Is Governor Lynch Ending Public Schools?

Deja Vu Dammit! (4.00 / 2)

OMG. This was the awful amendment we saw when I was in the senate. It absolutely enables the state to shirk any and all responsibility, you called it right.

Targeting funding sounds so reasonable, until you get to language like this.

The state constitution--as it now stands--is crystal clear we, as a state, must "cherish" public education. Since the 1997 Claremont decision, the effort to knock this element out of the constitution has been relentless.

We can not let exhaustion take away our fight to meet our constitutional requirement to fund at least an adequate education--for all NH students!

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 16:32:12 PM CDT

Burt, You Say It Well... (4.00 / 1)

"We cannot let exhaustion take away our fight..."

You were a leader in the State Senate stopping this stuff when it almost passed years ago.  Thank you for that.  Let's hope others will stop this one -- at least at the polls if not in the State House.

Our kids deserve our best, not our greed.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 18:42:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a very clear effort to get around Claremont I and II. (4.00 / 1)

I have been critical of Gov Lynch in the past as he remains, in my book, a Social conservative.  

It seems to me that most efforts to comply with Claremont I & II have focused on fair funding mechanisms: sales tax, income tax, statewide property tax, casino revenues, donor towns.

Efforts, on the other hand, to eviscerate Claremont I & II, center on giving full authority to the legislature and diminishing Judicial authority.

On that basis alone, it would appear clear which direction is being suggested.  When one considers the current make-up of the Legislature, it would appear that all doubt can be removed.

---

by: Tully Fitzsimmons @ Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 16:39:16 PM CDT

Being a teacher, I won't comment (4.00 / 2)

publicly on the ed funding amendment.

But as a student of language, I will say: to me, at any rate, "reasonable" sounds much more subjective than "adequate."

"Adequate" can be judged up against a standard, while "reasonable"sounds like whatever the eye of the beholder thinks is reasonable.

For example, Legislator X says: "This standard is not reasonable given our deficit and inability to fund it. I am all about doing what's reasonable for our children, as our constitution demands."

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 18:34:11 PM CDT

The problem is not "reasonable" as opposed to "adequate." (4.00 / 2)

To my mind, the problem is that "reasonable" as used in the amendment applies only to the acts of defining standards for education and establishing standards for accountability.  These acts, because of the word "reasonable" may remain reviewable by the courts.

Funding, on the other hand, is explicitly left to the full discretion of the legislature.  Unfettered, as far as I can see, by any court review or interpretations of the word "cherish."

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:47:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (4.00 / 1)

Between re-reading elwood's post and reading your reply, I agree with your interpretation entirely.

Please ignore my earlier comment.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 16:42:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The legislature is required to level the playing field - somewhat. (0.00 / 0)

... the legislature shall have the ... responsibility to ... mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity.

IMVHO, this seems subject to judicial review.  But how much do they have to do to "mitigate"?  

---

by: The Money Magician @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 19:07:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, the "Further" sentence doesn't leave (0.00 / 0)

much room for the courts to overrule. "Full discretion to determine amounts and methods."

I can see an argument that doing nothing at all, cannot possibly mitigate. But "full discretion" says, that's the legislature's call.

And since "mitigate" doesn't mean "equalize" or "fix," but just means "make things a little bit better," a single scholarship per year for one student in one poor district meets the test.

But, evidently Gross and Douglas see something that I don't.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 19:41:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, the "Further" sentence doesn't leave (0.00 / 0)

much room for the courts to overrule. "Full discretion to determine amounts and methods."

I can see an argument that doing nothing at all, cannot possibly mitigate. But "full discretion" says, that's the legislature's call.

And since "mitigate" doesn't mean "equalize" or "fix," but just means "make things a little bit better," a single scholarship per year for one student in one poor district meets the test.

But, evidently Gross and Douglas see something that I don't.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 19:41:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dummying Down The Future Of New Hampshire (0.00 / 0)

Let's cherish our kids.  They're our future, for goodness sake.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 18:39:11 PM CDT

How perverse of LYNCH....occupying GOP (1.00 / 3)

Please can someone explain to me what democrats value? I feel abandoned by my party at every level and now, Lynch's parting shot is to out conservative the conservatives. Is this a sign of Lynch's long supressed passive aggressiveness against his own party? Is he being selfish (after all his kids no longer need the benefits of public education)???? Are we going to be reading in the history books that it was a Democratic governor that dismantled state support for public education...delivering everything Republicans have ever wanted and now branding it as a Democratic "Victory"?

We have been muzzled by the election of Obama and Lynch...how sad! We confused a belief in fairness and social justice with support of democratic leaders. Are we disabused of that assumption now? But what do we do?

Our Legacy: Shaheen is to the death penalty what Lynch is to public education

---

by: political chowder @ Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 19:59:21 PM CDT

Hie thee to an Occupy. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: hannah @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:39:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Little Perspective Is Due (4.00 / 2)

"Our Legacy:  Shaheen is to the death penalty what Lynch is to public education"

While I do agree with the sentiments you express on the death penalty and a Constitutional Amendment on education, I wouldn't be so hard on either Jeanne Shaheen or John Lynch.  

I was primary sponsor of that bill in 2000 that would have abolished the NH death penalty, which passed the House and Senate after tough battles but was vetoed by then-Governor Shaheen.  My heart was in that issue, and still is.  I worked hundreds of hours on it, and those of us for it put up with a lot of abuse and anger from the other side.  

But just as those of us fought hard for the bill, others were just as dedicated on the other side.  Governor Shaheen had her point of view, spoke well for that viewpoint, believed in what she said, and made her judgement after involving myself and many others in the discussion.  We lost, but on every issue there ARE two sides.  Regardless of her decision, I respected her then and continue to now.

John Lynch believes in what he does.  I know that he is not against public education (goodness, he's shown that in much he has done), but he sees the big picture of the funding issue, and while I disagree with his "proposed" solution, he might well be offering his Amendment language with the political realization that something the Republican/Tea Partier right-wingers will come up with is going to be much worse.  Then he'll be able to lead the opposition against what they propose, having already proposed an alternative.  That's often an effective strategy to beat your opponents when they have the votes on their side.  

Just like Jeanne Shaheen, Governor Lynch has proven a unique ability to lead the state and to offset the Republicans.  It ain't easy to beat the opposition at their own game especially when they have the majority -- as each has had to deal with during at least part of their terms as Governor.  

And it's so good it's "Governor John Lynch" right now instead of "Governor Jack Kimball" or "Governor John Stephen."  If it ever becomes "Governor Ovide Lamontagne," I think we'll all look back to these good ole days.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:42:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I appreciate this view, Jim, (0.00 / 0)

althoug I disapprove of these tactics, whether it's Lynch or Obama.  This could be a preemptive move to generate public support when/if he vetoes a more draconian proposal from the legislature.  The problem, as I see it, is the same as the problem with the deficit reduction dialogue - it makes the problem worse by holding the discussion on the wrong end of the spectrum.

These discussions move people.  It shifts the conversation.  Rather than having a champion for education, we have the discussion centered on conservative ideology.  It may be a tactical advantage but it's a strategic mistake.

In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:27:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Constitutional amendments are not subject to veto n/t (0.00 / 0)

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:55:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

strafford dem...Governor Lynch can not veto a constitutional amendment (0.00 / 0)

The question is will O'Brien play Lynch's bluff...O'Brien is crazy like a fox. Will O'Brien complain about the fact that the amendment doesn't go far enough and then convince his minions that they will have a better chance of passing this amendment with the requisite 2/3rds vote if they partner with the Democratic Governor who has a 70% approval rating. Governor Lynch's amendment gives them 95% of what they want and with him as their partner they can carry their agenda permanently into the Constitution.
And what will our next Gubernatorial candidate say vis a vis the amendment? Will Ovide and Lynch be singing kum ba yah on the amendment? Have we just handed the republicans their game plan for 2012?
As per Kathy's comment on the amendment being part of the Governor's agenda since he got elected....this is his 4th term...why now? why, when he has decided to walk away from the office, does he leave us his amendment? Folks say alot when they run for office, look at Obama's promises on Guantanamo Bay, rendition, corporate accountability, finance reform, habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, domestic spying, whistleblowers...nearly three years later we find that he has done the opposite, in fact Bush would be pleased to see his agenda carried forward. Lynch could walk away from the amendment but no.

---

by: political chowder @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:57:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok, right about the veto, my mistake, (0.00 / 0)

but I still think that the GOP pushes a more extreme CA, and that the Gov's CA gives him some standing to publicly oppose.  As you correctly point out, pc (and KS), the governor's role in this is purely political and should be viewed from that perspective.  

The governor's proposed CA states, "shall have the authority and responsibility...to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity."  The House and Senate versions seem to provide the legislature with "full discretion" in this area, with no real responsibility.  Targeting aid then becomes the tool to "mitigate local disparities" and I'd be interested in hearing if this could provide a legal basis for a court challenge.  

From a political point of view I think it makes sense for Dem candidates to get behind the governor's initiative (for political reasons - it will not see the light of day).  It puts pressure on the GOP and, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that this "merry band of reactionary pranksters" does not perform well under pressure.  

But better sooner than later.

In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 10:23:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

over the top (0.00 / 0)

Governor Lynch has supported an amendment throughout his time in office, so the notiion that this is something new is not accurate.

Also, what is with the personal cheap shots? Amateur psychoanalyis (the suppressed passive agressiveness comment) and an ad hominem attack(asking if the governor is selfish and proposing the amendment because he doesn't have children currently attending public schools).

If you want to disagree with the Governor, fine; Elwood raised some good questions in his piece. But there is a line between passion and vitriol, that line was crossed here.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:37:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pot meet kettle. Queen of hyperbole finds reason. n/t (0.00 / 0)

In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:27:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you think... (3.00 / 1)

If you think at some point that I cross the line, go ahead, say so when I do so.

In this particular case, since we are engaging in old saws, "Two wrongs don't make a right".  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:00:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Outrage! (0.00 / 0)

The head of state of hyperbole should be elected and term-limited!

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 21:07:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Conservatives deeply resent that constitutions aim to (0.00 / 0)

bind public officials to perform certain duties and carry out obligations.  In their minds, public officials are to tell others what to do--i.e. to rule.  In their minds, the role of democracy is to schedule elections and rotate the public officials so nobody will get stale and more people have a chance to be potentate for a term or more.
It's a seditious agenda.  Drowning government in a bathtub is a euphemism for doing away with popular rule and reestablishing a "representative" ruling elite.  It is an effort to reconstitute what was undone by the removal of sovereign immunity.  Public officials accountable to the public does not appeal.  
Look at how private corporation are run and you'll see what they want. Rotating dictatorship by the CEOs.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:49:25 AM CDT

You are right about conservatives Hannah (0.00 / 0)

Now explain Lynch. When he campaigns for the amendment what do we do? He is ours not theirs.

---

by: political chowder @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:51:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

When have Democrats ever had trouble (4.00 / 3)

disagreeing with other Democrats?

No one has to explain Gov. Lynch.  He can explain himself.  

We say that we cannot support this amendment, and we explain why, which I did in a post higher up in this thread.

Democrats have been opposing CAs in the House as long as I have been there, which is only since 2006, but I feel that I have reviewed the wording of about 675 of them to date.

The only one I would have voted for was one that preserved the Claremont and New London requirements and required the Legislature to define and fully fund an adequate education.  The amendment I supported would have allowed some wiggle room as to how that total pot of money was allocated, allowing more to be allocated to communities that have fewer resource, just was we already  more of our education dollars for the education of out children who have special educational needs.  That amendment got no traction with  the Rs and very little with Ds, and I have yet to see another one I could support.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:00:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that this move by the governor (0.00 / 0)

must be viewed from a political looking glass.  We're going to get an ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly, CA from the legislature.  There just aren't enough Lucy Webers and others to stop that train from leaving the station.  

I don't think that the governor's proposed CA will pass muster with O'Brien and Bragdon, particularly if judicial review remains a component.  O'Brien's CA calls for full legislative discretion in standards, funding, and raising revenue, which seems to eliminate judicial review.  O'Brien's pattern is fairly clear to date, and I expect him to push further.  Power structures are always the last to know when they have overreached.

The timing is also interesting to me.  By their reactions to this, I think the governor dilutes an election year distraction for O'Brien and Bragdon.  He may be a lame duck, but he's much stronger today than he will be six months from now.  This is the very best time to lay down an unacceptable marker, if this is what it proves to be.

My sense is that Democratic support of this CA is more likely to kill it than opposition.  But I say that knowing how jagged a pill it is to swallow to act in your best interest against your conscience.  

In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 10:49:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does anyone know how this might reasonably be claimed to allow judicial review? (4.00 / 1)

I'd really like to hear the other side. From someone other than BillO.

---

by: The Money Magician @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 09:03:13 AM CDT

an inside baseball question... (4.00 / 1)

Does anyone know how this amendment is going to be introduced?  The deadline for submitting LSR's in the House passed by months ago.  ("LSR" stands for Legislative Services Request, which is the larval stage of a bill.)

The Senate deadline was Friday, October 21st.  I don't see this amendment on the list of Senate LSR's.

The only way on the House side to get the amendment moving is to go through the House Rules Committee and convince them you have a good reason to request late drafting and filing of the proposed amendment.  They have usually been lenient with Republicans who want to file late bills- usually but not always.  Lynch, however, is a Democrat.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 11:32:53 AM CDT

A technical question (4.00 / 1)

What in current statute or constitutional provision now prevents the state from targeting additional funds to needier school districts, once the adequacy number is met for all districts?  

---

by: Salem Blue @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 18:42:11 PM CDT

Nothing, as I understand it - (0.00 / 0)

The issue is, the state - and not the city or town - is financially responsible for the full cost of adequacy.

The legislature came up with an extremely narrow / tight definition of adequacy, which the state must fund. (The number is way below what Claremont ever spent per-pupil.) Cities and towns can now fund schools above that number.

It bothers some people, including Governor Lynch, that the state must spend money on that bare minimum for even rich towns.  That expense doesn't leave any money* to provide more funding to poorer towns. They want to not provide state support to rich schools and direct it all to the poor.

* "Doesn't leave any money" assumes the current tax structure, under which we spend about 47th or 48th on ALL public purposes among the states.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 19:01:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

asterisk says it all (0.00 / 0)

It's all about not wanting to PAY for what we SAY we value. So how much do we actually value it? Here's the thing: even in "rich" school districts, there are actually poor people! So reducing school aid to, say, Windham, raises everyone's property taxes, not just the "rich" people's.  We'd rather change our state's founding document because we can't stomach the politics involved in suggesting a change to our tax structure - one that would actually accomplish having the very wealthy individuals pay their fair share.  

---

by: Salem Blue @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 19:42:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]