In Part 1, I explained the 1993 decision of CLAREMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT V GOVERNOR. Fast forward to “today”: we now have two trial court rulings coming out of the Rockingham Superior Court that is a direct result of this 1993 decision and which essentially order a complete takeover of the New Hampshire School system by the State.
Orders that result in a tax increase of over $549,000,000 and that tell the State what the Educational system must do to fulfill its “duty” to provide an education to each and every student in New Hampshire. It also guts the local system of taxation, transfers enormous wealth from the “wealthy” districts to the poor, and essentially creates a Statewide School district administered from Concord.
Let me begin to explain by giving a short and brief (to be followed with lengthier analysis in subsequent articles) of
1.Conval School District v State Of New Hampshire- no. 213-2019-cv-00069;
2. Steven Rand et al. v The State of New Hampshire no. 215-2022-cv-00167).
(FYI: I never met the Honorable David Ruoff, Judge of the Superior Court for Rockingham County. I have never been in his courtroom. No reason for me to have done either, as I retired from the practice of law years ago and have never held a license in New Hampshire. For this article, I assume he is a very good judge of the highest judicial standards on all levels. Nothing I say here is meant to be directed at him on a personal level; rather, I direct myself to his opinions and the results of those opinions that take multiple giant steps toward destroying a big part of the local control/ direct democracy concepts that I have grown to know and love.)
First, in the Conval case, the Rockingham Superior Court decided to do what no Court, not even the Supreme Court, did in 8 prior decisions: the Court decided to tell the “People,” the legislature, the Governor, the State Board of Education what a “constitutionally” adequate education requires. The Court took testimony from the “experts” presented by the plaintiff as to what they, the experts, feel/believe should be in every child’s education. The Court then – in total reliance on these experts – determined and delineated what the Constitution of New Hampshire requires of the State to fulfill its duty to provide an education. The Court actually listed the components of this Constitutionally mandated curriculum (which I will discuss in an upcoming article). The Court then declared that the current education system – and any future educational system – would be unconstitutional if it did not follow this Judge’s (expert) stated curriculum.
(Please note: one judge, sitting in one trial court, has now issued an order that determines New Hampshire school curriculum Statewide, and he did it based upon the opinions of “educational experts” who you probably never heard of. And certainly, did not elect. KEEP FURTHER IN MIND- THE GENERAL COURT AND THE GOVERNOR HAD, PREVIOUS TO THIS RULING, MADE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION OF WHAT A CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION ENTAILED AND WHAT IT COST. A SINGLE JUDGE, SITTING IN A SINGLE COURT, OVERRULED THE DECISION BY THE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND REPLACED THEIR DECISION WITH THE “OPINION” OF UNELECTED EXPERTS.
YIKES!
But there is more. Those pesky experts wanted more. They wanted to overrule the elected folks on the cost of such a system. The elected officials had determined the cost and the tax rate to pay for this Constitutionally mandated education and the experts said “NOPE”-not enough.
To put it bluntly, THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR DETERMINED THE TAX RATE TO BE CHARGED TO PAY FOR ITS VERSION OF THE NECESSARY CURRICULUM AND THE JUDGE, BASED UPON TESTIMONY OF THE “EXPERTS,” RULED THAT THE RATE DETERMINED BY THE ELECTED FOLKS WAS UNCONSTITITIONAL.
HE FURTHER RULED THAT IF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS IMPOSED A TAX RATE ANY LESS THAN WHAT THE “EXPERTS” FELT NECESSARY, THAT SAID TAX RATE WOULD ALSO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN OTHER WORDS, HE OVERRULED THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ON THE TAX RATE AND IMPOSED THE”EXPERT’S” TAX RATE.
Here is what happened: The Court began by asking -what does it cost to fund this “Constitutionally ” adequate education? The Court went through all sorts of analyses of funding (AS PROVIDED BY THE “EXPERT”). and decided that the minimum amount to fund this Statewide education – the one ordered by the Court AND DEVISED BY THE EXPERT- was in excess of $7000 per pupil.
The State had determined the cost to be $4100 per pupil. The expert calculated the cost of his program to be at least $7000 dollars and probably closer to $11,000. THE JUDGE ESTIMATED THE “ADDITIONAL” TAXES NEEDED TO FUND HIS PROGRAM WAS APPROXIMATELY $549,000,000. The Court then held that the State must raise the taxes by at least this much, or its entire program would once again be held unconstitutional by this Judge.
The Judge was, of course, not yet done: He ordered that this $549,000,000 must be raised by the State through a Statewide property tax (known as SWEPT).
Here is how SWEPT works: The state assessor calculates this tax by taking the assessed valuation of all property in the State and multiplying that assessed value by a fixed tax rate, which the assessor determines is necessary to raise the amount of money budgeted. Thus, if the State Education budget is 1 billion dollars, the assessor takes the full amount of all assessed values in the state and then divides that into the one billion to get the tax rate per 1000. That rate must be the same throughout the state. To be clear, every property in the state – all of them – no matter where they are, no matter the needs of their community or their school district – gets assessed at the same rate as all other properties in the State. A two-bedroom condo in Nashua is taxed at the same rate as a $7 million home in Laconia.
This year’s rate is $1.20 per 1000.
A problem arises: It seems that wealthier school districts generate more money than they need to cover the cost per student the State allocates for each student in their district. Other “poorer” districts do not generate enough money to cover the same amount from the assessed valuation of $1.20 per $1000.
To explain: suppose one town has 100 houses valued at $1 million each. Another town has 100 houses valued at $100,000 each. If each taxpayer is charged $1.20 per $1000, it is not hard to realize that the first town will vastly outraise what it needs to cover its $4100 (using the current rate, for example only) per student, and the poorer town will not generate enough.
When that happens, the law forbids adjusting the tax rate. Equity requires everyone to pay the same tax rate.
As such, there is a built-in surplus for many towns and a built-in deficit for others.
NOTE: The current system tells the wealthy districts to keep the “excess” money and spend on their local schools; it tells the poorer districts, “Not to worry, the state will make up the differences.” That is unconstitutional says Judge Ruoff in case number 2, Rand v State of New Hampshire:
2. Rand v State of New Hampshire
Under the current system (SWEPT), THE “EQUITABLE” requirement of uniform tax rates results in excess money being generated in wealthy districts and deficient sums in poorer districts. In the past, the legislature and the Governor, again both Democrat and Republican, decided that the excess money generated would stay in the local taxing district. For example, look at the Hollis-Brookline budget: it shows several million dollars of such excess funding staying in the local coffers. Judge Ruoff rules: ” UNCONSTITUTIONAL.” Why? Because taxes must be equitable, and it is not equitable to allow wealthy districts to have that excess money. It must be paid to the State to be used to fund the deficiency in poorer districts.
In other words, we have one statewide school system funded by one statewide property tax. No more privileges to the wealthy. It’s now a centralized system, controlled in Concord, with equity for all!
I THINK CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS ARE REASONABLE:
1. The Courts have not stated any basis to conclude that the students in New Hampshire are not receiving an “adequate” education. In other words, where is the fire the Courts seem intent on putting out? Not one reference did I read where, NOR DID I FIND any case that is made that the students are receiving an inadequate education? Indeed, by the state’s own logic, an adequate education is bought by spending 4100 dollars. Or $7100. or $11,000. If so, then the students are already getting this “adequate education” because, by the state’s own analysis, the average per-student expenditure-expended by local districts- is over 19,000 a year. The only difference is that the courts want the State to pay it and not the localities. How does changing the identity of the check writer affect the adequacy of the education?
2. Requiring the State to fund 40 to 60 percent of the school budgets effectively transfers control of the schools–all of them- to central command in Concord. That means that whoever controls the Department of Education controls the curriculum of the schools. It’s just one tiny step away from turning over to the same DEI Marxist that runs so many school districts around the country. Money is power. Controlling money is the ultimate power. These rulings, designed to provide an adequate education, are leading to centralized control.
3. Local property tax rates will go up substantially. I live in Hollis. I looked at the statistics on Hollis Brookline schools. They are one of the “wealthy” places that overfund. That resulted, if I read the data correctly, in roughly 2 million coming back to Hollis Brookline. That money is gone under this system. It’s about 10 percent of the budget. Guess what is going to happen to my property taxes.
4. My saddest conclusion: Local control (parental control) is being replaced with control by “EXPERTS” who are neither elected nor accountable to anyone.
Simply put, these Court decisions are turning over every kid’s education to “experts” who are neither elected nor accountable to anyone. These experts proffer their opinions based upon what they were taught in Universities- you know, the same ones who brought you CRT and DEI and BLM. Their philosophies, their ideology, and their world view are what will now be crammed down the throats of every student in New Hampshire from a centralized command post in Concord. To me, every kid is different. They learn differently. They progress differently. Every teacher is different. Every school facility is unique. Every town has its own identity and culture. Education at the local level without the “experts” has been around for 250 years. Why should some expert who I never met and will never talk to, dictate what the kids in my town learn?
5. DEI is a horrible theory and should never be read into the New Hampshire Constitution. Especially stuff written 250 years ago. No argument I know of could convince me that the folks writing the New Hampshire Constitution meant to embrace principles of EQUITY (as that term is used in DEI). Yet, is not the “EQUITY” as used in DEI the essence of the numerous court decisions since 1993? Is not EQUITY the entire basis and explanation for this power grab? Are the Courts not using EQUITY as a filter to interpret the Constitution, as well as to define the State’s duties to control education from Concord?
These two Rockingham superior court cases are not yet final (that I know of). I suspect the cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court. What is the likely ruling at the Supreme Court level? To answer that, I will, in my next article, analyze several Supreme Court decisions that will form a backdrop to the analysis. My Conclusion: this total revamp of the State Education system with centralized control in Concord, a system run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic “experts,” will become the law of New Hampshire.
Good luck to the students of Hollis-Brookline. Your white wealthy privilege has done you in. Your schools are about to be subsumed into the New Hampshire Department of Education Unified School District.
But there is GOOD NEWS: this centralized control in Concord by the experts should take effect just in time to enforce the new TITLE IX rules coming out of D. C. You know, the ones that say there are no longer any boys or girls – they all play on same sports, use the same bathroom, robe and disrobe in the same gyms. With this centralized control, no need for the Fed’s to worry about parental objections. Or local school boards that object.
God bless these folks that take care of us. Take down those “live free or die” flags. Don’t need them no more.