Girard blasts $182,000 superintendent hire amid Claremont school deficit

Claremont’s decision to hire Timothy Broadrick at a first-year salary of $182,000 is sharpening the debate over how the district handles money after months of fiscal turmoil. Mayor and state Rep. Dale Girard blasted the school board’s choice, arguing that a superintendent package at near top-tier state levels sits uncomfortably beside a district still struggling to regain financial control.

Broadrick agreed to a two-year contract that also includes a $2,250 monthly housing stipend because he is declining district health insurance at his request. The agreement adds up to $9,000 in payments to Broadrick’s current district for work he does on Claremont’s behalf before his July 1, 2026 start date, along with up to $500 a month for job-related travel. Claremont School District said Broadrick will officially assume the superintendent role on July 1, 2026.

The hiring lands after a year in which Claremont’s finances worsened in public view. The district first disclosed roughly a $2 million deficit in May 2025, then said in September 2025 that the shortfall had grown to just over $5 million. The crisis led to anxiety about cash flow, possible cuts and the stability of district leadership. Chris Pratt resigned as superintendent in September 2025 amid the financial strain.

Broadrick comes to Claremont from Prospect Mountain School District, where he previously served as superintendent, and he also worked in the Alton, Barnstead and Prospect Mountain tri-district system. District officials have said they were looking for a leader who could restore sound management while improving student learning, a challenge that now rests heavily on whether the board can show the new contract will produce measurable results.

For Sullivan County taxpayers, the central question is not only whether Broadrick can steady Claremont schools, but whether the board can justify paying one of the state’s highest superintendent salaries while the district remains under scrutiny for its deficit, staffing instability and leadership turnover. Girard’s criticism has turned the contract into a test of oversight: whether this is a strategic investment in recovery or another sign that the district’s governance problems still have not been solved.