025. The hearing ran about fifty-five minutes (the FY25 hearing on 14 December 2023 ran about sixty-seven seconds), and the board reversed the administration's proposed cut of the curriculum director on a recorded motion. In those fifty-five minutes no one stated the budget's total, its increase over FY25, or any percentage. The sheet in front of the room printed a −0.67% change; the appropriation the board voted, $2,755,723, is $266,572.00 (10.71 percent) above the FY25 budget of $2,489,151.00. The adoption falls twenty days inside the deadline in RSA 194-C:9, I. The minutes of this meeting were approved on 10 April 2025 and have not been published in any district share. Timestamps link to the same moment in the Cablecast recording.

Body
SAU #6 School Board, the joint board of the Claremont and Unity school districts: twelve seats on the agenda masthead (seven Claremont, five Unity). A "public body" under RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d), which names school administrative units expressly. RSA 194-C:5, III gives this board the duty to "fix the salaries of all school administrative unit personnel"; its budget authority is RSA 194-C:9, I, not RSA ch. 32. It is a separate body from the Claremont School Board (which met on 4 December and meets again on 18 December) and from that board's Finance Committee, which met the next morning.
Date
Thursday, December 12, 2024. This is the rescheduled budget meeting: the 3 December SAU 6 meeting failed for want of a quorum, and the business administrator refers to it at 0:08:08: "we had version two and unfortunately we couldn't have a meeting for version two".
Board composition
Seven of twelve seats answered the roll, and four of Unity's five were empty. Present, from the roll at 0:00:41 and the roll-call vote at 0:03:24: Rocco Ruggeri (Unity), Frank Sprague, Whitney Skillen, Candace Crawford, Michael Petrin, Heather Whitney and Arlene Hawkins. No answer is heard for Marjorie Erickson, Shannon Popescu, Kelly Simpson and Atonya Hart (all Unity) or for Bonnie Miles. With no published minutes, the roll rests on the recording alone. The board's policy BBBH-S sets quorum at more than half the seats with at least one member from each district, so the meeting was quorate. The masthead names a chair, a vice chair and a clerk, and no secretary or treasurer; see flag 2.
Start time
6:30 p.m. per the posted agenda; called to order on time: "Good evening everyone. At 630, I'd like to call to order the SA six school board meeting for December 12th" (0:00:03). No adjournment time exists in any available record. The recording gives no clock reference after the nonpublic session, and the 2025 amendment adding start and end times to required minutes contents (eff. Aug. 22, 2025) does not reach this meeting.
Public hearing
Opened at 0:05:47 ("Now I will initiate the public hearing the beginning of the public hearing for the s oh six") and closed at 1:01:22: about fifty-five and a half minutes. RSA 194-C:9 requires no hearing on an SAU budget; see flag 17. No member of the public was present.
Nonpublic session
One, moved at 0:02:48, roll call taken by the clerk. It occupies 0.08 seconds of the published recording: the chair's announcement to viewers ends and her next sentence, a motion on the superintendent's salary, begins eight hundredths of a second later. The agenda scheduled it from 6:40 to 7:00 p.m. No motion to return, roll call out or motion to seal appears on the recording, although the agenda scripts all three. See flag 5.
Location
Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center, Goodrich Community Room, Claremont NH; audio broadcast on CCTV Channel 8 (per the posted agenda). Neither is named on the recording.
Recording
Cablecast: SAU #6 Board Meeting - 12/12/24 (show 16213; 1:09:06 of transcribed audio, 489 dialogue rows, about 9,970 words; the Cablecast API reported a run time of 4,184 seconds when this page was first built). The largest gap between consecutive rows anywhere in the file is 1.44 seconds.
Minutes
None published. No minutes of this meeting are in the SAU 6 Schoolboard Packets share or the Claremont Meeting Minutes share. They exist: the 4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes record that "Heather Whitney made a motion to approve the minutes from 12.12.24 as presented, Michael Petrin seconded the motion". See flag 1.
Packet
Eight documents in 5. SAU6 12.12.24. The folder was created at 3:59 p.m. Eastern on the day of the meeting, the agenda at 4:01 p.m. and the budget the board adopted (version 3) at 4:03 p.m., about two and a half hours before the gavel. See flag 4.

Participants

Every seat on the agenda masthead, marked present or absent from the recording's roll call, plus the central-office administrators the masthead names. No minutes of this meeting are public, so the roll, movers, seconders and vote counts on this page are the recording's alone. Segment counts are from the dialogue CSV. Spellings follow the posted agenda; the transcript's rendering is noted where it differs.
NameRoleParticipation
Arlene HawkinsSAU 6 Board Chair; Claremont School Board memberPresent; 137 of 489 segments. Called the meeting to order, moved the agenda amendment adding a Unity update and the auditors' date, moved the nonpublic session, moved both salary motions herself (the superintendent's 3 percent and two-year renewal, and the assistant superintendent's parity adjustment), opened and closed the public hearing, asked for the percentage change, and seconded the budget motion. Roll answer transcribed And Arlene Hawkins here.
Mary HenryBusiness Administrator, SAU 6Present; 87 segments. Presented version 3 of the FY26 budget, explained the indirect-cost revenue, produced the adopted figure aloud at 1:03:14, and asked that the fund-balance draw be "its own motion" (1:03:41). Qualified the fund balance because some years are unaudited. Could not give a percentage when the chair asked.
Candace CrawfordSAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board member; Claremont Finance CommitteePresent; 54 segments. Moved the FY26 budget twice: in words at 1:02:03, then with the figure at 1:03:48 after Frank Sprague said "We have to make a motion on a number". Supplied the correction that turned the chair's "salary bonus" into a parity adjustment and the "two year" term of the superintendent's motion; established the curriculum director's 0.4/0.6 split; asked at 0:59:55 whether the public hearing had been opened.
Christopher PrattSuperintendent of Schools, SAU 6Present; 48 segments. Proposed and defended removing the curriculum director's 0.6 position and reducing the finance director to 0.8, as a cut in his own office: "we do want to keep the cuts as far away from we can from the from the classrooms" (0:10:42). Told the board he had no proposals for the fund balance. Received a 3 percent increase and a two-year contract renewal by motion of this board.
Heather WhitneySAU 6 Board member; Chair of the Claremont School Board; Claremont Finance CommitteePresent; 44 segments. First to break with the administration: "I support the reduction of the finance director to a part time position. However, I disagree with the reduction of, the curriculum director" (0:12:59). Seconded the nonpublic motion, both salary motions and the fund-balance motion.
Frank SpragueSAU 6 Board member; superintendent-evaluation subcommittee chair; Vice Chair of the Claremont School Board; Claremont Finance Committee chairPresent; 39 segments. Supported the administration's proposal, then raised the evening's only line-item challenge (a wage budgeted at 65,000 where the board had approved 47,000, 0:39:53) and pressed it through four answers. Stopped the first budget motion for want of a figure.
Michael KoskiAssistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Innovation, SAU 6Present; 27 segments (labeled "Mike Koski" in the dialogue file). Gave the account of what the curriculum director does; said the post had been ESSER-funded when he started (0:32:07); asked the clerk to widen the fund-balance motion from "title one funds" to "title funds" (1:05:10). His own salary was adjusted for parity by the motion at 0:05:07, which names no amount. Medium confidence: no one speaks his full name to him. The chair says Mike at 1:05:06, and the superintendent refers to "Assistant Superintendent Kosky" as his curriculum co-lead.
Michael PetrinSAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board memberPresent; 17 segments. Read the packet's budget memo aloud, which is how the $50,000 of Title I revenue reached the record (0:31:51); proposed using the SAU fund balance for the restored position, at 160 rather than 150 (0:55:50). Roll-call answer transcribed Michael. Patron. Yes. The dialogue file also places the Unity update at 1:07:16 in his voice cluster; see the Rocco Ruggeri row.
Whitney SkillenSAU 6 Board member; Claremont School Board memberPresent; 8 segments. Moved the $160,000 fund-balance draw (1:04:17) and the adoption of policy KE with a punctuation correction (1:06:33); asked what the $67,000 human-resources salary increase was for (0:23:02). Roll: Whitney. Skilling here. Medium-high confidence, by elimination against the roll.
Noelle KronbergSAU 6 School Board ClerkPresent; read the attendance roll and the nonpublic roll-call vote. Five attributed segments, including a request to repeat the fund-balance figure: "Yes, but I couldn't. It was 100." (1:04:57). Transcribed Kronborg and Grunberg. The minutes she submitted for this meeting were approved on 10 April 2025 and have not been published.
Rocco RuggeriSAU 6 Board Vice Chair (Unity)Present; no attributed segment. Transcribed Rockford Ruggieri here at the head of the roll. He gave the Unity withdrawal report at earlier SAU 6 meetings and is a candidate speaker for the update at 1:07:16, which the dialogue file assigns to Michael Petrin. No name is spoken there and no published minutes settle it, so this page does not name the speaker.
Marjorie EricksonSAU 6 Board member (Unity)Absent: no answer in the roll.
Shannon PopescuSAU 6 Board member (Unity)Absent: no answer in the roll.
Kelly SimpsonSAU 6 Board member (Unity)Absent: no answer in the roll. On 14 November she cast the only named No recorded in that meeting's minutes.
Atonya HartSAU 6 Board member (Unity)Absent: no answer in the roll (the clerk's call is transcribed A tiny hurt.).
Bonnie MilesSAU 6 Board member (Claremont)Absent: no answer in the roll. Elected SAU 6 treasurer on 17 August 2023; see flag 2.
Michael McCoskerDirector of Student Services, SAU 6 (masthead)Named on the masthead; no attributed segment.
Patrick O'HearnDirector of Human Resources, SAU 6 (masthead)Named on the masthead; does not speak. His function carries the budget's largest increase (+$77,499.33, of which $67,629.93 is salary); the superintendent explains it at 0:23:27.
Jeff SmallDirector of Technology, SAU 6 (masthead)Named on the masthead; does not speak. The chair uses his dental line as her test case at 0:54:10: "I'm going to use Jeff's line I'm sorry, Jeff, but you're on page one". See flag 12.
CitizensPublic hearing and citizens' commentsNone present. The chair closed the hearing with thanks to "the members of the public for for watching" (1:01:22) and reached citizens' comments at 1:01:42: "Seeing no citizens in our audience". See flag 15.

Agenda

Item numbering, wording and scheduled clock times from the posted agenda (SAU6 Budget Public Hearing agenda 12.12.24.docx.pdf); dispositions from the recording, since no minutes are public. The agenda describes two meetings: a budget hearing from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., then a separate "SAU6 School Board Meeting" called to order at 8:00 with its own roll call, agenda and minutes approval. The board ran them as one and reached the budget vote long before the 8:25 p.m. the agenda set. Clock times below are the agenda's; the recording is spliced at the nonpublic session (flag 5), so no clock time is inferred from it. Hover over (or Tab to) a clipped entry for the full text.

Taken upItemAgenda text / disposition
0:00:03I. Call to Order and Pledge of AllegianceScheduled 6:30 PM; called to order on time. The chair reads the agenda's cell-phone reminder at 0:00:30.
0:00:41II.a. Secretary Roll Call of AttendanceScheduled 6:35 PM. The agenda calls it the "Secretary Roll Call"; the board has no elected secretary and the clerk read it. Seven of twelve answer. The transcript garbles most names (Rockford Ruggieri, A tiny hurt, Whitney. Skilling) and leaves a bare Here. where Michael Petrin's name falls in masthead order.
0:01:13II.b. Agenda: Amendments and ApprovalThe chair added two items under "other business": a Unity update and confirmation of the auditors' date for the February meeting. Neither half of the agenda has an Other Business item. An unidentified member moved acceptance "as amended" at 0:01:55; the chair's row carries the second. Voice vote, no count.
0:01:59II.c. Minutes (agenda: 9.12.24; taken: 11/14/2024 and 11/21/2024)The agenda's minutes item names the wrong meeting. It reads "Minutes of the 9.12.24 meeting?" and scripts the amendment the chair had already made on 14 November: "I'd like to amend the minutes under Item 1 to include that the Board did not receive Global review of actual to budgeted 24-25 budget as listed in that agenda." The board instead approved the 14 November and 21 November drafts (listed in the agenda's second half), with no corrections or discussion. See flag 8.
0:02:48III. Non-public meeting session RSA 91-A:3Scheduled 6:40 PM. The agenda cites "RSA91-A:3.II (a)" and prints the text of subparagraph (a). The spoken motion is transcribed "under RSA 91. Dash a colon three a", with no paragraph stated. Heather Whitney seconded; the clerk took a roll-call vote (0:03:12–0:03:24). See flag 5.
0:03:57III. (not on the agenda) Superintendent's salary and contractThe chair: "So I would like to propose the motion that we increase the superintendent's salary to approve the 3% salary increase for the superintendent." Heather Whitney seconded. Candace Crawford: "You want to add that it's a two year." The chair: "And for a two year contract? So for this year, it's 3% increase. And to renew your contract for two years." Voice vote, no count. No contract item appears on this agenda or the 3 December agenda. See flag 6.
0:04:47III. (not on the agenda) Assistant superintendent's salaryMoved as "a $7,000 salary bonus for Assistant superintendent", corrected from the floor ("It is not a bonus. It's a parody" [parity]), withdrawn, and restated at 0:05:07 with no figure: "a motion to realign, readjust? Readjust the assistant superintendents salary to achieve parity with other districts, to be competitive based on the role and the size of our district." Voice vote at 0:05:40. See flag 7.
0:05:47IV. Presentation of FY2026 Budget (Exhibit A) and V. Public HearingScheduled as two items, 7:00 and 7:30 PM. The chair opened the hearing before the presentation and ran them together, which is why Candace Crawford asks at 0:59:55 whether there is "a public hearing that you have to open". About fifty-five minutes on version 3. The agenda's hearing rules ask speakers to "State your name, ward"; nobody came.
1:01:22V. Closing of Public HearingScheduled 8:00 PM. "So the public hearing is now closed. Thank you for the members of the public for for watching and being a part of this."
1:01:42III. (second meeting) Citizens CommentsScheduled 8:10 PM, fifteen minutes before the next item. "Say citizens comments is the next agenda item. Seeing no citizens in our audience, we'll move on to our next order of business". See flag 15.
1:02:03IV.A. Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Approval (Action)Scheduled 8:25 PM. Candace Crawford's first motion has no figure; Frank Sprague: "We have to make a motion on a number". The business administrator: "Are you ready. 2,755,000. Make it even $723." Crawford re-moved it at 1:03:48; the chair's row carries the second. "Opposed? One." (1:04:06): ayes uncounted, no name. Then a separate motion for $160,000 of fund balance (1:04:17). See flag 3 and flag 20.
1:06:33IV.B. Policy KE, Second read (Exhibit B)Whitney Skillen moved adoption "as presented with a tiny revision to be made" (a stray full stop in the KE-R timeline). Adopted by voice vote. The adopted document's history block still reads "First reading: 11.14.2024" with the second-reading line blank. See flag 21.
1:07:16Other business 1 (added): Unity update"So unity submitted its planning committee. Withdrawal document to the state for review. The state board reviewed it last month and approved it." It is "really just a formality where they just make sure all the boxes are checked", with a town vote in March. Speaker not securely identified; see the participants table.
1:08:10Other business 2 (added): the auditors"Just to confirm that our February meeting, the auditors will present either in person or through zoom." Slot "Six. 45."; date "February 13th" (1:08:47). That meeting did not take place; see flag 13.
1:08:49V. AdjournmentScheduled 8:45 PM. "Do we have a motion to adjourn? Second, Miss Crawford? Second, Mr. Sprague. All in favor?" Voice vote. No clock time for the adjournment exists in any available record.

Discussion timeline

Times come from the dialogue transcript and link into the recording. Quotations reproduce the transcript as transcribed, ASR errors included, with insertions in square brackets; quotations from the agenda, a packet document, other minutes or a statute are attributed to that document. Figures are checked against version 3 of the FY26 budget and the FY25 year-to-date ledger, both in the packet.

TimeTopicWhat was saidFlags
0:00:41Seven answers in a roll of twelve; four of Unity's five seats empty"Rockford Ruggieri here. Marjorie. Erickson. Shannon. Kelly. Simpson. A tiny hurt. Frank Sprague here. Bonnie. Miles. Whitney. Skilling here. Candace Crawford here. Here. Heather Whitney here. And Arlene Hawkins here." The bare Here. after Crawford's answer falls where Michael Petrin's name belongs in masthead order, and his Yes. is heard in the roll-call vote at 0:03:24. The four Unity members who do not answer (Erickson, Popescu, Simpson, Hart) miss the meeting that sets the assessment their town will pay.OBSERVATION
0:01:59Two sets of minutes approved without discussion"We also have in our packet the minutes from November 14th and November 21st." Both drafts reached the public share at about 4:00 p.m. that afternoon. Two motions, two seconds, two voice votes, no corrections, all within about fifty seconds (0:01:59–0:02:48).MEDIUM
0:02:48Into nonpublic session, and back 0.08 seconds later on the tape"At this time, I would like to present a motion that we move into a nonpublic meeting session under RSA 91. Dash a colon three a." Heather Whitney seconded; the clerk read the roll; the chair told viewers "For those watching, the regular meeting will continue after the nonpublic session." Her next words, 0.08 seconds later in the published file, are a motion on the superintendent's salary. The agenda's scripted "(upon return): Is there a motion to return to public session?" and "Motion to seal the minutes? Duration?" do not appear on the recording.MEDIUM
0:03:57The superintendent's contract renewed for two years, off the agendaThe chair moves the 3 percent increase; Candace Crawford at 0:04:23: "You want to add that it's a two year." The chair restates it at 0:04:26: "And for a two year contract? So for this year, it's 3% increase. And to renew your contract for two years." Discussion: "Other than a big thank you for the work you're doing for us." Voice vote, no count. On the 14 November recording (show 16142, about 29 minutes 39 seconds in) the chair had said: "We also have to go over the superintendent's contract, which we did not have a chance to discuss tonight."MEDIUM
0:04:47A salary motion withdrawn for the wrong word and restated without its number"I will initiate a second motion to approve a $7,000 salary bonus for Assistant superintendent." Heather Whitney: "Oh, not a bonus." Candace Crawford: "It is not a bonus. It's a parody" [parity]. The chair withdraws and restates at 0:05:07: "Readjust the assistant superintendents salary to achieve parity with other districts, to be competitive based on the role and the size of our district." The motion adopted names no figure, comparator or cap.MEDIUM
0:06:40The chair says the deliberation happened by correspondence"So this year, the members of the board have been sending their questions about the post budget to the superintendent and the business administrator. And we've been having an interactive conversation about the budget upcoming. So I think we're feeling that we're knowledgeable about a lot of the aspects of it." None of that correspondence is in the packet. The chair refers to it again at 0:54:10.
0:07:17The presentation opens with a change to the net line"So starters with that adjustment. The bottom line changes to still under budget of $8,201.55." At 0:07:39: "originally I had a $16,000 decrease roughly. Well now we'll have it. It would be a $8,000. 8201, 50,000." Version 3 prints "Total Budget Increase ($16,629.55)" and "Total Budget % Increase -0.67%", both net of $125,000 of revenue. Its gross appropriation, $2,597,521.45, is $108,370.45 (4.35 percent) above FY25; nobody states that figure.MEDIUM
0:08:08Why there is a version 3"we had version two and unfortunately we couldn't have a meeting for version two" (the 3 December meeting that lacked a quorum). At 0:08:35: "Superintendent Pratt was very adamant about that, that we are going to take out of our budget, roughly $197,000. And to do that, the finance director from my department will be part time, which cuts out a little around $50,000." Version 2 totals $2,793,874.48 and version 3 $2,597,521.45: a reduction of $196,353.03.POSITIVE
0:09:40The administration proposes to cut its own officeThe superintendent: "We're trying to keep the, the cuts as far away from the classroom as we can… We feel if we reduce the line item for the curriculum director is that myself and Assistant Superintendent Kosky will divide and conquer in regards to with the curriculum." The assistant superintendent would take the elementary schools; the superintendent the tech center, middle school and high school. At 0:10:42: "I think in a good faith effort, as an office, we should be part of those solutions".POSITIVE
0:11:55The finance director's post is described as temporaryFrank Sprague: "once we got the audits cleaned up, the need for those that position would be would be certainly diminished." The business administrator at 0:37:03: full time now, 0.8 from July, and "The goal is once we get the audits caught up and we get everything else reconciled and in place, that that position would go away." Asked at 0:37:17 whether it could go to 0.5, she cites training a successor: "for fiscal year 26, I would really like to stick with the point. Eight for that purpose".
0:12:59The Claremont board chair breaks with the administrationHeather Whitney: "I support the reduction of the finance director to a part time position. However, I disagree with the reduction of, the curriculum director… my assessment of the failures of the district have been the failures of leadership almost exclusively." At 0:13:29–0:14:04: "we also had a massive failure in our district of not even having a curriculum in place. And there was nobody watching that." At 0:14:55: "I would think in the next five years we would still need a curriculum director. So I'm opposed to reduction."POSITIVE
0:20:15The curriculum director: 0.4 grant-funded coach, 0.6 budgeted directorThe assistant superintendent: "She's point four as a coach and point six as a curriculum director." The 0.4 "comes out of the title grant" (0:20:28). The line proposed for removal is the 0.6. Heather Whitney at 0:32:35 calls the arrangement "a Band-Aid approach" for elementary schools that "are desperately need an instructional coach".
0:22:05Members line up behind restoring the positionCandace Crawford: "I would be uncomfortable giving up that point six director today." Whitney Skillen at 0:22:16: "I don't really know what our savings would be by reducing this person, but I don't think whatever the number is, it's probably less than six figures… I and I just think that that that number is not worth it." Michael Petrin at 0:59:03: "I hope you don't see this as a pushback against your thoughts."POSITIVE
0:23:02The $67,000 on the human-resources salary lineWhitney Skillen: "there's a 67000 increase in the HR salaries. And just wondering, can you refresh me what that is?" The superintendent at 0:23:27: "we really need to, reinstitute the assistant to the HR director. So we took that the money we needed from that and we took that from a curriculum director, put her in the title one". Version 3: Human Resources Salaries $140,369.60 to $207,999.53, +$67,629.93 (48 percent); the function rises $77,499.33, the largest increase in the budget.OBSERVATION
0:31:51A member reads the packet memo aloudMichael Petrin: "the document you have here for Mary says that an additional 50,000 will come from title one to cover a portion of the curricular coordinator position. And it says this position was entirely titled one a few years ago." The assistant superintendent at 0:32:07: "I think it was Esser. Yeah. When I started our curriculum director was Esser funded." The memo is dated 2 December and describes version 2. See flag 11.OBSERVATION
0:35:23The chair counts the room and asks the price"I think what you're hearing loud and clear is that the majority of the board is in the position of liking the movement that we're making… And then I heard the question of increasing the bottom line of the budget so that you will have that opportunity". Answer at 0:36:00: "I would say anywhere from 145,000 to 150,000, because that would include benefits." Version 3 cut the superintendent's office salary line by $96,772.81 against version 2.POSITIVE
0:39:04"The budget increase is actually a decrease"; the chair asks for a percentageThe chair: "So right now the budget increase is actually a decrease." At 0:39:34: "Seeking to maintain that curriculum director position, how would that change the bottom line? I know what you said by numbers, but what about percent?" The business administrator: "I would have to figure that out because I don't know." No percentage is stated at any point in the hearing or before the vote.MEDIUM
0:39:53The only line-item challenge, never resolved in dollarsFrank Sprague: "that would be the administrative assistant to the assistant superintendent. This the FY 25 wages is 65,000. It was actually 47,000 was the actual wage that we approved last year on that, not 65. And so the raise was based on 65,000, not the 47 that it was." The superintendent at 0:43:11: "So the so it's gone from 47 to say 65". Candace Crawford at 0:44:09: "18,000 for there could be part of the 75,000. That's indirect costs". The individual wage lines are in no published document.OBSERVATION
0:47:37The $75,000 of indirect costs the SAU has not been receivingThe business administrator: "And we have not been getting indirect costs into the SA. You we have claimed them, but they either staying in Claremont or we don't claim them all the time. It's been inconsistent on the grants on whether it's written in or not." Asked about Unity at 0:48:10: "I don't think you've claimed indirect costs." Version 3 subtracts the $75,000 before printing its headline percentage.OBSERVATION
0:48:54The fund balance: about $350,000, some years unauditedMichael Petrin: "What's the chances of using some of the fund balance to offset." The answer at 0:49:34: "your fund balance is a little over probably 350,000. Oh good. Again that's give or take because we haven't been audited on some of the years. But the last audit we had 210. So I can I'm confident in saying there's 350." At 0:50:40, on restricting it: "You say that you want to use it for one specific purpose and the board votes that way, you have to use it for that."OBSERVATION
0:52:45Benefit rates, and a retirement figure the transcript garbles"It went from 3.53 to 12.75, which gave us a decrease of $15,841 to our budget." The packet memo reads "NHRS decreased from 13.53% to 12.75%." The quotation is left as transcribed. Health plans: 7.7 percent, 3.02 percent and 2.42 percent; at 0:52:21 "Dental did increase by 10%."OBSERVATION
0:54:10The chair finds a 10 percent dental increase applied at 5 percent"The dental you said was up 10%. Yes. And in this year, the proposed amount was 100. I'm sorry, 1579, let's say. And then the proposal was up, but the increase was only 78, almost $79, but yet 10% of the budget amount for this year would be more than that." Version 3, technology dental: $1,578.78 to $1,657.71, +$78.93, which is 5.0 percent. The answers end with "So it's less than 10%." and "Overall. Yeah."OBSERVATION
0:55:50The proposal that carries: restore the position, fund it from surplusMichael Petrin: "the board is hoping to add back in about $150,000 in support of the curriculum to keep the curriculum director position where it is, and I would support using 160 of the fund balance to offset." The chair first asks the superintendent at 0:56:38 whether he has other plans for the fund balance: "I don't have any proposals in regards to the. Fund balance." He adds at 0:57:43: "it was definitely not an easy decision."POSITIVE
0:58:25The one exchange about what this costs the two townsThe chair: "there's still additional monies that can be returned to the districts, correct, to offset their tax burden for the contribution." Heather Whitney: "So by retaining we would have a neutral tax act. And that's that's really the bottom line here." No apportionment between Claremont and Unity is stated anywhere in the meeting.OBSERVATION
0:59:55A member asks whether the hearing was ever openedCandace Crawford: "Do you have a public hearing that you have to open or." The chair: "I think we did open the public hearing." Crawford: "Have to close the public hearing." The agenda made the presentation and the hearing separate items, and the chair had opened the hearing first.
1:00:35The $3,600 "School Board Secretary" line is the clerk'sThe chair: "I'm not seeing the clerks. Is there anything that comes from the essay for Arctic?" The business administrator: "It's on the first page. Top line, $3,600." The chair: "That's our clerk." At 1:01:08: "That's your board clerk. Yes. Okay, I can change that from board side." The line is captioned Wages School Board Secretary.HIGH
1:02:03The budget moved in words, stopped for a number, moved againCandace Crawford: "a motion to approve the, fiscal year 26 proposed budget, as proposed in version three. With the changes already identified, the increase of to the superintendents pay the $7,000 adjustment adjustment, parity adjustment, and the re addition reinstatement…" At 1:02:44: "that increase will be offset by retained funds and so that we end up with a s a budget that is, revenue neutral, impact tax rate neutral." Frank Sprague at 1:03:10: "We have to make a motion on a number." At 1:03:14: "Are you ready. 2,755,000. Make it even $723." $2,755,723 appears in none of the eight packet documents.MEDIUM
1:03:48One vote against, uncounted ayes, no published record"I make a motion to approve the budget. For fiscal year 26 of $2,755,723." The chair: "Second discussion. All those in favor?" At 1:04:06: "Opposed? One. And any abstentions. Okay." No name is given and the ayes are not counted; the minutes that might name the dissenter are unpublished.HIGH
1:04:17$160,000 of fund balance, as a separate, conditional motionWhitney Skillen: "I'd like to make a motion to use $160,000 of the fund balance to cover the financial director position… Oh, curriculum. Curriculum not financial director. No correction to this motion." Heather Whitney seconded. The clerk: "Yes, but I couldn't. It was 100." (1:04:57). The assistant superintendent at 1:05:10: "can you just make that title funds instead of title one funds? Okay. Just gives more flexibility." Voice vote at 1:06:06.POSITIVE
1:06:33Policy KE adopted at second read, with a proof-reading fixWhitney Skillen: "There's like an extra period under the second bullet of number three. So this principal period for resolution, that period needs to be deleted. And then it's perfect." The packet copy reads, in the KE-R timeline, that the superintendent "may delegate the investigation back to the principal. for resolution."POSITIVE
1:07:16Unity's withdrawal plan approved by the state board"The state board reviewed it last month and approved it." At 1:07:31: "It's it's really just a formality where they just make sure all the boxes are checked as my understanding… So we're still waiting on the March meeting for discussion before any action, could be proposed and made." Under RSA 194-C:2, IV withdrawal needs three fifths of the votes cast in the withdrawing district; the 10 April 2025 SAU 6 draft minutes record that "the vote for Unity to withdraw from the SAU passed".OBSERVATION
1:08:10Auditors booked for 13 February; that meeting was cancelled"Just to confirm that our February meeting, the auditors will present either in person or through zoom." Date "February 13th" (1:08:47). The 10 April 2025 draft minutes record the chair noting "that there was a previous agenda item for 2020 and the report was received, but the meeting was cancelled."OBSERVATION

Items flagged for review

Flags are a reviewer's aid produced by comparing this meeting against state and federal law as it stood on 12 December 2024. They are not findings of violation, not legal advice, and may be incomplete or wrong. Each rule-based flag names and links the provision it rests on; where no verified rule reaches a concern it is labelled an observation.

HIGH The minutes of this meeting were written and approved, and have never been published, so the member who voted against the budget cannot be identified

No minutes of 12 December 2024 are in the SAU 6 Schoolboard Packets share or the Claremont Meeting Minutes share. The search was two-stage, as this board's filing practice requires: this meeting's own folder (which holds the November drafts), then every later SAU 6 packet folder by filename date. The next folder is 6. SAU6 6.12.25, six months later, and it carries only the 10 April 2025 draft. The Meeting Minutes share holds no SAU 6 file at all (MAP.md, checked 2026-08-26).

The minutes exist. The 4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes record: "Heather Whitney made a motion to approve the minutes from 12.12.24 as presented, Michael Petrin seconded the motion", followed by a voice vote with all present in favour. They were approved 119 days after the meeting and have not reached any public share.

RSA 91-A:2, II requires minutes that record "the names of members, persons appearing before the public bodies, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions", and "The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes." They "shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting": here, by 19 December 2024. Because they are not open to inspection:

Graded HIGH on the unmitigated limb of this project's severity rule: the body met, no minutes are in any district share, nothing on any record explains the absence, and the gap runs to years. That the minutes demonstrably exist makes the non-publication harder, not easier, to account for.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2024 codification; mover/seconder sentence 2018, 244:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019; paragraph as amended 2023, 188:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023); RSA 288:1 (legal holidays; none falls between 12 and 19 December); 4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes (1).pdf.

HIGH The board voted a $160,000 draw on its fund balance with no treasurer in office, eighteen months after the last recorded treasurer election

RSA 194-C:5, I: "The school board of each school administrative unit shall meet between April 1 and June 1 in each year, at a time and place fixed by the chairpersons of the several boards, and shall organize by choosing a chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer." The 2024 organizational meeting (11 April 2024) elected a chair and a vice chair; this corpus records no secretary or treasurer election that year. The last recorded treasurer election is Bonnie Miles on 17 August 2023.

This meeting's agenda masthead reads "Arlene Hawkins-Chair, Rocco Ruggeri- Vice Chair" and "SAU#6 School Board Clerk- Noelle Kronberg", with no secretary or treasurer. The roll item is still headed "Secretary Roll Call of Attendance of Board Members" and the clerk reads it. The budget's $3,600 line captioned Wages School Board Secretary is, in the business administrator's words at 1:01:08, "your board clerk". Whether the board regards its hired clerk as its secretary is not stated anywhere, so this flag rests on the treasurer.

The treasurer vacancy is confirmed by the board's own later record. The 10 April 2025 draft minutes: "Arlene Hawkins noted that the SAU Board currently has no treasurer, so the Board will need one and asked how often that person should review the check register." The prompt came from auditor Michael Campo of Plodzik and Sanderson, who said "the treasurer should review the check register". The board then elected Candace Crawford treasurer and named two members to review and sign vouchers. The board's own proposed annual calendar (Exhibit G of the 12 September 2024 packet) lists, for April, "Elect SAU 6 Board officers" with "Chair", "Vice chair" and "Treasurer" beneath it.

At 1:04:17 the board voted to draw $160,000 from a fund balance described at 0:49:34 as "a little over probably 350,000", with the qualification "that's give or take because we haven't been audited on some of the years." The officer the auditor says should check the register did not exist, and (flag 1) no minutes of the vote are published. Graded HIGH on the unmitigated limb: the duty is mandatory, its 1 June 2024 deadline had passed, and nothing on the record addresses it.

Sources: RSA 194-C:5, I (1996, 298:3, eff. Aug. 9, 1996; never amended); SAU6 Budget Public Hearing agenda 12.12.24 (masthead); SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3 (account 100.41.2310.112, $0.00 FY23, $0.00 FY24, $3,600.00 FY25, $3,600.00 FY26); 4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes; Exhibit G, SAU 6 School Board Agenda Proposed Recurring items 8.25.24; companion pages SAU 6 Board, April 11, 2024 (the organizational meeting) and SAU 6 Board, December 14, 2023.

MEDIUM The hearing closed without the total, the increase or any percentage being stated; the adopted appropriation is 10.71 percent above FY25, against a sheet that printed minus 0.67

Version 3's final block: Budget Totals FY23 actual $1,771,416.90; FY24 actual $2,334,194.33; FY25 budget $2,489,151.00; FY26 proposed $2,597,521.45; change $108,370.45. Then "Additional Revenues from Contracted Services" ($50,000.00), "Indirect Costs" ($75,000.00), "Total Additional Revenues used to reduce Budget" ($125,000.00), "Total Budget Increase" ($16,629.55) and "Total Budget % Increase" -0.67%.

The arithmetic is right and the caption is not. −$16,629.55 on $2,489,151.00 is −0.67 percent, but that is a net FY26 figure set against a gross FY25 figure (the FY25 ledger in the same packet foots to $2,489,151.00 as expenditure, with no revenue lines). The appropriation in version 3 rises $108,370.45, or 4.35 percent.

The board then raised it, and no figure followed. The motion added the superintendent's 3 percent, the $7,000 parity adjustment and about $150,000 for the curriculum director. The business administrator produced the total aloud ("Are you ready. 2,755,000. Make it even $723.") and the board voted $2,755,723: $266,572.00 (10.71 percent) above FY25, and $421,528.67 (18.06 percent) above FY24 actual expenditure. None of these figures, nor any percentage, is spoken at the meeting. The chair asked at 0:39:34 ("what about percent?") and was told "I would have to figure that out because I don't know." What the room heard instead was the chair's "So right now the budget increase is actually a decrease" (0:39:04) and Candace Crawford's thanks for "a neutral, no increase budget" (0:36:22), both true only of the net line.

The total cannot be decomposed from the public record. Version 3's gross plus the live re-plug of $8,428.00 gives $2,605,949.45; $2,755,723 less that is $149,773.55, close to the "just under" $150,000 costed for the curriculum director alone. On that reading the superintendent's 3 percent and the $7,000 are either already inside version 3 or not in the total. The record does not say which, and $2,755,723 appears in none of the eight packet documents.

Regraded from HIGH to MEDIUM in this rebuild. No statute prescribes the form of an SAU budget or requires the change to be stated: RSA 194-C:9 is silent on form, and RSA 32:1 does not name school administrative units, so RSA 32:5's gross-basis and comparative-column rules do not bind it. The printed figure is arithmetically correct for what it measures. The defect is a misleading caption and an unexplained total at the one meeting where the public is invited, which is a process gap rather than a breach of a binding rule. The 14 November page records the same pattern (7.23 percent printed against a 12.25 percent gross increase).

Sources: SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3; SAU FY26 Proposed Budget V2 ($2,793,874.48; "Total Budget % Increase 7.22%"); Financials FY25 12-2-24 (2); RSA 194-C:9; RSA 32:1 and RSA 32:5 (2023 codification); companion page SAU 6 Board, November 14, 2024.

MEDIUM The agenda and the budget the board adopted reached the public share on the afternoon of the meeting

RSA 91-A:2, II requires that notice of each meeting "shall be posted in 2 appropriate places one of which may be the public body's Internet website, if such exists, or shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town at least 24 hours, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, prior to such meetings." It does not require a packet. A Drive creation time is evidence of when the district's public share received a file, not of the statutory posting. With that caveat, Drive records (read 2026-09-25, shown in Eastern time):

The 14 November packet went up six days ahead; the FY25 hearing packet of 14 December 2023, about thirty-one hours ahead; the 3 December 2024 agenda at 11:13 a.m. on its own meeting day. The meeting date had weeks of notice (it appears on the 14 November agenda's future-dates list and the 3 December agenda), and the chair says members had the material by correspondence (0:06:40). A citizen who wanted to read the budget before the hearing had from about 4:03 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Graded MEDIUM on the mitigating limb: the meeting date was noticed well ahead, the packet was posted, and the 24-hour rule governs notice rather than packets. If the agenda posted at 4:01 p.m. was the only notice, the 24-hour requirement was not met; the record does not show whether a notice was posted elsewhere earlier.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2024 codification); Google Drive metadata for the folder and its files; SAU#6 School Board Agenda 12.3.24; companion pages SAU 6 Board, November 14, 2024 and SAU 6 Board, December 14, 2023.

MEDIUM The nonpublic session is cut from the recording, the return and sealing motions the agenda scripts are not on it, and no minutes of the closed session exist in any share

The board went into nonpublic session at 0:02:48. The chair's announcement to viewers ends at 3:57 into the file and her next sentence begins 0.08 seconds later. The largest gap between consecutive rows in the whole 489-row file is 1.44 seconds, so the published recording has no silence in which a closed session could sit: it was edited out. The same pattern appears on the 7 and 14 December 2023 SAU 6 broadcasts. The session's true length is not recoverable, and recording position is not a clock time after this point.

Three scripted steps are missing from the recording. The agenda reads: "(upon return): Is there a motion to return to public session? Second? Ms. Kronberg would you please take the Roll Call vote? Thank you. Motion to seal the minutes? Duration?" None is on the recording. Because the file is edited, this page cannot say they did not happen, only that neither the recording nor any published minutes shows them.

RSA 91-A:3, III: "Minutes and decisions reached in nonpublic session shall be publicly disclosed within 72 hours of the meeting, unless, by recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present taken in public session, it is determined" that a listed ground applies. If no seal was voted, the nonpublic minutes were disclosable by 15 December 2024 and have not been disclosed. If a seal was voted, the vote is unrecorded in any public document.

Credit where due. The agenda cites RSA 91-A:3, II(a) correctly and prints its text; the roll call RSA 91-A:3, I(b) requires was taken; and the two compensation motions that follow the session match the (a) ground. The spoken motion ("RSA 91. Dash a colon three a") omits the paragraph, but the agenda states it. Graded MEDIUM rather than HIGH because the exemption was properly noticed, the vote was by roll call, and the missing motions may sit inside the edit. The absence of any minutes is flag 1.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b), II(a), III (2023, 189:1, eff. Oct. 3, 2023); SAU6 Budget Public Hearing agenda 12.12.24; dialogue CSV (maximum inter-row gap 1.44 s, recomputed 2026-09-25); companion pages SAU 6 Board, November 14, 2024 and SAU 6 Board, December 14, 2023.

MEDIUM The superintendent's contract was renewed for two years with a 3 percent increase on a motion no agenda carried, and no contract is in any public share

On the 14 November recording (show 16142, about 29 minutes 39 seconds in) the chair deferred the item: "We also have to go over the superintendent's contract, which we did not have a chance to discuss tonight." Neither the 3 December agenda nor this one lists it. It was transacted here immediately after the nonpublic session. The chair at 0:03:57: "So I would like to propose the motion that we increase the superintendent's salary to approve the 3% salary increase for the superintendent." Heather Whitney seconded. Candace Crawford: "You want to add that it's a two year." The chair at 0:04:26: "And for a two year contract? So for this year, it's 3% increase. And to renew your contract for two years." Voice vote, no count.

What is right about it. The board acted itself, in open session, with a stated percentage and a stated term, after a nonpublic session noticed under the compensation exemption. RSA 194-C:5, III places the salary decision with this board.

What is missing. The item was on no agenda. The 12 September 2024 packet's Exhibit G had scheduled "Review Superintendent Contract for renewal every 2 - 3 years(due next in 2025)" for December; it never became an agenda item. No executed contract, and no document recording the renewal, is in any SAU 6 packet folder, and the minutes of this meeting are unpublished. Graded MEDIUM: nothing was concealed and the vote was public, but the public record holds neither the instrument nor the minutes of its approval. RSA 91-A:5, IV permits, and does not require, withholding personnel records.

Sources: RSA 194-C:5, III; RSA 91-A:3, II(a); RSA 91-A:5, IV; Exhibit G, SAU 6 School Board Agenda Proposed Recurring items 8.25.24; SAU#6 School Board Agenda 12.3.24; companion page SAU 6 Board, November 14, 2024.

MEDIUM The assistant superintendent's salary was adjusted by a motion that names no amount, comparator or cap

The chair moved it first as "a $7,000 salary bonus for Assistant superintendent" (0:04:47). Candace Crawford corrected the noun ("It is not a bonus. It's a parody" [parity]), and the chair withdrew and restated at 0:05:07: "I'd like to propose a motion to realign, readjust? Readjust the assistant superintendents salary to achieve parity with other districts, to be competitive based on the role and the size of our district." It carried on a voice vote.

The operative motion contains no figure. The $7,000 survives in the withdrawn version and an hour later in the budget motion ("the $7,000 adjustment adjustment, parity adjustment"). No comparator district or salary schedule is named. RSA 194-C:5, III requires the SAU board to "fix the salaries of all school administrative unit personnel"; a motion to move a salary toward parity with unnamed districts does not by its terms fix one.

Graded MEDIUM on the mitigating limb: the correction from bonus to parity adjustment was sound, the amount was stated on the record minutes earlier, and the budget vote later carried it. The defect is in the drafting of the motion, compounded by the absence of published minutes to record what was decided.

Sources: RSA 194-C:5, III (1996, 298:3; never amended); RSA 91-A:2, II.

MEDIUM The posted agenda describes two meetings the board ran as one, and its minutes item names a meeting whose minutes had been approved four weeks earlier

Two meetings. The agenda notices a budget hearing from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. and then, under its own heading, an "SAU6 School Board Meeting" with "I. 8:00 PM Call to order", its own roll call, agenda approval, minutes approval, citizens' comments at 8:10, the budget vote at 8:25 and adjournment at 8:45. The board held one meeting with one roll, taking the second meeting's business first. A citizen who came for the budget vote at 8:25 would have found it over.

The wrong minutes. Item II.c reads "Minutes of the 9.12.24 meeting? Are there any corrections/amendments to the minutes of 9.12.24?" and scripts the amendment already made on 14 November. The board approved the 14 and 21 November drafts, listed correctly in the agenda's second half. The two items the chair added (the Unity update and the auditors' date) sat under an "other business" heading neither half of the agenda contains.

Graded MEDIUM: the errors are in the notice document, the correct minutes were listed elsewhere on it, and everything was transacted in open session. The agenda is the public's only advance notice of an SAU 6 meeting, and this one described a schedule the board did not follow.

Sources: SAU6 Budget Public Hearing agenda 12.12.24.docx.pdf; 11.14.24 DRAFT SAU6 minutes (1).pdf; RSA 91-A:2, II.

OBSERVATION The budget was adopted as one total, with no apportionment between Claremont and Unity stated

RSA 194-C:9, I sets the deadline this meeting met, prescribes that "the apportionment shall be based 1/2 on the average membership in attendance for the previous school year and 1/2 on the most recently available equalized valuation of each district as of June 30 of the preceding school year", and requires that "Prior to January 15 in each year, the board shall certify to the chairperson of the school board of each constituent school district the amount so apportioned." RSA 194-C:5, III separately requires the board to "certify the apportionment to their respective treasurers and to the state board of education".

Version 3 is one set of function totals with no Claremont and Unity columns. The word "apportionment" does not occur in the transcript. The closest the meeting comes is at 0:58:25 and 1:05:27: "that does maintain additional funds that can be used to offset the contribution of both Unity and Claremont."

Paragraph IV is in force. Added by 2024, 329:1, eff. Oct. 1, 2024, it allows the board to "consider other methods" of apportionment, adopted "only if there is a majority affirmative vote in each school district within the school administrative unit." This is the first SAU 6 budget adopted under it, in the year Unity's withdrawal plan went to its voters.

An observation, not a violation: RSA 194-C:9 does not require the apportionment to be adopted at the budget meeting or printed in the budget, and the January 15 certification falls after this meeting. The absence of a certification from the packet share is not evidence it was not made.

Sources: RSA 194-C:9, I (2003, 279:1, eff. Sept. 16, 2003) and IV (2024, 329:1, eff. Oct. 1, 2024); RSA 194-C:5, III; RSA 194-C:2, IV (withdrawal; source note ends 2024, 250:1, 2, eff. July 1, 2024); SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3.

OBSERVATION $75,000 of indirect-cost revenue the SAU says it has not been receiving is subtracted before the headline percentage, and the wage lines the board argued about are in no published document

The revenue. The packet memo: "Indirect costs are the portion of the grants that cover the management of the grants. The SAU manages the grants for Claremont and Unity. The indirect cost rate for Claremont for FY25 is 3.1%, and for the remaining grants is FY24 2.7%. The total amount that we can claim is a little more than $75,000." At 0:47:37 the business administrator: "And we have not been getting indirect costs into the SA. You we have claimed them, but they either staying in Claremont or we don't claim them all the time." At 0:48:10, on Unity: "I don't think you've claimed indirect costs." Budgeting revenue not historically collected is a judgment call; subtracting it before printing the percentage change compounds flag 3. Nobody connected the two on the record.

The wage lines. Frank Sprague's challenge at 0:39:53 (a post budgeted at $65,000 that the board had approved at $47,000) ran through four answers and was never resolved in dollars, because version 3 shows only function totals: Supt Office Salaries is one line of $430,950.14. The same applies to the $67,629.93 human-resources salary increase and the superintendent's 3 percent. The memo promises the missing detail ("I will send a copy of the wage increase by person with this summary"); that document is not in the packet.

An observation: RSA 194-C:9 prescribes no budget form, and RSA 32:1 does not name school administrative units.

Sources: SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3; SAU FY26 Budget Summary 12-2-24 (1); RSA 194-C:9; RSA 32:1.

OBSERVATION The packet's only narrative document explains version 2, and its account of the human-resources post depends on the position version 3 removes

The memo SAU FY26 Budget Summary 12-2-24 (1).pdf is dated 2 December 2024 and describes version 2. It asks: "Why does the overall increase still show 7.2%? This is due to a change in health insurance benefits in the Superintendent and HR office lines." Version 3's sheet shows −0.67%.

The memo also says: "The Human Resource Coordinator position is funded with additional money received from Title I. This money is from moving a portion of our Curriculum Director into the Title I grant." And: "An additional $50,000 will come from Title I to cover a portion of the Curriculum Coordinator position. This position was entirely in Title I until a few years ago when it moved to the SAU budget." Version 3 removes the curriculum director's 0.6, keeps the $67,629.93 human-resources increase, and keeps the $50,000, which the sheet labels "Additional Revenues from Contracted Services". When Michael Petrin read the memo's revenue sentence aloud (0:31:51), the assistant superintendent answered that the post had been ESSER-funded, not Title I (0:32:07).

This page does not say the $50,000 is wrong; it says the memo and version 3 cannot both describe the budget adopted, and nobody reconciled them on the record. The board's conditional fund-balance motion (flag 20) is a reasonable response to that uncertainty.

Sources: SAU FY26 Budget Summary 12-2-24 (1); SAU FY26 Proposed Budget V2; SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3.

OBSERVATION A dental increase announced at 10 percent is applied at 5 percent; the chair found it and the answer did not explain it

The business administrator at 0:52:21: "Dental did increase by 10%." The memo: "Dental increase by 10%." The chair tested it at 0:54:10 on the technology director's dental line, which covers one person: FY25 $1,578.78, FY26 $1,657.71, an increase of $78.93, 5.0 percent. Ten percent would be $157.88. The answers ran from "they had told us it was a 10% increase. I would have to go back and look" to an exchange ending "So it's less than 10%." / "Overall. Yeah." The line was not revisited. The record does not establish whether the rate or the budget is wrong.

The retirement figure at 0:52:45 is transcribed "It went from 3.53 to 12.75, which gave us a decrease"; the memo settles it: "NHRS decreased from 13.53% to 12.75%." The quotation is left as transcribed.

An observation: nothing requires an SAU to publish benefit-rate workings, and the sums are small. It is the one place in the meeting where a member tested a stated figure against the document and the two disagreed.

Sources: SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3 (account 100.41.2225.212); SAU FY26 Budget Summary 12-2-24 (1).

OBSERVATION The audit line spent nothing in two closed years, the fund balance drawn on is unaudited, and the February meeting booked for the auditors was cancelled

Version 3, Business Office Auditors: FY23 actual $0.00; FY24 actual $0.00; FY25 budget $10,000.00; FY26 $10,000.00. The FY25 ledger shows $2,600.00 spent by 2 December 2024. At 0:49:34 the business administrator put the fund balance at "a little over probably 350,000" with "that's give or take because we haven't been audited on some of the years. But the last audit we had 210." The board drew $160,000 of it.

The chair closed the meeting by booking the auditors for "February 13th" (1:08:10–1:08:47). No SAU 6 meeting of any kind is in this corpus between 12 December 2024 and 10 April 2025. The 10 April draft minutes record the chair noting "that there was a previous agenda item for 2020 and the report was received, but the meeting was cancelled"; the board then heard the 2021 audit and reached "Consensus to meet on an as-need basis".

An observation, not a violation. On 12 December 2024 no located New Hampshire statute required a school administrative unit to be audited. RSA 21-J:19 is permissive and names towns, school districts and village districts; RSA 197:25 is a district fallback; the only located SAU audit duty is RSA 194-C:4, II(a), which lists audits among the services an SAU provides. From July 1, 2026, RSA 198:4-d, VI as reenacted by 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 272 (SB 586), approved July 2, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026, requires school administrative units to be audited by an independent public accountant, with the report due within 9 months of fiscal year end under ¶VIII. That law postdates this meeting and is noted for context only.

Sources: SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3 (account 100.41.2520.383); Financials FY25 12-2-24 (2); 4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes; RSA 21-J:19; RSA 197:25; RSA 194-C:4, II(a); 2026 N.H. Laws ch. 272 (SB 586), chaptered text.

OBSERVATION Four of Unity's five members were absent when the joint board adopted the budget both towns pay for

The roll at 0:00:41 draws no answer for Erickson, Popescu, Simpson or Hart, all Unity members; the fifth, the vice chair, answers and is credited with no words. Every attributed board-member remark is a Claremont member's. The meeting was quorate under policy BBBH-S.

RSA 194-C:8 provides weighted voting, "each district shall be entitled to one vote for each 16 pupils residing in that district", but weighted votes "shall only be used upon the demand of a majority of the members of any board present and voting." None was demanded, so the uncounted voice votes are not irregular. On 14 November three of Unity's five attended and Kelly Simpson cast the only No recorded in those minutes; here she is absent and the one counted dissent is unnamed.

An observation: attendance is not a legal defect and no statute sets a district-composition quorum beyond the board's own policy. It is recorded because Unity's withdrawal plan had just been approved by the state board.

Sources: RSA 194-C:8 (1996, 298:3); SAU6 Budget Public Hearing agenda 12.12.24; 11.14.24 DRAFT SAU6 minutes (1).pdf.

OBSERVATION Nobody from the public attended, and the agenda allotted fifteen minutes to citizens' comments

No member of the public appears in the recording. The chair closed the hearing with thanks to those "watching" (1:01:22) and reached citizens' comments twenty seconds later (1:01:42): "Seeing no citizens in our audience". Nobody was turned away.

RSA 189:74 requires a school board to "provide the opportunity for the public to comment on school district matters at a meeting of the school board held under RSA 91-A:2" and provides that "The public comment period shall be for no less than 30 minutes." The agenda allots 8:10 to 8:25 p.m. Two open questions keep this an observation: whether the thirty minutes is a floor on elapsed time or on the opportunity offered, and whether a section addressed to "the school board" reaches the joint board of a school administrative unit. On the facts nobody wished to speak, and the hearing had been open for fifty-five minutes. The meeting was broadcast on CCTV Channel 8 and archived on Cablecast.

Sources: RSA 189:74 (2022, 333:1, eff. Sept. 6, 2022; never amended); SAU6 Budget Public Hearing agenda 12.12.24.

OBSERVATION Ledger items in the packet that nobody raised: unspent mileage lines re-budgeted, cell-phone lines overspent, and two negative actuals

All figures are from version 3 and the FY25 ledger printed 2 December 2024, both in the packet.

An observation: each figure is the district's own, and budgeting a line that went unspent, or overspending one line inside a lump-sum budget, is a management question. The business administrator said at 0:51:39 that the overspent lines would be reviewed "at our next meeting"; that meeting was cancelled.

Sources: SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3; Financials FY25 12-2-24 (2); SAU FY26 Budget Summary 12-2-24 (1); 4.10.25 DRAFT SAU6 Board Meeting Minutes.

POSITIVE The budget was adopted twenty days inside the statutory deadline, after a fifty-five-minute public hearing no statute requires

RSA 194-C:9, I: "At a meeting held before January 1, the school administrative unit board shall adopt a budget required for the expenses of the school administrative unit for the next fiscal year". It requires no public hearing on an SAU budget, and RSA ch. 32's hearing rules do not name school administrative units. The board noticed a hearing anyway, with published rules of participation, opened it, and closed it before the vote.

The deadline was met after the 3 December meeting failed for want of a quorum. On the 4 December Claremont School Board recording (show 16192, about 84 minutes in) the chair said: "We have legal deadlines we must follow. We have business that we must do. And I just want to know from this board, I've already reached out to a couple of people." Nine days later seven of twelve members sat and adopted a budget.

The hearing ran from 0:05:47 to 1:01:22, about fifty-five minutes, against about sixty-seven seconds for the FY25 hearing. Five of the seven members spoke to substance; the administration was questioned on the curriculum director, the finance director, the human-resources line, indirect costs, a wage discrepancy, the dental rate and the fund balance; and the board changed the budget as a result. Flag 3 is the counterweight.

Sources: RSA 194-C:9, I; RSA 32:1; SAU6 Budget Public Hearing agenda 12.12.24; companion page SAU 6 Board, December 14, 2023.

POSITIVE The board overruled its administration in open session, with reasons, and funded the decision from its own reserve

The administration proposed removing the curriculum director's 0.6 position as a cut in its own office, and two members agreed. The board then argued the proposal in public and reversed it.

Michael Petrin framed it at 0:59:03: "I hope you don't see this as a pushback against your thoughts. This is a push back on, us respecting the jobs that you you everybody here is doing". The board heard a recommendation, disagreed in public with reasons, priced the disagreement, funded it, and conditioned the money on Title funds not covering the post.

Sources: dialogue CSV; SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3.

POSITIVE The administration proposed its own office for the first cut, said why, and the $196,353.03 reduction reconciles exactly between the two published versions

The superintendent at 0:10:42: "I think in a good faith effort, as an office, we should be part of those solutions and not expect all of, you know, if we do make cuts that the coming from the classroom." The business administrator at 0:08:35 put the cut at "roughly $197,000". Version 2 totals $2,793,874.48 and version 3 $2,597,521.45: −$196,353.03. By function:

The finance director's post was presented as temporary, tied to finishing the audits, and the request to keep 0.8 in FY26 came with a training reason (0:37:29). The clerk-line relabel at 1:01:08 was offered unprompted.

Sources: SAU FY26 Proposed Budget V2 and SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3, function totals compared 2026-09-25.

POSITIVE The fund-balance draw was taken as its own motion, at the business administrator's request, restricted to a purpose and conditioned on a contingency

At 1:03:41, right after the figure was settled: "I'd like if you can make a separate motion to use the fund balance, because that really needs to be its own motion." She had explained at 0:50:40 why a restricted vote binds. On 14 November the same board had resolved by consensus, with no motion, to apply $180,000 of this surplus.

Whitney Skillen's motion at 1:04:17 names $160,000 and a condition ("If the administration finds that that position cannot be covered with title one funds"), and she corrected the post named mid-sentence. The clerk asked for the figure to be repeated; the assistant superintendent widened "title one funds" to "title funds" before the vote (1:05:10); the chair named the seconder for the record (1:05:18).

Sources: dialogue CSV; companion page SAU 6 Board, November 14, 2024.

POSITIVE Policy KE returned for the second reading the November board ordered, proof-read; the adopted copy still records no adoption date

On 14 November the board pulled KE from a first-reading slate over response timelines. It returns here as Second Read--Policy KE_ Public Complaints - Google Docs.pdf with a "Public Complaint Policy Timeline KE-R" of 30 days in four steps (teacher 1–3 days, principal 4–10, superintendent 11–20, board 21–30). Whitney Skillen's motion fixed a real defect in the packet copy, the stray full stop in "may delegate the investigation back to the principal. for resolution."

Two points remain: the document's "District Policy History" reads "First reading: 11.14.2024" with the second-reading line blank, so the adopted policy records no adoption date; and the KE-R procedure is embedded as step 4 of KE's board-member complaint list. Neither was raised.

Sources: Second Read--Policy KE_ Public Complaints - Google Docs.pdf; companion page SAU 6 Board, November 14, 2024.

POSITIVE Version 3 foots exactly, in all five columns

The seven function subtotals sum to the printed grand total in every column (rechecked 2026-09-25):

The document gives two years of actuals, the current appropriation and the proposal side by side, more than RSA 194-C:9 asks. Version 3 also moves the $3,600 clerk stipend from object 321 (where version 2 showed it for FY25) to object 112, where the FY25 ledger carries it. The arithmetic is sound; flag 3 concerns the caption and the unstated total.

Sources: SAU6 FY26 Proposed Budget V3; SAU FY26 Proposed Budget V2; Financials FY25 12-2-24 (2).

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.

Laws and rules cited on this page