Argument: Transparency in Appointing N.H School Superintendents

In New Hampshire, school superintendents are not merely hired employees—they are appointed public officials, a distinction that carries significant legal and democratic implications. Accordingly, the process of selecting a superintendent must be conducted in full public view, consistent with RSA 91-A, the state’s Right-to-Know Law. The public has both a legal right and a compelling interest in scrutinizing candidates for this critical leadership role through open meetings.

Legal Framework and Precedent

Under RSA 194-C, school boards appoint superintendents to lead School Administrative Units (SAUs). The term “appoint” reflects a public process governed by statutory authority—not a private hiring decision. This distinction was made explicit in the New Hampshire Supreme Court case Manchester v. Manchester School District, in which the Court held that school superintendents are political appointees, not employees in the traditional sense. As political appointees, their selection must be treated as a public matter.

Why the Public Must Have a Role

Superintendents are entrusted with the oversight of public funds, policy enforcement, long-term educational planning, and the welfare of students and staff. The public has a direct stake in the values, priorities, and competence of anyone appointed to this role. Their decisions affect everything from curriculum standards and school safety to budgeting and labor negotiations. These are not private, internal affairs—they are deeply public matters that require public accountability.

Allowing school boards to appoint superintendents in nonpublic sessions under RSA 91-A:3 not only violates the spirit of open government, but also deprives citizens of their right to evaluate, respond to, and influence the decision-making process of their elected officials. While RSA 91-A:3 permits closed sessions for certain narrow “personnel” exceptions—such as discussing individual performance or protecting employee privacy—this provision does not extend to the appointment of a public officer. Once a candidate is being considered for public appointment, the public’s right to know supersedes privacy interests.

Democratic Justification for Transparency

Transparency in the appointment process ensures that candidates are evaluated not just on internal criteria, but also in light of community values and expectations. Public input encourages higher standards, deters favoritism, and fosters trust between the community and the district. When the public can observe and engage in the selection process, the outcome is more likely to reflect the needs and priorities of the people the superintendent is meant to serve.

Conclusion

The role of a school superintendent is not a private job, but a public office, filled through an appointment process that must be open and accountable. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has made this clear, and RSA 91-A enshrines the public’s right to oversee such appointments. School boards must not circumvent this transparency by hiding superintendent appointments behind closed doors. The public deserves—and is legally entitled to—a voice and a view into the decisions that shape their schools and communities.

Jeffrey Thomas Clay, M.Ed.