Claremont School Board — October 19, 2016

OBSERVATION The board did not know whether it could deliberate on the vacancy appointment in nonpublic session

Setting up the November 2 interviews, the chair said at 0:18:33: "we can find more out about this, about deliberations whether to have those in nonpublic or if those are are required to be in public. We'll find out." No member answered, and no legal advice was reported back on this recording. In 2016 RSA 91-A:3, I(b) required any motion to enter nonpublic session to "state on its face the specific exemption under paragraph II"; the paragraph II grounds then in force included "The hiring of any person as a public employee" (II(b)) and matters likely to affect adversely the reputation of a person "other than a member of the public body itself" (II(c)). None names the appointment of a member to fill a board vacancy, and whether an elected-office appointee is a "public employee" under II(b) is a legal question this page does not resolve.

What happened two weeks later is on the November 2, 2016 page, which flags a nonpublic motion that named no exemption and minutes sealed by voice vote. This meeting's own conduct raises no issue: the open question was stated in public, and the interview format itself was settled in public (flag 6).

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, I(b) and II(b)-(c) (2015 and 2016 codifications identical on these passages): motion must state the exemption; hiring and reputation grounds.

OBSERVATION A member said he had never seen nonpublic minutes; this meeting's own minutes, and any nonpublic minutes of the period, are not online

At 1:41:00 Adrian, reading the statute, said "I just have never seen the nonpublic minutes other." The chair's answer was accurate for 2016: sealing requires a vote "in public session" (1:42:03). RSA 91-A:3, III then required nonpublic minutes and decisions to be "publicly disclosed within 72 hours" unless withheld by a "recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present taken in public session" with one of the statutory determinations, and permitted withholding only "until, in the opinion of a majority of members, the aforesaid circumstances no longer apply". The chair's gloss that sealing is "typically" "until a certain date" is his description of practice, not the statutory test. The superintendent added that the public minutes record the votes to enter nonpublic session.

The record limit is the project's usual one for this period: MAP.md records that neither district Drive share holds anything before July 2022 (checked 9/26/26), so no agenda, packet, public minutes or nonpublic minutes for October 2016 could be inspected. That is a limit of what the district posts online, not evidence that minutes were never kept: the board approved the October 5 minutes on this recording at 0:04:15. Under the project's missing-records rule this is recorded as an online-availability observation, because the recording itself shows minutes being kept and approved and shows no nonpublic session at this meeting.

Sources: RSA 91-A:3, III (2015 and 2016 codifications): 72-hour disclosure unless withheld by recorded 2/3 vote with a determination; RSA 91-A:2, II (2015 codification): minutes open to inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting; Input/SupportingDocuments/MAP.md section 16.

OBSERVATION The chair's account of Right-to-Know penalties is partly right, but its date and dollar figure are not supported

At 1:14:22 the chair cited "a recent case with sandwich" [Sandwich, N.H.] and said "I think in 2015 they beefed up the 91 A where the board is liable to pay", adding "I think it was $207,000 in particular. The board then can hold the person responsible for paying that, that fine." RSA 91-A:8 as it read in 2016 did make a public body liable for reasonable attorney's fees and costs where a lawsuit was necessary to enforce compliance (¶I), set a civil penalty of "not less than $250 and not more than $2,000" for an officer who violated the chapter in bad faith (¶IV), and allowed that such a person "may also be required to reimburse the public body" for fees it paid. But the section's source note ends "2012, 206:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2013"; there was no 2015 amendment. The Sandwich case and the $207,000 figure were not verified and are the chair's characterization. The practical point he was making, that personal exposure exists for bad-faith violations, was correct.

Sources: RSA 91-A:8, I and IV (2016 codification; source note ends 2012, 206:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2013): fees against the body; bad-faith penalty and reimbursement.