Claremont School Board — June 1, 2016

OBSERVATION The nonpublic session's exemption cannot be read from the recording: the chair's citation sounds like II(j) and the motion's like II(d)

At 0:01:04 the superintendent asked to drop one of two nonpublic items: "You're not going to need to go into nonpublic for RSA 91 A three, two C only three to J." At the end of the meeting the chair asked for "a quick nonpublic, RSA 91832 J." (2:27:33), and Brent Ferland moved "as pursuant to RSA 91 a three two day" (2:27:47); Pierce seconded and a roll call followed (2:27:56). The transcript therefore offers two readings. Paragraph II(j) as it read in 2016 covered "Consideration of confidential, commercial, or financial information that is exempt from public disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, IV in an adjudicative proceeding pursuant to RSA 541 or RSA 541-A.", which is an unusual fit for a school board. Paragraph II(d) covered "Consideration of the acquisition, sale, or lease of real or personal property which, if discussed in public, would likely benefit a party or parties whose interests are adverse to those of the general community.", which would fit the evening's long discussion of properties for an alternative program, though nobody on the recording says what the session was about.

RSA 91-A:3, I(b) required the motion to "state on its face the specific exemption under paragraph II" and a roll-call vote; a motion was made, seconded and taken by roll call, and a citation was spoken, which is to the board's credit. What cannot be confirmed here is which exemption it was, whether the discussion stayed within it (I(c)), and whether the nonpublic minutes were disclosed within 72 hours or sealed by a recorded two-thirds vote (III). The minutes of this meeting and of the nonpublic session would settle all three; none are online.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b), I(c), II(d), II(j), III (2015 codification, the text in force on June 1, 2016).

OBSERVATION About $2.7 million in out-of-district special education costs, including students who moved in already placed; several legal descriptions were the speakers' characterizations

The special education director reported at 0:51:18 that four students went to out-of-district placements on July 1 at a cost of about $350,000 (he speaks of a gap between budget development and the placements, though the transcript says they were "completely budgeted for", so whether they were in the budget is unclear), and four more moved in already placed, making the district "the district of liability" (0:52:26); together "well over $500,000". The business administrator and a member arrived at $2.7 million for all out-of-district placements (1:11:35). Out-of-district placements are the same pressure the business administrator had described two weeks earlier when he froze spending (see the May 18, 2016 page). The administration also reported a $750,000 vendor proposal for an in-district alternative program and a search for property.

Three statements about the law were not verified here and are recorded as the speakers' characterizations: that the receiving district becomes liable when a placed student moves in ("That is the law."); that for court placements "the court caps it at 50 grand" with the state taking over "under RSA 402", which does not match any provision this page verified; and a member's description of an "unfunded mandate". The 3 1/2 figure the business administrator mentioned does match New Hampshire's catastrophic special education aid threshold as it then read, RSA 186-C:18, III, under which the State paid 80 percent of a child's costs above 3 1/2 times the state average expenditure per pupil; that is a state reimbursement formula, not a cap on what a district pays, and whether he meant it is unclear.

Sources: RSA 186-C:18, III (2016 codification; catastrophic aid threshold and proration).

OBSERVATION The board approved buying Chromebooks for itself without a dollar amount in the motion

The superintendent estimated "$350 per and seven, you know, about $2,500." (0:38:06). The motion at 0:44:21 was "that we proceed with acquiring Chromebooks for the use of the Claremont School Board and others as needed", with no figure, device count or budget line, and the voice vote at 0:47:25 is garbled in the transcript. The sum is small and the stated purpose (paperless meetings; printing was put at nine cents a page) is ordinary. The observation is about the record: a motion that carries its amount and funding line lets a reader later match the vote to the expenditure. No statute is implicated on the recording.

Sources: No statute; observation on the form of the motion.

OBSERVATION A member's description of a state law defining transgender status could not be verified; federal guidance issued nineteen days earlier was not mentioned

After the policy votes, Brent Ferland said at 2:09:02: "They passed a law with the attorney general stating that a transgender is somebody that has been in counseling for six months". This page did not verify any New Hampshire statute in force on June 1, 2016 matching that description, and it is recorded as the speaker's characterization. The superintendent preferred the practice of handling cases individually and privately, and the principal proposed handbook language; no action was taken. The superintendent's statement that "legally a student handbook really is policy" is likewise his characterization.

The discussion did not mention the Departments of Education and Justice's Dear Colleague Letter on transgender students of May 13, 2016, which then stated the federal agencies' Title IX position on facilities access. It was guidance, not regulation, and was withdrawn on February 22, 2017. A transgender students policy reached the board as a first reading on August 17, 2016.

Sources: ED/DOJ Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students, May 13, 2016 (guidance); withdrawal letter of February 22, 2017.

OBSERVATION No agenda, packet or minutes for this meeting are posted online, and the roll call is only partly audible

MAP.md records that neither district Drive share holds anything before July 2022 (checked 9/26/26), so this page rests on the recording alone. That is a limit of what the district posts online today, not by itself evidence that records were never made: the board approves minutes on this recording (0:02:33), a staff member takes notes of motions (2:27:19), and the superintendent says agendas and minutes were then posted on the district website. In 2016, RSA 91-A:2, II required minutes to be "open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting". Attendance is inferred from who speaks; the minutes would settle it. The limb of the project's missing-records rule applied is the online-availability observation.

Sources: RSA 91-A:2, II (2015 codification, in force until January 1, 2017); Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 10.