Decade later, court remains player in school aid issue

Nashua Telegraph ^ | Sunday, September 09, 2001

[N00dleN0gg1n]

Sunday, September 09, 2001

Decade later, court remains player in school aid issue

To respond to this editorial click here. Be sure to include contact information if you would like your letter to appear as a letter to the editor.

School funding has become a triangle in New Hampshire – it’s an issue that bounces from the governor’s office, to the Legislature and, after all is said and done, to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Andru Volinsky who, to nearly everyone’s surprise, prevailed in 1997 in convincing the Supreme Court to set new standards for school funding in this state, returned to court last week.

He wants the court to knock down the state’s definition of an adequate education and to require both a better definition and better formula for state school aid.

Volinsky represents Claremont, Franklin, Allenstown, Pittsfield and Lisbon that first began suing for better school funding in 1991. They lost their case in lower courts but prevailed in the Supreme Court in 1999. However, the patchwork of school aid the recalcitrant Legislature has devised since then hasn’t been a bonanza for these poorer school districts.

Pittsfield School Board member Arthur Morse, for example, says property taxes in his town are back to the 1999 level. "I guess I am on my hands and knees begging for a more realistic solution."

The Supreme Court since issuing its decision in 1997 has heard a number of appeals on the various plans Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and the Legislature devised. And last week it turned down an appeal by the state’s "donor towns" to declare the statewide property tax unconstitutional.

Volinksy is rolling the dice once more but this time the five-member court has three new judges. They could decide in his favor, and again goad the governor and Legislature to get the school aid formula right. Or they could decide the court has gone as far as it can in this issue.

And the court may get yet another proposed plan from a legislator to solve the problem. Sen. Ned Gordon thinks he may have a winning strategy by changing the aid formula from one based on student test results to education spending allocations. He may submit his plan to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.

We don’t expect any quick decisions from the court. However, Volinsky’s lawsuit is a strong reminder the five "property-poor" towns started asking for property tax relief 10 years ago and the best the Legislature has come up with in a decade are "temporary" solutions, session by session.

Someday, with enough court decisions, the governor and the Legislature will get it right, we hope. However, in the interim, the issue overshadows other needs in this state and delays a solution because of budget and revenue uncertainties. It’s no way to run a state.

To respond to this editorial click here. Be sure to include contact information if you would like your letter to appear as a letter to the editor.

[N00dleN0gg1n]

Having courts setting policy is what's no way to run a state!

[Kermit]

Mom at home can give her own kids an excellent education for $500 or less a year. Since when can you put a dollar figure on what it takes for an "adequate" education? Idiots!