Greetings!

This is a special edition of the NH Progressive Newsletter devoted entirely to Gov. Lynch's proposed constitutional amendment. I have gathered here the amendment itself, the Governor's statement asking for support, two news articles, and various commentary.

I will start with my own comments because I hope you will read them.

The amendment is bad for New Hampshire. You should call your state senator and urge him or her to vote 'no.' Don't delay, because they will probably vote next week.

Here's why the amendment should fail:

1. Its main selling point is a deception: Gov. Lynch and his spokespeople say over and over that the state is unable to target aid, and that the amendment is needed so that the state can target aid to the towns that need it most. This is not true. The state can target aid now, but only after the state has paid for an adequate education for all schoolchildren. (BTW, the last version of the Hager Below Fernald plan would have funded adequacy AND targeted additional aid to poorer towns.) The Governor's office has stated its misstatement so many times that the press is starting to repeat it. Note in the Concord Monitor editorial below where they say "The court, though, has forbidden such an approach , meaning it can't be used unless the constitution is amended." Utter rubbish (and they should know better.)

2. The amendment creates a conflict within the constitution that would lead to more litigation: Part 1 Article 83 of our constitution is the basis for the Claremont decisions. That article (dating from 1784) states that the legislature has a 'duty' to 'cherish' the schools. The Supreme Court interpreted that to mean that the state has a duty to provide an adequate education to all children. Since it is a state obligation, the state must pay for it, and the taxes used to pay for it must equal in rate and valuation throughout the state. Local property taxes fail this test because they vary from town to town.

Gov. Lynch's amendment does not change Article 83, so the state's duty to provide an adequate education remains. The Governor's amendment would add a new Article 83-a that says the legislature can fund half of adequacy, and decide how to distribute that half. However, this means that some part of the state's duty to provide and pay for an adequate education will be paid for with the local property tax, violating another part of the constitution. So if the amendment passes, we're back in court trying to untangle the contradiction between Article 83 and Article 83A.

3. The amendment will cement in place our ridiculous, unfair property tax: The Governor has stated repeatedly that we can pay for education within our existing tax structure. If the legislature defines adequacy as about half of the cost of what we are spending now, and if the state is only obligated to pay half of that, the state will pay just a quarter of the total cost of education. That's within a couple percentage points of what the state is providing for education aid now. If the amendment passes, the state will continue to kick in its 25%, and property taxes will pay for the other 75%. Passage of the amendment will be interpreted as an OK of the current system. If you like the property tax, vote for the amendment.

4. Middle towns will get less state aid: The Governor wants to give more money to poorer towns, and he wants to live within the existing tax structure of the state. If the poorer towns get more money, the only place to get it is to give the middle towns less. Londonderry, Auburn, Hooksett, Exeter, Keene--essentially every town that received aid for the first time after the Claremont decision--will lose millions of dollars.

Here's how to contact of your state senator:

01 John Gallus

292 Prospect Street

Berlin, NH 03570-2137 (H) (603)752-1066

(O) (603)271-3077

john.gallus@leg.state.nh.us

02 Deborah Reynolds

5 Chaddarin Lane

Plymouth, NH 03264 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-3569

deb.Reynolds@leg.state.nh.us

03 Joseph Kenney

PO Box 201

Union, NH 03887-0201 (H) (603)473-2569

(O) (603)271-3073

joseph.kenney@leg.state.nh.us

04 Kathleen Sgambati

25 Pine Street

Tilton, NH 03276 (H) (603)286-8931

(O) (603)271-3074

kathleen.sgambati@leg.state.nh.us

05 Peter Burling

20 Lang Road

Cornish, NH 03745-4209 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-2642

peter.burling@leg.state.nh.us

06 Jacalyn Cilley

2 Oak Hill Road

Barrington, NH 03825 (H) (603)664-5597

(O) (603)271-3045

jacalyn.cilley@leg.state.nh.us

07 Harold Janeway

225 Tyler Road

Webster, NH 03303 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-3041

harold.janeway@leg.state.nh.us

08 Bob Odell

PO Box 23

Lempster, NH 03605-0023 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-6733

rpojr@aol.com

09 Sheila Roberge

83 Olde Lantern Road

Bedford, NH 03110-4816 (H) (603)472-8391

(O) None Specified

sheila.roberge@leg.state.nh.us

10 Molly Kelly

89 Colonial Drive

Keene, NH 03431 (H) (603)352-5605

(O) (603)271-7803

molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us

11 Peter Bragdon

P.O. Box 307

Milford, NH 03055 (H) (603)673-7135

(O) (603)271-2675

peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us

12 David Gottesman

18 Indian Rock Road

Nashua, NH 03063-1308 (H) (603)889-4442

(O) (603)271-4152

david.gottesman@leg.state.nh.us

13 Joseph Foster

9 Keats Street

Nashua, NH 03062-2509 (H) (603)891-0307

(O) (603)271-2111

joseph.foster@leg.state.nh.us

14 Robert Clegg

39 Trigate Road

Hudson, NH 03051-5120 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-8630

senclegg@aol.com

15 Sylvia Larsen

23 Kensington Road

Concord, NH 03301 (H) (603)225-6130

(O) (603)271-2111

sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us

16 Theodore Gatsas

20 Market St

PO Box 6655

Manchester, NH 03104-6052 (H) (603)623-0220

(O) (603)271-8567

Ted.Gatsas@leg.state.nh.us

17 John Barnes

PO Box 362

Raymond, NH 03077-3062 (H) (603)895-9352

(O) (603)271-6931

jack.barnes@leg.state.nh.us

18 Betsi DeVries

14 Old Orchard Way

Manchester, NH 03103 (H) (603)647-0117

(O) (603)271-2104

betsi.devries@leg.state.nh.us

19 Robert Letourneau

30 South Avenue

Derry, NH 03038 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-8631

robert.letourneau@leg.state.nh.us

20 Lou D'Allesandro

332 St. James Avenue

Manchester, NH 03102-4950 (H) (603)669-3494

(O) (603)271-2600

dalas@leg.state.nh.us

21 Iris Estabrook

8 Burnham Avenue

Durham, NH 03824-3011 (H) (603)868-5524

(O) (603)271-3042

iris.estabrook@leg.state.nh.us

22 Michael Downing

7 Darryl Lane

Salem, NH 03079 (H) (603)893-5442

(O) (603)271-2674

michael.downing@leg.state.nh.us

23 Margaret Hassan

48 Court Street

Exeter, NH 03833-2728 (H) (603)772-4187

(O) (603)271-4153

maggie.hassan@leg.state.nh.us

24 Martha Fuller Clark

152 Middle Street

Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-6933

martha.fullerclark@leg.state.nh.us

In this issue:

1. The text of the amendment

2. Governor Lynch's letter to Democrats asking for support

3. Union Leader article

4. Another Union Leader article

5. Press release from the 'purple group,' a bi-partisan group of legislators interested in education funding

6. Editorial from (the Nashua Telegraph? I forgot to copy that part!)

7. Editorial from the Concord Monitor

8. Op-ed by Scott Johnson, counsel for the Claremont Coalition

9. Op-ed by Bruce Keough

Mark Fernald

1. Text of Lynch amendment

By The Associated Press | March 22, 2007

Text of Gov. John Lynch's proposed constitutional amendment on school funding:

(Art.) 83-a (Funding of Public Education.) In fulfillment of the duty to cherish public schools set forth in the preceeding Article, the general court shall define an adequate education, regularly determine the total statewide cost thereof, fund, with state monies, not less than fifty percent of the total statewide cost of an adequate education each year, and maintain standards of accountability. The general court shall have the authority to distribute the funds in the manner that it determines to best promote an equal opportunity for an adequate education for every child in the public schools, provided that the general court shall distribute some state aid to every school district.

#################

2. Dear Fellow Democrat:

As you have likely heard in the news, I recently joined with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers - including our fellow Democrats, Senators Joe Foster, Peter Burling and Martha Fuller Clark and Representatives Sharon Nordgren, Tara Reardon and Martha McLeod - to propose a constitutional amendment that will allow New Hampshire to finally make progress on education funding.

I write today to ask for your support of this important effort.

Like you, I care passionately about education. And I believe that all children in New Hampshire should have the opportunity not just for an adequate education, but a quality education that prepares them to get a good job, pursue higher education if they choose and reach their full potentials.

For 10 years, New Hampshire has struggled to resolve the education funding debate and to give every child in New Hampshire that opportunity. Unfortunately, we have not been able to make real progress because New Hampshire faces restrictions no other state in the nation faces - restrictions that prevent us from putting in place the best possible education policy for our state.

We all know there are some New Hampshire communities that can offer more to their students, while other communities s truggle to provide just the basics. A school funding formula that distributes essentially the same amount of state aid for every student, regardless of community and need, will only widen these disparities of opportunity. We will never close the gap and ensure equity and excellence for all our children under that type of approach.

In contrast, directing more state education aid to the communities with the greatest need will help ensure fair opportunities for all of our students. It will lift up the communities that are straining to provide a quality education and ease the burden of property taxes in communities that struggle the most.

Unfortunately, the New Hampshire Supreme Court's rulings make it difficult to put in place an effective law to direct more state education aid to the communities that need it most, communities like Berlin, Claremont, Pittsfield, Laconia. Numerous other states have faced education-funding lawsuits. Those states have been able to address those lawsuits by directing more education aid to the communities that need it most. And in the process, these states have been able to improve educational opportunities for all the children in their states.

Massachusetts, for example, has a nearly identical constitutional provision on education to New Hampshire. The ruling in that state's education-funding case was a basis for the ruling of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the Claremont lawsuit. But Massachusetts is allowed to direct more state aid to the communities that need it most, and New Hampshire is not.

We need that same flexibility in New Hampshire. That is what this constitutional amendment will allow us to do. Our amendment affirms the state's responsibility for education, ensures an ongoing and significant state financial responsibility for education, and provides the flexibility New Hampshire needs to direct more education aid to the communities and children that need it most.

This amendment requires the legislature to define an adequate education, to regularly adjust the cost of an adequate education, and maintain standards of accountability. It sets a significant floor for state funding, maintains judicial review and ensures future legislations will never be able to abandon the state's responsibility for education. It requires that some state education aid be provided to every school district.

Amending our Constitution is not something I suggest lightly. I have opposed other constitutional amendments in the past that would have allowed the state to walk away from its responsibility for education. But we are not going to resolve the Claremont cases without greater flexibility to put in place a good education policy. For 10 years, Democrats have been fighting to make sure child in New Hampshire has the opportunity for a quality education. I truly believe this amendment offers us our best opportunity to make that goal a reality.

But to do it, I need your help and your support. If you have any questions or would like to know more about how you can support this amendment, please contact Lisa Bianco at the Lynch Committee at 228-6000.

Very truly yours,

John Lynch

###############

Union Leader

3. Lynch: School plan is flexible

By TOM FAHEY

State House Bureau Chief

Friday, Mar. 23, 2007

CONCORD Gov. John Lynch unveiled a proposed constitutional amendment yesterday that he said will guarantee the state will cover 50 percent of total public school costs.Lynch told reporters the amendment will put a solid floor under state aid and allow aid to be targeted to poorer towns. The state's portion won't be based on actual spending in schools statewide, but from what the Legislature says an adequate education should cost.

It leaves it up to the Legislature both to define and to figure the cost of an adequate education. It requires that some funds go to every district, but aid will be defined liberally. The Supreme Court would continue to have oversight on school funding issues.

Lynch said the plan is "a sensible and sustainable approach for ensuring every child in New Hampshire has the opportunity, not just for an adequate education, but a quality education." He said the amendment will end a decade of fighting and uncertainty that began with the 1997 Claremont school funding lawsuit decision.

Critics said the amendment allows school funding to go in any direction and virtually guarantees more court battles over school funding.

Lynch opposed other amendments that would end court oversight of the Claremont cases, which found the state had an obligation to fund public education for all students.

Flexibility to target aid to needy districts, he said, "will lift up the communities that are struggling to provide a quality education, and ease the burden of property taxes in those communities that struggle most."

State Sen. Robert Clegg, R-Hudson, said he is skeptical. He predicted the plan will split the state between haves and have-nots. Lawmakers from towns that figure they'll get a boost in aid will vote for it, and those from towns that think they'll lose will vote against it, he said, and sue for more funding.

Sen. Peter Burling, D-Cornish, a bill co-sponsor, said the amendment will work.

"In all my years of trying, this comes closest to success," he said.

?Lynch's funding proposal has its critics

Ellen Shemitz of the New Hampshire Children's Alliance said the amendment is unnecessary because Lynch's goals, including targeted funding, are already constitutional if done on a solid foundation of basic school aid.

"This reduces the right to an adequate education to a right to one-half of an adequate education, and removes the guarantee to rights for every child, to a right for some children," she said.

Andru Volinsky, the attorney who represented Claremont Coalition towns, said he could not understand why any community would take half what the constitution now gives it.

Lynch, he said, "will give the appearance with this amendment of helping the children in poorer school districts. The appearance will not bear out the reality."

Tammy Simmons, executive director of the conservative New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, said Lynch's proposal, "only solidifies the erroneous decision in Claremont."

Taken with a House Education committee vote yesterday to require kindergarten as part of an adequate education, she said, "the taxpayer took a one-two punch today."

Lynch said the 50 percent state share of costs would include all state aid.

"The intent at this time would be to broadly define state aid, which would include state aid for any purpose," he said.

The Supreme Court's Claremont decision interpreted the word "cherish" in the Constitution to obligate the state to fund the cost of an adequate education for public school students.

The Lynch amendment states that "the duty to cherish" will be met by defining adequacy, determining its cost and funding at least half of it. Lawmakers would target aid, "in the manner that it determines to best promote an equal opportunity for an adequate education for every child."

The Senate will hold a hearing on the amendment next week. It has to pass by a three-fifths majority in both the Senate and House before it can go before voters in November 2008, where it must win by a two-thirds majority.

##################

4. Lynch's funding proposal has its critics

By JOHN DISTASO

Senior Political Reporter

Friday, Mar. 23, 2007

CONCORD  It's shaping up to be a mirror image of legislative education funding fights of old. A Democratic governor yesterday introduced a constitutional amendment to allow targeted aid of education funding. And it was immediately praised by key Democrats and panned by key Republicans.

Democrats who had long opposed GOP-sponsored amendments and targeted aid plans and had supported a broad-based tax were on Gov. John Lynch's bandwagon. Republicans who had long argued that an amendment was the only way out of the decades-long morass were opposed.

"Dammit, I'm proud of this," said Sen. Peter Burling, D-Cornish, a co-sponsor. Calling it a "constitutional affirmation" of the Claremont II decision of 1997, Burling said, "This is a hell of a solution. We need to get the people of New Hampshire engaged in finding a solution to our school funding process. Now is the time."

But several influential members of the GOP legislative minority said Lynch's plan falls short by allowing continuing judicial review of the state's definition of an adequate education. Lynch said he had opposed past proposed amendments that "allows the state sometime in the future to walk away from its responsibility."

Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, was supportive of Lynch's plan.

"Unlike any constitutional amendment we've seen in the past relating to Claremont, this is an affirmative statement that the state does have a responsibility to educate children," she said. "I think it deserves consideration."

But veteran Republican Rep. Fran Wendelboe of New Hampton said, " There are those of us who feel in the Claremont decision, the court was incorrect in finding a constitutional obligation for education. The state has a responsibility and interest in assisting with education costs, but I don't believe it's a constitutional duty."

Wendelboe said that by allowing the court to be the final word on what is an adequate education, "It keeps us in court forever."

The proposed amendment requires the state to fund at least 50 percent of the cost of an adequate education, but it does not address the cost.

"That's like inviting someone to go out to dinner with you Dutch treat, and ordering from a menu without any prices," Wendelboe said. " At some point, you say, 'Oh my God, you should have told me what this is going to cost. I'm not going to commit to doing something that I don't know what it's going to cost."

Sen. Robert Clegg, R-Hudson, "You can't decide you're only going to pay for 50 percent of what's adequate, and that you're going to arbitrarily decide which kids get the money. That's why we keep going to court now."

He said he envisions school districts whose funding is cut under Lynch's targeted aid plan going to court under the provisions of Lynch's constitutional amendment, "and say, 'What you've given me doesn't provide an equal opportunity for the kids in my area.' That I see happening all the time."

Clegg said the proposed amendment "would allow the court to continually decide who and what. You might as well hand it over to the court at that point.

Senate Majority Leader Ted Gatsas called it "the wrong approach to say that we're going to give money to every community in the state and then say we're going to pay for 50 percent of it. How much are we paying for? What's the number?"

Despite Lynch's claim, "I don't think anyone in the State of New Hampshire is going to walk away from the most protected people we have in this society, and that's our children," Gatsas said.

Sen. David Gottesman, D-Nashua, said the plan addresses the education funding issue fairly, while Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, D-Manchester, supported its allowance for both court involvement and targeted aid.

"That's fundamental," he said. "You're always concerned about what your community is going to get," but, "Under any formula, Manchester will get its fair share."

Burling said that "unlike everything ever offered by the Republican Party, it preserves the role of the Supreme Court as the arbiter of our constitution." He said that in the past, Republicans "offered amendments that took the court out. Look at the language. It said, 'The Legislature can do whatever they damn well please.'"

House speaker Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, said she is taking no position on the amendment, but said she was "pleased to see that it does not undermine the legitimate role of the court."

She said that since her community is able to "raise enough money in property taxes to provide for our students, I'd much rather get enough support for other communities that have a more difficult time doing that." She declined to predict how the proposal would fare if it gets to the House.

The plan is expected to be first introduced in the 24-member Senate, where it will need 15 votes for a required 60 percent super-majority.

If it passes the Senate, it will then require a three-fifths majority in the House in order to go on the ballot in November 2008.

House Republican Leader Michael Whalley said the governor missed a chance to get the GOP leadership on board. He said he and the governor "had some conversations" about the plan on Tuesday and Wednesday, but he did not know Lynch would unveil the plan yesterday.

" There was an interest on his part for us to identify some Republicans that might be willing to co-sponsor the amendment, but we had some concerns that we weren't able to work out." Whalley said. He said Lynch specifically sought conservative Republicans Neal Kurk, R-Weare, and Gene Chandler, R-Bartlett, as co-sponsors.

Whalley said that had Lynch waited a few days, "we might have been able to join him. But I guess that's not going to happen." He said, " At this point, we're still evaluating."

He said he and other key Republicans are "a little bit uncomfortable" with "taking the word 'cherish' and translating that to mean defining an adequate education, and then say in the constitution that we will do it."

Whalley also said Lynch may have a problem having the bill introduced. He said that since the deadline for the introduction of bills has passed, Lynch needs two-thirds votes of the Senate and House to get the plan to the floor. Lynch's supporters say a " placeholder" bill filed before the deadline will fulfill the legislative filing rules.

################

5. News Release from Bipartisan Education Funding Group

(known as Purple Group --- Democrat color blue mixed with

Republican color red)

Subject: Governor Lynchs Proposed Constitutional Amendment for

Education Funding

March 27, 2007

Several bipartisan legislators, collectively known as the "Purple Group," expressed strong concern this week about Governor Lynch's proposed constitutional amendment for educational funding. Members of the group have previously submitted legislation to define and pay the State's share of an adequate education and have been working on the issue for over two years.

The proposed constitutional amendment proposes State funding of education at 50 percent of the cost of an "adequate education." But members point out that differs from such bills as HB-904 and HB-927 which define an adequate education as approximately 50 percent of the total amount currently being spent on education. By calling for the State to pay 50 percent of adequate education costs (which is 50 percent of the total education cost), Lynch's constitutional amendment would actually pay for only 25 percent of the total New Hampshire education costs. This significantly differs from the national average. Most States pay 50 percent of total education costs through their education grants. HB-927 (establishing a definition of adequate education) was passed by the NH House on March 27, 2007.

Current education grant spending in New Hampshire is 22 percent of the total education costs. This is the lowest in the nation. Under the proposed constitutional amendment, New Hampshire will remain last in the nation in education grant spending as a percentage of total education costs.

Using fiscal year 2005 data, the average education cost in New Hampshire was $11,220 per pupil (not including capital expenses). The table below shows the estimated effect of different approaches to State education funding using FY05 cost data:

Plan Average State Grant

Per Pupil State Grant Percentage

Of Total Cost

Actual FY05 Grants $2,279 20.3 %

HB-904 Grants $5,832 51.9 %

Lynch Grants $2,805 25.0 %

As shown above, the per pupil education grants from the State in FY05 were a State average of $2,279 per pupil which equals about 20.3% of the State average cost per pupil. One of the bills submitted this year to define adequacy was HB-904 and is similar to HB-927 (which was passed by the NH House). Costed out, HB-904 (HB-927 isn't appreciably different) adequacy would amount to $5,832 per pupil. If all of that---100%---were granted as the Supreme Court decision mandates, the percentage of State funding would be 51.9 percent, right on target with the national average. If however, the State does as Lynch proposes, that figure would fall to at most $2,805 per pupil which is just 25 percent of the total average education per pupil cost.

When the proposed constitutional amendment was made public, Lynch was quoted as saying the 50 percent state share of costs would include all State aid. "The intent at this time would be to broadly define state aid, which would include state aid for any purpose," he said, as reported in The Manchester Union Leader. Using other state grants to reduce the education grant amount to a community would limit further the State's contribution to local communities and increase their reliance on local property taxes to pay the balance of education costs.

Members of the group expressed concern that the State's high property tax burden is eroding the New Hampshire way of life by forcing long-time homeowners to sell their property and making it harder for young residents to buy and own property. They believe that as Lynch's amendment becomes better understood, the public will share their view that the proposed constitutional amendment fails to address the State's responsibility for education and does nothing to relieve the increasing burden on local property taxpayers.

For further information contact:

Rep. Christine Hamm

Home 746-4919

Cell 479-0063

Rep. Kim Casey

Home 772-8506

Cell 770-4987

Rep. Tim Dunn

Cell 313-7939

Rep. Roger Wells

Cell 560-4355

Rep. Priscilla Lockwood

Home 783-4349

Former NH State Representative Mike Asselin

Work 623-3600, Ext. 4239

Home 744-8471

Cell 365-1888

#############

6.

Published

Lynch's Amendment

Going Half Way Isn't Far Enough

***

Gov. John Lynch may be a popular governor, but our guess is that even his considerable store of political capital will prove insufficient to pass his proposed constitutional amendment on school funding. That's just as well. Lynch and his allies may have better intentions than supporters of previous amendments, but the amendment itself isn't much of an improvement.

As things stand now, the state is supposed to define what constitutes an adequate education, determine its cost and then figure out a constitutional way to pay for it. That's the result of two landmark state Supreme Court decisions that determined that the responsibility for education is the state's and that it had been shirking it by shifting most education costs to the widely varying local property tax.

But those rulings were handed down almost a decade ago, and the state's elected officials are only now getting around to the first step -- defining adequacy. The problem is that education costs more money than the state's antiquated tax structure can produce, and lawmakers have resisted meaningful reform. Yet they have also been unable to muster enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment that would remove the court from this matter and allow elected officials to do as they wish.

The amendment proposed by Lynch last week is different in that it reduces the state's obligation to covering only half the overall cost of an adequate education, retains court oversight and explicitly grants the state authority to target aid -- channel more state money to the neediest districts. Lynch has maintained that targeted aid would allow the state to achieve equal educational opportunity without requiring more money than the current tax structure can produce.

Many supporters of previous constitutional amendments have already voiced their opposition. They want the court removed altogether, and they are unwilling to commit the state to covering even half the expense of educational adequacy before they know how much it will cost.

But those who are committed to doing right by the state's students and taxpayers should be equally unhappy. There are few more important battles for elected officials than creating a school funding system that establishes equal opportunity to an adequate education and pays for it in a way that's fair to all taxpayers. This amendment responds to that challenge by screaming surrender. If only half of the cost of schools is covered by the state, the other half will fall back on local school districts and their widely varying tax capacities. Lynch and others may earnestly promise to address those inequalities with targeted aid, but there is no guarantee that they'll be successful. The safer assumption is that the Legislature will do little or nothing.

Because this amendment does not alter the court's finding that school-funding is a state obligation, it raises the question of how to treat those costs not covered by the state. If any of that burden falls back on the local property tax, wouldn't that still violate the constitutions requirement that all state taxes be reasonable and proportionate?

It's not even clear that this amendment would serve the purpose of breaking the decade-long stalemate on this matter. The Legislature is surely just as capable of failing to meet the 50 percent standard as it is the full-adequacy measure. The Legislature is also capable of continuing to ignore the orders of the court, diminishing whatever victory would be secured by explicitly recognizing the court's authority.

That's particularly likely considering that many believe that total state spending on education is now a far cry from the 50 percent that would be required by this amendment. If the Legislature remains steadfast in opposition to major tax changes, how will it fulfill Education Adequacy Lite? A few more liquor outlets and new scratch tickets won't do the trick.

All that can be said in favor of this proposed constitutional amendment is that it's a little better than the ones that preceded it. Considering what's at stake, thats not enough.

##############

7. Editorial

Lynch amendment strikes good balance

Monitor staff

March 29. 2007 8:00AM

Gov. John Lynch's proposed constitutional amendment would affirm key parts of the state Supreme Court's school funding decisions and overrule others. The balance is sensible, and lawmakers should give the idea serious consideration.

It has been a decade since the court's second Claremont ruling, which found unconstitutional the state's near-total reliance on local property taxes to pay for public education. Since then, most proposals to amend the constitution on this topic have come from critics eager to get the court out of the debate altogether. These would have been a step backward, and the children and taxpayers of the state's poorest communities would have suffered for it.

Lynch's amendment, by contrast, is a step forward. It embraces the most important principle of the school funding cases: that a child's opportunity for advancement through public education should not be a function of where he or she lives. All New Hampshire children have the same right to an education. Lynch's proposal makes explicit the state's duty to ensure that all of them receive the best education they can.

There is a vital difference, however, between saying the state has a duty to bolster the educational opportunity of children living in relatively poor communities and saying the state must pay for the basic education of every child in every community. To the extent that the Supreme Court's rulings have called for the latter, Lynch's amendment would overturn them.

There are two crucial concepts here. Both have common sense on their side.

First, Lynch's proposal would divide the responsibility of paying for every child's basic education between the state and the local school districts. It would remain, as the court has mandated, the Legislature's job to define an adequate education and determine its cost. But whereas the court has said that state dollars must cover the entire cost, Lynch would require the state to pay only half of the total.

Second, Lynch's proposal would allow the Legislature to send education aid to towns and cities solely based on need. This approach - called targeted aid - is the fairest and most efficient way to help communities with relatively small tax bases. The court, though, has forbidden such an approach, meaning it can't be used unless the constitution is amended.

What Lynch's proposal will not do, despite the governor's optimistic rhetoric, is "bring finality" to the annual school funding debates. The nature of the debates may change, but they won't end. Nor is the amendment a standalone solution. It will be wise policy only to the extent that the governor and Legislature live up to the rest of their obligations, namely the defining and costing out of an adequate education.

Those tasks remain the most important pieces of the State House agenda. They are the same ones lawmakers and governors of both parties have dodged for 10 years. Because Lynch's amendment would add to the Legislature's options, it could be the key to a responsible long-term approach to public education. Or, if the rest of the hard work doesn't get done, it could be irrelevant.

###############

8. Gov. Lynchs Proposed Amendment is a Monumental Mistake

In the early to mid 1980s Wendell Jesseman and some other New Hampshire citizens sued the state over education funding. The case was resolved by way of a settlement before any court

rulings. The settlement included the creation of the Augenblick formula, a new state education funding statute. The Legislators who voted for it surely thought that it would improve education funding and provide more state funding to communities that needed it. However, the Augenblick formula allowed for state education funds to be based on available revenue, so the Legislature could reduce the amounts of state education funding by pro rating the amounts it distributed. In order to keep state taxes to a minimum (or live within our means as it is called today), subsequent political efforts generally were designed to provide the minimum amounts that would work under the formula. Funding amounts that were likely seen as minimum figures when the Augenblick formula was debated and passed into law quickly became maximum amounts.

The State never did fully fund Augenblick and the promise of more state funds to needy communities faded away. On one occasion, Governor Merrill vetoed a bill that attempted to fully fund Augenblick stating that the State did not have the necessary funds to do so.

Fortunately, the Augenblick formula was just a statute. When the Claremont cases interpreted the New Hampshire Constitution to require the State to fund an adequate education, the State had to repeal the Augenblick formula as it was never designed to do that. It has since replaced it with a variety of different statutes over the years, all of which provide more state funds to poor communities than the Augenblick formula ever did.

A little over twenty years later, we have a Democratic governor, who proposes a constitutional amendment as a solution to education funding. The amendment purportedly sets a floor of funding that requires the State to pay half of the cost of an adequate education statewide and

allows the State to distribute more funds to needy communities.

A number of Democrats and Republicans that have previously supported the Claremont lawsuit now stand with the Governor in support of the amendment. I am sure they are thinking that it will be an improvement over the current funding situation because they think that they will come

up with a good definition of an adequate education and a legitimate cost figure. But, realistically everyone knows that the Governor is not going to support an increase in the overall funding amount that will require new taxes. That means the overall amount of state funding will be about

what it is now. As a result, the amounts that property poor communities will receive going forward will be pretty much what they are now since politically, there is only so much money that you can take from other communities to give to the needy ones.

Also, even though they are unconstitutional, we have had targeted aid plans in place for a number of years now, so it is not like an amendment is going to pave the way for the State to do something new. It will just constitutionalize what the State has been doing for the past few years.

Given these factors, there seems to be very little upside of a constitutional amendment. There are a number of ways to distribute more money to the needy communities without amending the constitution.

The down side to the amendment is substantial. Under current funding plans, property poor communities generally receive more than 50 percent of what the State will likely develop as its adequacy costs. Under the amendment, the State could reduce the amount that these communities

receive to half of the adequacy figure that it develops. In many cases, that could be a drastic reduction in funds that will require an equally drastic increase in local property taxes to offset the difference.

While I am sure our current Governor and Legislators that support the amendment believe that they would not do that, nor let it happen, they will not be in office forever. When the political winds change again, and they always do, we will at some point have a political majority that will

want to drive state education funding amounts down to the constitutional minimum, or at least reduce it substantially and still be above the constitutional minimum.

Just imagine a subsequent Governor and Legislature at the helm with a choice between reducing state funding to property poor communities to the 50 percent that the constitution requires, or raising taxes. It would be easy to change the adequacy definitions and cost statutes that the current legislature may enact in order to have the so called floor become the ceiling for funding.

Unlike Augenblick, this time the minimum funding amounts will be sanctioned by the constitution, so the communities and students that are harmed by the reductions in state funding will not be able to seek recourse in the courts to require changes. Repealing the constitutional amendment once in place would be a difficult task at best.

Our current Governor and Legislators need to think beyond what they will put in place for education funding and recognize what a monumental and permanent mistake it would be to enact the amendment.

We have an incredible opportunity. We have a governor that is more popular than ice cream on a summer afternoon and a Legislature that is controlled by the same political party as the Governor. Is constitutionalizing the status quo with the potential to make things even worse than they are now really the best they can do? Is it really the legacy they want to leave behind?

Scott F. Johnson

CoCounsel

Claremont Coalition

Project Director

New Hampshire Citizens Voice Project

################

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Bruce+Keough:+Gov.+Lynch's+education+amendment+is+no+remedy+for+Claremont+rulings&articleId=26008656-e29e-45e3-b98d-062619a877a1

9. Bruce Keough: Gov. Lynch's education amendment is no remedy for Claremont rulings

By BRUCE KEOUGH

Another View

Friday, Mar. 30, 2007

LAST WEEK, Gov. John Lynch held a news conference to unveil a proposed constitutional amendment to allow targeted education aid and reduce the state's financial obligation to a level he thinks we can afford. He was joined by a fellow Democrat, Sen. Peter Burling, who has spent the past eight years fuming that efforts to amend the constitution are not worthy of consideration because they would allow the state to "walk away" from its responsibility for education. Neither the governor nor Sen. Burling has ever said the Claremont decisions were wrong.

Now, the governor is busy trying to round up support for his amendment in the Legislature. While it might be tempting for past amendment supporters to withhold their support as an act of justifiable political retribution, they should resist that temptation. Instead, they should withhold their support because just about everything the governor continues to say about the Claremont decisions is wrong and his amendment will do nothing to clean up the mess the Supreme Court created.

Gov. Lynch is wrong when he says his amendment guarantees significant and ongoing state funding. If his amendment were to pass, the state's financial obligations could be entirely met through the accounting gimmick called the statewide property tax. Here's how it would work. The state could simply set the statewide property tax rate at a level high enough to raise 50 percent of the cost of a defined adequate education, and then, using its newly established ability to distribute funds as it wishes, the state could return to each community the exact amount of statewide property tax it paid.

While this would satisfy the state's constitutional requirement, no reasonable person would confuse this shell game with "significant state funding." Gov. Lynch has spoken out against this kind of accounting gimmick and I am not suggesting it is his intention to resort to it. But he is no position to guarantee that future legislatures and future governors will not.

And remember, the Supreme Court has already ruled the state can turn local property taxes into state aid simply by renaming them. In the past, however, existing limits on how the state can distribute aid have meant that raising the statewide property tax creates more donor towns and the political opposition that goes with them. The Lynch amendment would remove these limits.

When asked about the Legislature's ability to use such tricks to meet its responsibilities, Sen. Burling noted that the voters will provide a check on such behavior. Yet it is precisely because neither Gov. Lynch nor Sen. Burling is willing to put his trust in the voters and the people who represent them that the Lynch amendment gives the Supreme Court the right to continually meddle in the Legislature's funding decisions.

Gov. Lynch is also wrong when he claims his amendment "maintains the traditional role for the judicial branch to interpret the constitution and resolve disputes regarding the state's constitutional duty for public education." The court was certainly not acting in its traditional role when it concluded that the writers of the constitution intended "cherish" education to mean that the state is responsible for paying for education. And there is nothing traditional about the notion that it is the Legislature's duty to automatically accept such conclusions when they defy both real tradition and common sense.

Gov. Lynch's amendment would create a new, nontraditional role for the court by giving it the right to determine whether the Legislature's funding decisions "best promote equal opportunities for an adequate education." Studies suggest that children in two-parent households enjoy better educational opportunities. Perhaps someone will argue before the court that the state is obligated by the constitution to pay for marriage counseling!

Finally, the governor is wrong when he says "moving forward with this amendment will allow New Hampshire to finally move forward with giving all our children the opportunities they deserve for better lives."

Here's what our children deserve. They deserve leaders who are willing to shake up

an education system that spends more and more money to graduate students who are less and less prepared to compete with students from other countries. By guaranteeing a steady stream of school funding lawsuits, the Lynch amendment guarantees that our leaders will be too preoccupied with paying for education to give much attention to reforming it.

For the past eight years, the state has muddled along under the cloud of the Claremont decisions. Watching the Legislature and the court has been like watching two chess players with few pieces on the board try to get to checkmate. Now the governor says he needs a constitutional amendment. But his partisan rhetoric and his failure to explain why the Claremont decisions were wrong have created a political environment that makes passage of his amendment unlikely. He and Sen. Burling had better begin thinking about what they will do when the court makes its next move.

Bruce Keough, a former state senator and University System of New Hampshire trustee, is a developer in Dublin