District voters approve motion to cure unsigned-warrant defect, 171-94

HOLLIS — Voters at a special Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District meeting voted 171 to 94 to "cure" a procedural defect created when a warrant related to the district's March 19, 2026 annual meeting was posted without board-member signatures.

Miss Burtstock, a district official who addressed attendees at the meeting, apologized for the oversight and said the signed warrant and related documents were later posted and that legal counsel and the secretary of state had advised the omission appeared clerical. "I take full responsibility for this procedural defect," she said, adding, "That was a rookie mistake, and I apologize, and I certainly will not make that same error again."

The measure, read aloud as Article 1, asked voters whether the district should treat the earlier posting as if it had contained the required signatures. Allison Minutale, who spoke for the district's legal/administrative side, told the meeting that if the article passes "it is as though the warrant was posted with signatures" and the matter will move through the Department of Revenue Administration. If the article failed, she said, the district would likely need to petition the court to hold an emergency meeting to adopt appropriations for the next fiscal year.

Before the ballot was opened, residents debated a proposed amendment to the meeting rules that would have guaranteed one minute of speaking time to voters already in line if a motion to end debate passed. Resident Mister Garuba argued the change was needed so "we deserve the ability to ask questions and have them answered." The moderator put the amendment to a show-of-cards vote and announced the "noes have it," then called a vote to adopt the meeting rules as written.

During discussion, Garuba asked why the defect was not disclosed at the March 19 annual meeting and what penalties might apply if spending took place without a specific appropriation. Legal counsel said RSA 32 provides a process for emergency appropriations and that, while the court can remove members in certain circumstances, there is not an automatic statutory budget reduction tied to this procedural defect.

After the ballot was closed and tallied, the moderator announced the result: "Yes 171. No 94. The article passes." A motion to dissolve and adjournment followed.

Late in the meeting a participant raised a point of order alleging the published notice in the Union Leader referenced RSA 40:16 (which applies to SB 2 districts and towns) rather than the statute the participant cited for curing meetings, RSA 31:5-b. The moderator noted that the posted warrant available on the SAU website is the official posting and that the newspaper item alone was not the controlling document; discussion of that point continued as the meeting adjourned.

The special meeting was convened to correct the procedural posting error flagged by the Department of Revenue Administration; the district's action means the previously posted warrant will be treated as properly posted for administrative purposes, according to the explanation given during the meeting.