|
I quickly remembered that my very first Inaugural Day in 1969, which I still remember quite clearly, was when he was sworn in. Long ago, but not really so long ago. He was a good Governor. In fact, he looked ready to do the job again right now.
Anyway, John Lynch gave his Inaugural Address just after the Noon hour. It seems like he speaks better and better every time I see him. I've watched some of the other Governors' Inaugurals on C-Span during the past few days, and saw lots of them using those Tele-Prompters. They always seem to get in the way of good communicating -- and most just don't use them right. But John Lynch didn't need one of those machines. He did a good job right off his notes. He knew what he wanted to say, and he said it well.
About 90% of his speech got me cheering, as myself and all Democrats and even most Republicans stood often in applause. Maybe even 95%. Those small pieces I wasn't thrilled about weren't all that important. His theme of "bipartisanship" is something that works well, and he really means it.
What I did take exception to was his rather simplistic "solution" to education funding. I wasn't alone in my concern about his approach since many of my fellow Democrats also didn't seem to like it.
For years we had a "donor communities" approach for education funding where some cities and towns would pay more into a state education fund than others, and some communities would get more money from that fund than others. It kind of created a tug-a-war between cities and towns, and we even saw lawsuits about it.
The courts, most notably the State Supreme Court, have said that it is our shared responsibility to fund an "adequate" education for all New Hampshire students. That makes sense. Funding education is really a shared INVESTMENT in our future, since those among us who are in school today are those who will be touching the 22nd Century, not most of us making these decisions today.
John Lynch is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to "narrowly" define how we can legally provide "targeted aid" to school districts, rather than to provide a set amount for each student.
"Targeted aid" sounds good, and probably rates well in the polls, but what it really means is rob the Peters to pay the Pauls. Instead of "donor communities" where certain towns or cities would pay more, it would mean we'd have "donor taxpayers," where all taxpayers in one form or another, one level or another, would pay into some state fund, and that fund would be divided up to certain selected school districts.
That means lots of taxpayers would pay more for their school costs, primarily through their local property taxes. Homeowners AND renters pay property taxes, by the way, and it isn't based on any concept of ability to pay. If you live with a roof over your head, you have to pay.
Does that sound fair and equitable? Probably not. In fact, the courts say we can't do it right now, so that's why we'd need a Constitutional Amendment, so that legally it could be done. The Constitutional Amendment would ALLOW us to have an unfair and inequitable solution.
I just can't imagine how 2/3rds of the House and Senate AND the voters -- the question would appear on the November, 2008 ballot -- would approve such a scheme.
Our job, and the Governor's, is to allow for a full and open, honest discussion about our education funding obligations.
Several times I've suggested a Statewide Education Summit, and there is still a window of opportunity to do that before the June 30th, 2007 deadline looming over us.
We should bring together all the stakeholders and expertise in the state, including educational experts from our universities, former Governors, school board officials, mayors, educators, businesspeople -- and young people as well -- to consider all options.
Let's look at how to reinvent our statewide educational administrative systems, what efficiencies we can bring to that system, and how we can provide for long-term sustainable funding.
We need to look at how other states handle their statewide education obligations. We have to identify the "best practices" of doing so.
I like John Lynch. He's been a good Governor in most respects. He's far exceeded my expectations, and I had set those rather high.
But creating a system of "donor taxpayers" to replace the concept of "donor communities" for education funding isn't my idea of good government. Bringing people to the table in a bipartisan -- better yet, a non-partisan -- manner is better.
We have a job to do for our next generation of New Hampshire residents. We have to do it well. We can't fail them. Our future and theirs depends on how we do our job.
What do you think?
|
