As many Conspirators know, governor John Lynch's attempt to centralize education decision-making in NH by amending the NH Constitution was resoundingly defeated yesterday, June 6 (D-Day).

House Republican minority leader Mike Whalley believes this will lead us to an income tax, but, in fact, Lynch's amendment would have done that, and codified in the Constitution the destruction of local control. Whalley's alternative amendment would not have been any better, and would not have stopped future lawsuits, as he and his supporters claimed.

The best alternative is a proposal by Representative Paul Ingbretson to write into the NH Constitution explicit language that reiterates Section One Article Six, which gives the towns the power to contract with their teaching professionals and pay them according to their own plans. In Ingbretson's amendment, the State could provide supplimental funds when needed, and the court would be locked out.

This is an excellent idea. It is also important to note something that Mike Whalley does not acknowledge, that the drive for his and Lynch's amendments was spurred by the legislators' irrational fear of the Supreme Court "ordering" an education plan. As a matter of civics that must be stressed in order to avoid the income tax which Whalley sees on the horizon, we must note an important point, and must spread this information to as many people we can:

THE COURT CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THE COMPLICITY OF THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES. THE COURT HAS NO POLICE POWER AND NO FINANCIAL POWER. IT NEEDS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO ENFORCE LAWS, AND IT NEEDS THE LEGISLATURE TO WRITE AND FUND THEM. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE COURT CAN DO ON ITS OWN. THIS IS ESSENTIAL FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW.

Here is John Distaso's "Union Leader" article, note Whalley's lack of understainding on some key factors. He needs to get out in front of the civics of this.

___________
Adequate education amendment shot down
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
13 hours, 45 minutes ago

CONCORD – Gov. John Lynch's long, hard push for a constitutional amendment to allow targeting of state adequate education aid was slapped down by the House of Representatives yesterday amid partisan wrangling and a split majority Democratic caucus.

As a result, one lawmaker asserted, the state now faces the prospect of instituting an income tax.

The rejection was the latest in a series of failed efforts by three governors since 1999 to give lawmakers, rather than the state Supreme Court, clear authority over how state adequate education aid is distributed.

Passage would have given state residents the chance to vote on whether to clear the way for such aid to be targeted to needy communities at the expense of wealthy ones, effectively overturning a high court ruling last year that said the state must fund the full cost of an adequate education in every community, regardless of their property wealth.

In a stunning series of votes yesterday, the House first defeated a Democratic leadership amendment, backed by Lynch, 253-108, with no Republicans favoring it. It then voted, 187-176, for "indefinite postponement," effectively ensuring that the bill could not be resurrected until 2009. In that vote, some Democrats who had voted to support the Lynch-backed amendment turned away and voted to kill it.

After those votes, Lynch and Republican leaders frantically scrambled to salvage a compromise amendment. House Republican Michael Whalley, R-Alton, said he reached a deal with the governor and two members of the Democratic leadership on a key language change he had been pushing for.

But the final death knell for the constitutional amendment came in an afternoon vote of 209-154 against reconsidering the earlier indefinite postponement vote. Success on reconsideration would have allowed the compromise to be brought to the floor and for debate to proceed on six other alternative proposals.

In that final vote, top Democratic leaders led opposition to keeping the issue alive, prompting Whalley to say afterward that in the end, Lynch "could not work with the members of his own party toward a goal that he campaigned on."

The Democrats, he said, "closed the door on this." But the chief proponent of the Lynch-backed plan, House Finance Committee Chairwoman Marjorie Smith, D-Durham, accused Whalley of breaking a promise made early in the day to personally support, and have his leadership support, the Democratic majority amendment as a show of good faith even if it failed.

She noted that a Republican (Rep. Andrew Peterson) moved for indefinite postponement, not a Democrat.

Smith said she came out of a separate mid-day meeting with the governor "with the impression that he would like reconsideration to pass." But the leadership did not go along with him.

"There is no question that our caucus was divided on the issue of an amendment," said Smith.

Whalley said: "When they voted not to reconsider indefinite postponement, they guaranteed that this state is going to have to look for a new revenue source, and the people who voted to indefinitely postpone are income-tax supporters.

"That's the goal," he said. "That vote was all about an income tax."

The issue is dead for this year. Next year, it would take a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote of the House for the constitutional amendment to be considered. Otherwise, the issue must wait until 2009.

The House votes came shortly before the state Senate voted, 14-10, along party lines backing a definition of an adequate education that allows state funds to be spent on full-day kindergarten and additional items for "enhanced-needs" schools.

Senate Republican Leader Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, cautioned that with the constitutional amendment dead, the Senate Democrats' adequacy definition "is sending the state of New Hampshire to an income tax or a sales tax," he said.

"We're here. We're at the crossroads right here."

Lynch issued a statement after the final constitutional amendment vote that he was "deeply disappointed by the failure of the House to pass this compromise."

He said the amendment "would have affirmed the state's responsibility for education and given us the flexibility we need to direct more education aid to the communities with the greatest needs" by targeting aid.

Lynch and lawmakers are under a July 1 deadline set by the Supreme Court to clearly define adequacy. Lawmakers will then move to begin setting a cost of adequacy, which must now be done without the prospect of a constitutional amendment. That means the state remains responsible for funding the full cost of an adequate education in all school districts, regardless of their relative wealth.

Any targeting must now be in addition to adequacy funding.

"Unfortunately," said Lynch, "politics trumped progress in this debate, and the people's interests were not served." He said his top priority remains "making sure all children in New Hampshire have the opportunity for a quality education."

The Lynch-backed amendment would have given the Legislature the authority to "reasonably define standards" for public education, determine the level of state funding and establish standards of accountability. It would have given lawmakers authority to allocate state funds for education "in a manner that honors the rights and responsibilities of local communities and that reasonably will mitigate local disparities in education opportunity and fiscal capacity" through the targeting of aid, "provided that every school district receives a reasonable share of state funds."

A Republican proposal would have given lawmakers the same authority but said that every school district should receive a reasonable share of funds "on a per-pupil basis" to be sure that all communities receive some adequate education aid.

The phrase, "on a per-pupil basis," essentially caused the breakdown.

Whalley said Lynch "was on board" with his proposal to add the phrase to the Democratic leadership plan. He said it had been proposed by Republican former Gov. John H. Sununu, and "that was something that (Lynch) absolutely, positively could live with and would work for."

He said he had also reached agreement on that language with Democratic leadership members Betty Lasky and David Campbell, both of Nashua.

But Rep. Daniel Eaton, D-Stoddard called the final reconsideration push "a 'Hail Mary' attempt in the eleventh hour. We did our best. It wasn't good enough."

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, called the day's actions "a knife in the back of the governor with the fingerprints of his own party on the knife."

Scott Johnson, an attorney for the original Claremont lawsuit plaintiffs, said he had been worried that an amendment would pass.

"I'm glad it's over," he said. "I'm hoping we can move onto other things. We'll be focusing on the definition and cost of adequacy in this session and the next session. We won't have to worry about an amendment for a while."

Johnson said that since lawmakers are working on a cost of adequacy, he doubted there would be an immediate legal move to invoke the court to impose an adequacy definition and cost.