School Funding System Declared Unconstitutional

[KBCraig]

LOL... After my post, the Union Leader's editorial hit the online edition, and makes the same points.

I wish the writer had spelled out what amendment he favors. I infer that he proposes a clear amendment, stating that it's not the state's job to fund education per Article 83. But, it could be that he's calling for an amendment that provides uniform statewide funding. I can't really tell.

But he does answer the court just as I answered the Monitor.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Cancel+Claremont+or+the+Supreme+Court+will+bleed+us+dry&articleId=e7f7e2bc-ef3c-4884-a567-976e5de0f4dd

Cancel Claremont or the Supreme Court will bleed us dry

A SINGLE LINE from last week?s Superior Court decision that overturned the current educational funding formula has provided the best argument to date for amending the state constitution to overturn the Supreme Court?s Claremont rulings.

?For the applicable law in this case, the Court need look no further than the decisions of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Claremont I and its progeny.?

That?s right, to decide whether the state?s education funding formula is constitutional, the court need not consult the actual constitution. On education funding, the constitution itself has been entirely supplanted by the Claremont decisions.

In Claremont I, the court ruled ?that part II, article 83 (of the New Hampshire Constitution) imposes a duty on the State to provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child in the public schools in New Hampshire and to guarantee adequate funding.?

Last week?s decision cited that sentence as the basis for overturning the existing education funding formula. Problem is, Part II, Article 83 of the state constitution says no such thing. It says this:

?. . . it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.?

We quote the constitution at length because nothing better demonstrates the absurdity of the Claremont rulings. The constitution orders the state to ?cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools? and to ?encourage private and public institutions? that promote education. Nowhere in those words do the framers ever state that the legislators must appropriate funds for those purposes, much less provide equal funding for each public school in the state. Those provisions were invented by the justices who wrote the Claremont rulings. And now they have supplanted the constitution as the ultimate authority on education funding.

There is no getting around it. The only possible way out of the education funding mess is a constitutional amendment. Without one, the state will have to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the Claremont decisions. And there can be only one source of that much money: a broadbased tax.

So here we are, yet again. Do we let the court get away not only with rewriting the constitution, but with imposing a broadbased tax on New Hampshire, thereby transforming the state government into a massive, money-devouring bureaucracy its founders never intended? Or do we amend the constitution to restore the state to its proper parameters?

If New Hampshire is to retain that which makes it unique among the 50 states, there is only one answer. Amend the constitution.

[Fluff and Stuff]

If New Hampshire is to retain that which makes it unique among the 50 states, there is only one answer. Amend the constitution.

Or just follow the Constitution.  Anyway, that was a mostly good article.  I am always amazed at how good the paper in Manchester is.  I guess the people in Keene get an extra treat, two good papers 

[KBCraig]

Gatsas plans to introduce an amendment.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gatsas%e2%80%99+school+plan+sidesteps+courts&articleId=b3f867dd-9ef7-4eb0-a0f3-226be76720e1

Gatsas? school plan sidesteps courts

By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief

Concord ? Senate President Ted Gatsas has decided, at nearly the last possible minute, to sponsor a constitutional amendment to take state courts out of the education funding issue.

Gatsas, a Manchester Republican, said yesterday his proposal would leave it to the Legislature and the governor to define and fund education. He has not drafted language for the measure yet, and it has no bill number assigned to it.

Under the rules the Legislature is following this year, the Senate has to take final votes by March 22 on any bills it wants to send to the House. That gives Gatsas nine days to finish writing the proposal, win approval in committee and pass it with a super-majority vote. If it passed the Senate, it would face an uphill battle in the House.

Hillsborough County Superior Court Justice William Groff last week ruled that the state?s latest education funding plan, written by Gatsas, is unconstitutional. The plan would treat property-wealthy communities different from property-poor ones by creating a ?non-uniform tax rate? with ?no constitutional justification,? he said.

Further, Groff said, because it has not defined an adequate education or set its costs, the Legislature ?completely failed? its responsibilities as they were laid out in past state Supreme Court rulings on school funding lawsuits.

Gatsas said yesterday ?the word ?adequate? won?t be there? when his amendment is completed.

?We will just define the cost of education, whatever it might be ? equalized, adequate, upside-down or inside-out,? Gatsas said.

Gov. John Lynch?s press secretary, Pamela Walsh, said that without knowing how the amendment would be worded, it would be hard to tell what its implications would be.

?The governor has expressed concerns in the past about constitutional amendments that would eliminate the state?s responsibility for education,? she said.

Constitutional amendments aimed at taking power from the courts on education funding have failed in every session of the Legislature since 1997, when the Supreme Court struck down the state?s reliance on local property taxes to fund education.

Mark Joyce, executive director of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, said the Gatsas proposal should not come as a surprise.

?It seems like a perennial first reaction whenever a decision to enforce the Constitution comes forward,? he said. ?Education is a fundamental public interest. We believe the citizens of New Hampshire believe that deeply and will always reaffirm it given the opportunity to do so.?

The bill is expected to go to a public hearing Monday in the Senate Finance Committee. The full Senate would have to vote on the bill by next Wednesday.

Constitutional amendments have to pass both the House and Senate by a three-fifths majority. Republicans hold a 16-8 advantage over Democrats in the Senate. Gatsas would need 15 Senate votes to send the amendment to the House. It would need 240 votes to pass there, and the GOP holds 246 seats. If it got to voters in November, it would need to pass by a two-thirds majority.

Gatsas first mentioned the amendment idea at a weekend meeting of New Castle Republicans.

Rep. Daniel Hughes, R-New Castle, said, ?It?s a great idea. I see no other way to avoid lawsuits every time a town gets a little less than it did the year before. We all want to get this thing to bed once and for all one day.?

Sen. Lou D?Allensandro, D-Manchester, said the problem never needed to come up in the first place and argued that a House plan based on a proposal by Lynch would have avoided court action

Assistant House Minority Leader Daniel Eaton, D-Stoddard, doubted the amendment could pass in the House, where Republican moderates oppose the move.

?I think with the ratio of Republicans to Democrats as they are at the moment that it would probably not stand a snowball?s chance in hell,? he said

[cathleeninnh]

How do you guys feel about NHCAFE seeking reimbursement of attorney's fees? They collected $273,000 from various towns and school districts for the fight. And now that they won, they want to pass the cost on to the rest of the state.

In a fair and just system, loser pays sounds pretty good. With a bad call like this, we are doubly screwed.

Cathleen

[Dreepa]

I just noticed that ravelkinbow is no longer a user... what gives?

[cathleeninnh]

I don't know.