The NH Progressive Newsletter is a weekly sampling of NH political news, commentary and analysis. If you don't want to receive the newsletter, email me at mark@markfernald.com. If you know people who would like to receive it, please forward it to them and have them contact me to get on the list. Mark Fernald

The AARP is looking for stories of seniors who are paying an outlandish percentage of income in property tax, or who have been forced to sell their homes. If you have a story you would like to share, please email it to me and I'll forward it to the appropriate person at AARP (or I'll get you the AARP contact info if you prefer).

Greetings!

It seems my newsletter last week caused, as one State Senator put it, a "brouhaha." The part that touched things off was this:

"Rumor has it that the original amendment, and last weeks suspension of the rules, only made it through by pressuring some Democrats to vote contrary to their beliefs on the amendment. This is very sad news. Pundits have said that Democrats are in the majority for the first time in decades, and that they are learning how to be a majority. This is only partly true. I was part of the Democratic majority in the State Senate in 1999. In the Democratic caucus we had our disagreements over many issues (and our disagreements with Governor Shaheen). But Democrats were never threatened with primary challengers, etc. if they didn't go along with leadership. If you run into any of our Democratic State Senators, tell them we don't need Tom Delay tactics in the NH Senate."

Some context is needed. There will always be differences within a political party. But, as Hillary Clinton said in the recent debate, the differences among Democrats are minor. The question within any legislative caucus is how will those differences be dealt with.

In a parliamentary system, party discipline is rigidly enforced, but there are votes where legislators can vote their consciences. In the US Congress (before the 2006 elections) Tom Delay earned the nickname " the Hammer" for the tactics he used to force Republicans to tow the line. Though Delay's tactics were successful in the short run, I would argue that it weakened the Republican caucus in the long run and was one factor is the Republicans' defeat in 2006.

In NH, there have been some disturbing signs. When the State Senate first voted on the constitutional amendment, it barely reached the necessary 60%, 15-10, with all Democrats and one Republican voting yes. Immediately after the vote, it was reported that Senator Iris Estabrook bolted from the Senate chamber in tears. She later told the press that she opposed the amendment and would work against it. Sen. Jackie Cilley also stated that she opposed the amendment even though she voted for it.

More recently, a prominent Democrat who has spoken out against the constitutional amendment has been accused of disloyalty by the Governor's office.

At any rate, I have been assured by several State Senators that the threat against one member of the caucus that reached my ears through the grapevine either did not happen, or was misinterpreted or taken out of context. I've been assured that the Senate Democratic caucus is working very well, which can only be good news, for those serving, and for the State.

In the past weeks' news:

Items 1 and 2: The latest version of the Governor's constitutional amendment failed in the Senate, 14-10. Three Dems voted no, and three Republicans voted yes.

Item 3: Burning of construction debris banned

Item 4: State employees reach a contract deal, in which they will contribute to health insurance costs for the first time.

Mark

1. Funding plan on the mat

Senate bid to revive school amendment fails by 1 vote

By SARAH LIEBOWITZ

Monitor staff

June 15. 2007 8:00AM

Gov. John Lynch's campaign for a constitutional amendment on education funding suffered a major setback yesterday, when the plan fell one vote short in the Senate. The vote was the second blow to Lynch's proposal in eight days, and it capped a frantic week-long effort by Senate Democrats to revive the issue this legislative session.

Three Senate Democrats broke with the majority and voted against the amendment, which would have allowed the state to bypass portions of a recent state Supreme Court ruling and target money to needy school districts. Although three Republicans joined 11 Democrats in supporting the proposal, the bar proved too high. The amendment needed 60 percent support - or 15 votes - to pass the Senate. Last week, the House overwhelmingly rejected a nearly identical proposal.

"I think the Senate made a statement, although we didn't pass a bill over to the House, that we feel it's important," said Sen. Joe Foster, a Nashua Democrat and co-sponsor of the amendment. "I think that's a commitment on the part of the Senate to continue to move the discussion forward."

After the amendment failed to win the requisite 15 votes, senators tabled the plan. They also voted to send a Republican-backed version back to a committee for further study. Because senators decided to keep both proposals alive, rather than kill them, they have several options for resurrecting a constitutional amendment in the coming months. Amendment supporters hope to pass the proposal through the Legislature in time for residents to vote on the plan next year.

"We continue to look for language and ways that we can get compromise," said Senate President Sylvia Larsen, a Concord Democrat. " There's plenty of time for continued dialogue." If Senate leaders think there's sufficient support for the proposal, they could bring it back for another vote.

Democrats were quick to blame Senate Republicans for the amendment's failure. For years, Republicans have fought for a constitutional amendment to solve the state's school funding quagmire. The latest version of the amendment, Democrats said, made numerous concessions to Republicans and cost some Democratic support.

Lynch said that he was "deeply disappointed" by the vote, and accused Senate Republicans of putting "politics ahead of a solution."

"Democrats agreed to what the Republicans said they needed - moving 100 yards on the issue," Lynch said in a statement. "But the majority of Senate Republicans continued to move the goalposts back and then took their ball and went home." Sens. Bob Odell of Lempster, Peter Bragdon of Milford and Sheila Roberge of Bedford provided the amendment's only Republican votes.

But Republicans aside, Democratic leaders couldn't hold their caucus together.

Several Senate Democrats have said that lawmakers can fix the education funding system without an amendment. Although all Senate Democrats voted for a different version of the constitutional amendment earlier this year, Sens. Kathleen Sgambati of Tilton, Iris Estabrook of Durham and Jacalyn Cilley of Barrington yesterday opposed the plan.

"I'm concerned about the effect it could have in the future on future legislatures of a different composition; I'm concerned about the effects on the quality of education in all of our communities," Estabrook said.

Earlier this year, Estabrook said she voted for the original version of the amendment out of loyalty to other lawmakers and to move the plan on to the House. That version passed the Senate with precisely the number of necessary votes, as all 14 Democrats and one Republican, Odell, signed on. Yesterday, Estabrook said that "we're in a different place in the process."

For some, the latest version of the amendment didn't require the state to assume enough responsibility for education. When Lynch introduced the original version this spring, it contained a provision that required the state to pay for at least 50 percent of the cost of an adequate education. House lawmakers opposed putting a number into the constitution, and the House Finance Committee eventually scrapped the figure and wrote a new amendment that would give the Legislature broad authority over the amount of money the state spends on education and its distribution.

But without the 50 percent figure, lawmakers wouldn't be bound to provide a minimum amount of money to school districts, Sgambati said.

Lynch's version "provided a floor that the Legislature had an obligation to fund at least 50 percent," she said. "I do think targeting has got to be part of the solution, but this allowed the Legislature to give $10 million. And the people I work with are looking for a larger guarantee."

Cilley echoed Sgambati's concerns: "I think it's immeasurably worse" than Lynch's version. The new amendment goes too far in pushing the courts out of the school funding debate.

Even if amendment backers had scrounged up one more vote yesterday, it's unclear whether there was sufficient support in the House. Last week, lawmakers rejected a similar proposal 253-108. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, with many Democrats joining them. The House also decided to block reconsideration of the proposal until 2009.

In a last-ditch effort to revive the constitutional amendment this session, senators voted last week to suspend their chamber's rules and bring back the proposal. The latest Senate version of the amendment mirrored the failed House proposal. But Senate Democrats added a key phrase designed to appease House Republicans. By including the words "on a per pupil basis," the amendment would make sure that every district receives a certain amount of money based on its number of students, said Republican House Leader Mike Whalley.

With the new language, a "supermajority" of House Republicans would support the amendment, said Whalley, of Alton Bay. Republican support could push the amendment near the 239 House votes it needs to pass.

But House leaders were reluctant to take up the issue for a second time so late in the session. Last week's House vote prompted a bitter debate about who was to blame for the amendment's failure, and many lawmakers wanted more time to ponder the issue, House leaders said.

"There are all kinds of ideas out there that may still need to be aired," House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner said this week. Just to reconsider the issue, two-thirds of those present in the House would have to vote to suspend the chamber's rules.

Yesterday's vote was the latest blow to Lynch, who has made the amendment a priority of his tenure. After the Senate passed Lynch's proposed amendment this spring, House lawmakers criticized many portions of the plan, prompting members of the House Finance Committee to craft new language.

Amendment supporters argue that the proposal would put an end to years of court battles and allow the state to target money to needy districts. The Supreme Court recently deemed the state's definition of an adequate education insufficient and said that the state must pay for whatever it defines as a constitutionally adequate education. Lawmakers have until July 1 to define an adequate education.

The decision, amendment backers say, forces the state to spend more than it can afford. Because the state would be forced to pay the full cost of an adequate education in needy and wealthy districts alike, it wouldn't allow the state to focus resources on certain districts, they said.

Most Republicans opposed the amendment yesterday, and touted their own plan, which emphasized local control of education. The Democratic-backed version "is not the right amendment yet," said Sen. Bob Clegg, a Hudson Republican. "A lot of Republicans have said that they'd much prefer to work with the House and the Senate over the summer to come up with something that's palatable to both sides."

But Bragdon stressed the need for bipartisanship. "The hurdle is high; it needs both sides to come together," he said, referring to the number of votes needed to pass an amendment.

"Some have expressed a concern to me that some people will take credit for this, or some people will look good because of this," Bragdon added. "On the big things, it's not important who looks good. It's important that you solve the problem."

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

2. N.H. school funding amendment fails by one vote

By Beverley Wang, Associated Press Writer | June 14, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. --A proposed constitutional amendment that would have given the state more flexibility to target school aid to the neediest communities failed to pass the Senate by one vote Thursday.

The bipartisan vote of 14-10 was one short of the number needed to move a constitutional amendment out of the Senate and back into the House, where its future was already uncertain.

Gov. John Lynch had championed the measure as a hallmark of his agenda. The Senate passed it 15-9 in April, but the House defeated it by a 2-1 margin last week.

The version defeated Thursday was a compromise intended to bring more Republicans on board, but it ended up costing three Democratic votes: Sens. Kathleen Sgambati, Jacalyn Cilley and Iris Estabrook.

Three Republicans broke ranks from their leadership and voted for it: Sens. Peter Bragdon, Sheila Roberge and Bob Odell, the sole Republican to support an earlier version.

Lynch blamed Republican leadership for the failure, despite the split vote. He said he was "deeply disappointed," particularly after what he described as significant concessions from Democrats.

"I think the fact that so many Democrats voted for it after all the compromises is quite amazing," he said later to reporters. "I think (Republicans) should have put politics to one side and voted for it."

During the debate, Bragdon, a conservative Republican, urged colleagues to accept the compromise, even if it gave the victory to Democrats.

"Some have expressed a concern to me that some people will take credit for this, or some people will look good because of this," said Bragdon, a school board member in Milford. "You know on the big things, it's not important who looks good. It's important that we solve problems."

But the compromise was too much for Estabrook, who said she was bothered by many parts of the proposal, which would have required some level of per-pupil aid to all towns, but would have allowed the rest to be targeted.

"I wasn't sure it was in the best interest of all of our communities," she said.

She said she has concerns over language establishing per-pupil funding, among other issues.

"There are just specific pieces of language in it that I was uncomfortable with," she said.

Senators tabled the amendment immediately after Thursday's vote, meaning it can be reconsidered if the Democratic leadership can muster enough support to pass it. Democratic leaders said the vote shows that with some work, the amendment still has life and they intend to keep negotiating.

"We continue to look for language and ways that we get compromise and agreement," said Senate President Sylvia Larsen, who had predicted a victory Wednesday.

"We have a long summer ahead of us and fall. ... There's plenty of time for a continued dialogue and I think that is absolutely a positive step and one which we can make the best of."

But she didn't set a new deadline for a solution.

"There are many options I can't really predict at this point," she said.

A second amendment crafted by Manchester Republican Ted Gatsas also remains in play after senators voted to send it back to a committee without discussion. That amendment gives local governments more authority over education funding.

Lawmakers also are working toward a July 1 state Supreme Court deadline for lawmakers to define an adequate education in simple enough terms to pay for it. House and Senate members have agreed to a committee to negotiate that definition.

The ruling is just the latest in a series of decisions building on the court's 1997 ruling that the state has a constitutional duty to provide an adequate public education to all children, and to pay for it with a fair and equitable state tax -- instead of relying on widely varying local property taxes.

Ever since then, lawmakers have wrestled with how to pay for schools, with one formula after another challenged as inadequate or unfair. One of the biggest complaints, bolstered by a recent study, is that while spending has gone up across the board, poorer towns have not gained much ground on wealthier ones.

That led Lynch to propose an amendment that would effectively undo the 1997 ruling. Originally, his version would have required the state to pay half the cost of an adequate education, but would have given legislators wide latitude to give some communities more money and others very little.

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

3. From email news of the NH Democratic Party:

Gov. Lynch signs law banning the burning of construction and demolition debris: Gov. Lynch signed a law Tuesday, June 12, permanently banning the burning of toxic construction and demolition debris.

"The burning of toxic construction and demolition debris poses an unnecessary and unacceptable danger to New Hampshire. With this new law, we are protecting the health of New Hampshire's people and the health of our state's environment," Gov. Lynch said.

Construction and demolition debris can contain many toxic substances - including mercury, lead, and arsenic. Gov. Lynch said he will continue to work with the Department of Environmental Services and lawmakers to determine better alternatives for the disposal of this material in the long term.

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

4. State workers reach deal on pay, insurance

Salaries to rise by 10 percent in 2 years

By SARAH LIEBOWITZ

Monitor staff

June 16. 2007 8:00AM

State workers are poised to begin paying for a portion of their health insurance costs for the first time, in exchange for a roughly 10 percent wage increase over the next two years.

The tentative agreement between the State Employees' Association and Gov. John Lynch's negotiating team reflects the surging cost of health care, and is designed to give state workers a voice in their insurance program, union representatives said yesterday. Union officials overwhelmingly support the contract: Thursday night, the union's Senate and Council voted 103-17 in favor of the plan. The proposal now goes before SEA members, who have to approve the contract. The next two-year contract is due to take effect next month.

"In exchange for the health care deduction, we want to have a greater ability to help design the plans in the future," said Diana Lacey, chairwoman of the SEA bargaining team, which represents the bulk of the state's workforce. "There are components in this contract that are totally brand new, in this tone of building a partnership with the state."

The contract also breaks new ground for state employees in same-sex relationships. For the first time, the agreement would let employees in same-sex relationships extend their health coverage to family members, people with knowledge of the negotiations said.

Although the SEA unsuccessfully pushed for such benefits in the past, legal rights for same-sex couples have gained momentum this year. Two weeks ago, Lynch signed a bill allowing same-sex couples to obtain civil unions, making New Hampshire the fourth state to adopt that practice. And last month, two state employees prevailed in their fight to extend health benefits to their same-sex partners and sons. Because the civil unions bill appeared certain to become law, the state dropped its appeal of an earlier court decision that said the state couldn't deny benefits to the employees' families.

The SEA represents about 10,000 state employees, roughly 7,000 of whom are voting members of the SEA. They'll receive ballots in the mail next week, and will have seven days to vote on the contract.

If SEA members approve the contract, lawmakers have to figure out how to pay for it. House and Senate budget writers are meeting next week to negotiate the state's next two-year contract. It was unclear yesterday how much the agreement would cost, but lawmakers have set some money aside, said House Finance Committee Chairwoman Marjorie Smith, a Durham Democrat. "It will be workable, because we honor our commitment; we've been engaged in negotiations in good faith," Smith said.

Lynch - whose negotiating team has met with union representatives since January - heralded the agreement as "part of a long-term strategy to recruit and retain workers," and highlighted the contribution state employees would make to their health insurance costs. For years, governors have attempted to convince SEA members to pay for some of their health insurance.

"This is a fair and fiscally responsible contract," Lynch said in a statement. "This contract provides our dedicated state employees with a wage increase. In addition, I appreciate that our state employees recognize the impact of the rising cost of health benefits and agreed to sharing in those premiums."

Under the agreement, workers who use state insurance would contribute $25 per pay period, or $50 a month, for health coverage. In 2009, that amount would rise to $30 per pay period, or $60 monthly, said Jay Ward, the SEA's political director. In 2009, the co-payment for a regular office visit will increase by $5, to $10, Ward said.

In a bid to help lower-wage workers, the contract caps the maximum out-of-pocket expenses for office visits at $500 for an individual and $1,000 for families. For prescription drugs, out-of-pocket expenses would also be capped at $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families.

Although the inclusion of employee contributions to health insurance was a marked departure from past contracts, the state would still pay for the majority of employees' coverage. "I think state employees don't realize the cost of benefits," said Rep. Fran Wendelboe, a New Hampton Republican and member of the finance committee. "It's just astonishing."

For every dollar a state worker earns, the state contributes about 50 cents for employee benefits, Smith said. "To ask employees to take some responsibility, admittedly a very small responsibility toward their costs, is good."

Because workers haven't contributed to their health insurance costs, they've accepted relatively low wages in the past, union representatives maintain. If this deal is finalized, employees would get a 51-cent-an-hour raise when the contract takes effect next month, which would translate to about $1,000 a year for full-time workers. In addition, wages would increase by 3.5 percent in January, and by an additional 5.5 percent the following year, Ward said.

"There's always been that tradeoff between wages and benefits, and this is a recognition that the employees will begin to pay something toward the health insurance," Ward said.

"We all think the tradeoff is mutually beneficial to both sides," he added.

The tentative agreement includes a host of other proposals designed to make preventative health care accessible and give workers more flexibility. Workers who complete a "health risk assessment" would get $200 to spend on prescriptions or other health costs. The maximum dental benefit would climb $200, to $1,200 per year. Adult orthodontic services would be covered. Employees would have up to 15 days of sick leave annually to care for an ailing family member, an increase of 10 days.

In an effort to gain clout in the state's health care system, SEA representatives also pushed for a Health Benefit Advisory Committee, which would look at ways to reconfigure the state's health plans.

"There are a number of ways that the state has recognized changing times," Smith said, referring to family leave and benefits for same-sex couples.

Lynch's team still has to finalize agreements with the New Hampshire Troopers Association, which represents about 280 troopers and non-commissioned officers, said Bill Graham, the association's vice president. Officers and supervisors in the state Highway Patrol and Fish and Game Department conservation officers have also broken from the SEA, and joined the New England Police Benevolent Association. Officials from that association couldn't be reached yesterday.

The conciliatory tone from both the SEA and Lynch was a turnaround from Craig Benson's gubernatorial tenure. At the time, negotiations failed and state employees continued working without a new contract, a former SEA official said.

"The tone was fantastic; it was so respectful," Lacey said. "There were very few times when anyone's emotions were really at the boiling point."

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