School Board Tables Bill Talk: Discussion Over NH SB 420 Pushed to Later Date

By Dylan Marsh
EAGLE TIMES STAFF
CLAREMONT — The Claremont School Board has opted to table the discussion around the warrant article for New Hampshire State Bill 420.

The board voted unanimously to table the discussion, with the purpose of seeking legal counsel or contact with the Department of Education before moving forward. NH SB 420, which was signed by Governor Sununu on July 1, offers additional funding to school districts in extraordinary need.

The discussion of the total dollar amount being sent to the school, the definition of the type of funding being sent, and how best to allocate the funds to fit the parameters of the state bill led school board members to the decision to table the discussion.

The intention of the School Board meeting, held on October 5, 2022, was to outline the financial situation surrounding the increased funding and announce a special meeting, which was to be held on October 20 at the Stevens High School auditorium. That meeting, along with last Wednesday’s discussion, has been tabled and will be changed to an undetermined date.

During a reading of the warrant article, Superintendent Michael Tempesta listed each department into which the funding would be placed, which included capital reserve funding, energy, and transportation. School Board member Steven Horsky spoke positively to the plans for the funding stating that, “This would be a good opportunity to have money set aside where the district may have shortfalls,” and, “This is where the district could use the money most effectively.”

Outlined in the bill are requirements that need to be met by the school district in order to receive the additional funding, which became the focus of the conversation. Significantly, the bill states that the district, “provide a plan to the department of education outlining how the district intends to improve the educational achievement of students,” as well as create an accountability plan that shows student improvement.

Uncertain as to how using the money in this way meets those requirements, School Board member Whitney Skillen asked Tempesta,“In your experience, the accountability planning that you already have to do will put us in compliance with receiving these funds and in the past when you’ve had to defend using funds to improve outcomes, using them in this way has been acceptable for the department of education in your accountability plan?”

Business Administrator Richard Seaman informed the board that the funds would be unrestricted, and that the School Board would not have to put in their accountability plan how the money is being spent down to the dollar.

Claremont residents like Arlene Hawkins raised concerns that the funding could be better spent were it used to more directly impact the students. Hawkins also asked how much money the district had saved for the capital reserve funds, which is currently $500,000 and for transportation which is currently roughly $230,000. “The funding is specifically designed for districts in need for academic achievement and I question your use of that funding,” Hawkins to administrators and school board members. They went on to say, “I believe it’s doing a disservice to our children and their families.”

Issues around the exact dollar amount being received by the district were brought up as well. Skillen asked administrators what the total dollar amount being given to the district would be, to which an administrator replied $429,867. It was later brought up by residents that it states in the bill Clarmeont would receive $489,872 for the fiscal year 2023.

School Board and administration members also found difficulty coming to an agreement on whether or not this would officially be deemed grant money. While the bill itself states that the funding would be grants from the state with such sections as, “AN ACT establishing an extraordinary need grant for schools and relative to eligibility for the education tax credit,” and, “This grant is calculated based on equalized valuation per free and reduced-price meal pupils (EVFRP),” Seaman refuted this. At one point, he stated, “It’s not a grant, it’s additional adequacy aid.”

Members of the School Board do state that ultimately the funding would be benefiting students by having additional funding in other areas. Should an emergency arise, it would not have to affect the annual budget.