NH State Representative Steven Smith

There has been a lot of angst with escalating press releases and closures. Knowledge is power. You will find some resources below to get simple, factual information to form your opinions. In the meanwhile, wash your hands and face frequently, avoid touching your face, and refer to CDC guidelines and best practices.

CDC – Steps to Prevent Illness

New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services COVID-19

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC – Considerations for School Closures

There is a lot of high level discussion about education funding that does not give you all the information you need. If it was just as simple as substituting a different funding source and raising some numbers, it would have been done by now. There are a few distinct areas of contention, and you don’t have a solution after 20 years of fighting because Legislators have failed to address them separately. When they are combined, you also combine opposition and guarantee failure. Here are the three broadest areas:

1. Stabilization grant reductions
2. Overall level of funding
3. Funding source

The order I have listed these is in is critical. Acworth, Charlestown, Goshen, Langdon, and Lempster have a much larger problem than not receiving enough money. They actually receive less money each year because of these grant reductions. For Charlestown, the number is around $100,000. The net effect has not been that large because Rep. Laware and I have been reasonably successful at clawing back other municipal grants and concessions to offset this over the years. That is certainly not a sustainable solution though. At some point, we need a stable formula that gives some assurance of what funding level we will receive. I am only going to talk about that issue in this article, since it is priority one.

The reason for the grant reductions goes back a long time and is based in Governor Shaheen’s and the Legislature’s response to the Claremont decision. I’m not being critical. I honestly don’t know what they could have done differently at the time. Here is a NY Times article that gives some background. Some of the themes and actions by local officials will sound awfully familiar. NY Times 1999 – A Tax Revolt Grows in NH This fight was still going on ten years later. There are some folks running for various offices today (not local as far as I know) who have tried to paint the problem as a partisan issue. If it were that simple, you would have had a solution by now. Here is a 2010 article with some names you might recognize and you might be surprised at their defense of the current system, and equally surprised at those who agree and disagree. Seacoast Online 2010 – Towns facing new donor status

So, in a nutshell, voters were overwhelmingly against donor towns. Getting rid of that system overnight would have bankrupted many towns, so the temporary stabilization grants were enacted. They are now being reduced. I and others have been fighting to keep them until a valid replacement formula that addresses disparity aid is enacted. The argument against making the grants permanent is a pretty good one. You can’t send education aid based on 2011 student populations, which is the current basis of the grant amounts. The term “ghost students” was coined. This is a compelling argument and succeeded. Still, I believe our argument is equally fair. I agree that the grants are not legally or constitutionally viable, but they should remain until a proper formulaic solution is enacted.

So, what did I do about it? During fights and negotiations with other Representatives and Senators, the opposition began to crystallize. In 2017, I sponsored a bipartisan bill (HB356) that would have given a modest increase in per student base adequacy. There was wide bipartisan opposition, but the most common objection was that the current formula is invalid and you cannot put more permanent money into it. Others refused to support anything that did not include a new funding source. That was really frustrating. The structural reality is that you do not get to the funding source conversation until you have a valid formula that can withstand a court challenge. The bill was amended to create a committee to create a new formula based on current student populations that addresses the disparity aid issue. You can read the docket at :

Docket of HB356

Click on anything that says “amendment” to see the changes to the bill.
Now we have a committee with a charge to create the new formula. We began efforts to stop the reductions while this activity was going on. I supported another bipartisan bill to stop the reductions outright until a new formula was enacted :

Bill Text – HB525

In 2018, four of us filed HB1814. This created supplemental grants to towns whose effect would be to negate the grant reductions. We were trying to overcome irrational objections to ending or pausing the grant reductions. It seemed reasonable, but was unanimously rejected by House Finance. The bill is here Bill Text – HB1814, and contains the specific amounts that our towns are losing. That will be a real eye opener to many.
The study committee that resulted from from my bill that I mentioned earlier, HB356 produced a report and a method for eliminating the funding reductions based on current student populations. All of that committee’s documents are at Committee to Study Education Funding and the Cost of an Opportunity for an Adequate Education The proposed formula would have restored almost all of our towns’ lost funding and created a sustainable formula going forward. The resulting bill was HB709 which I sponsored with members of both parties including Senator Hennessey. It was cut up and amended during the process, but still had the new formula and restored funding, so it was worth supporting. It was killed in House Finance unanimously. What you got instead, was a commission to redo this work, with a $500,000 allocation to do it. The promise was that this commission would do its work quickly and you would have an even better solution in a year. Instead, there is no solution and a bill has been filed to extend the deadline to next year, after the deadline for filing budget bills, which means you are now four years away from action on any product of this commission. Bill Text – SB558
Now you’re up to speed. I bring this to you now because one positive of the withdrawal fight is that voters are paying attention and getting involved. While all of the fights over the years mentioned above were occurring, the public here was pretty quiet. There are a lot of things that I can do on my own, but this is one subject where I need your support. I need you to back me up. Legislators have let perfect prevent progress. They mixed issues instead of keeping it simple. There is no greater to our towns’ financial stability than these grant reductions. When we get another chance at this, which is next year, please get involved and write a letter, send an email, go to a hearing. It is a small effort that will make a big difference and help me keep my colleagues from kicking the can down a road that never ends…. again.

Steve

I have recently heard some feedback regarding my position on Chexit (Charlestown’s withdrawal from Fall Mountain School District). This was interesting to me since I have not taken a position. I have not done so because of two factors:

1. Charlestown is split on the issue and I represent you all.
2. I also represent Acworth, Langdon, and Lempster who may have diverging interests in this issue.

I can comment on some things that are universally a problem for all of my constituents. A prime example is the level that the discourse has risen to. In the NH House, we have a rule that a Member may not speak to the motives behind a bill being brought forward. First of all, it is irrelevant. Second, impugning or indicting the motives of someone breeds animosity and makes it difficult to work together afterwards. Finally, the issue that warrants attention are the actual facts of the bill. Lately I have seen people saying things like “they only want to withdraw because…..”. Even worse, some begin “those people just….”. The most quoted speech at the deliberative session had a strong focus on motive. At this moment, this is the biggest problem to overcome and you can all solve it. Simply don’t tolerate it. The issue is not tearing the community apart. People who focus on motive rather than facts tear the community apart. We’re getting into a pattern where even prolific posters on the forum who have always been paragons of civility have been letting it slide in comments on their posts. That must end.

Universal problem 1 – The Articles of Agreement

I am sure that the drafters had the best intentions. They were trying to craft a method that treated each town as a sovereign entity. This has failed on two levels. First, in trying to treat each town separately, you never got an agreement that created a “one-district” mentality. With different counting methods for each town and category of cost, an appearance of separatism was created. Second, you got an agreement that is unique in the state. No other district has this complex an agreement, and with good reason.

Universal problem 2 – Lack of transparency and distrust

In other districts, you can look up a few numbers that are publicly available and figure out what your town owes the district with a simple calculation. We don’t have that. A cursory review of the forum discussions shows that most people need to talk to someone else to get the number or explanation. When you are starting with an atmosphere of conflict and distrust, having to get the school district to explain the bill is not helpful, even when they are correct. This adds to the atmosphere of conflict because they are an interested party to the issue. You need to be able to verify it yourself, as in almost every other district in the state. It is simply a best practice and a real problem for all of us to solve.

Universal problem 3 – Lack of focus in deliberations

When the conversation gets tough, a lot of people are defaulting to “it is a state funding issue”. I disagree. A complex apportionment formula that may or may not be fair is still a problem for all the reasons cited above, even if it costs me less. Pumping more money in just masks the problem, for now. Keep the local focus on the district agreement because that is what only you can affect and don’t be distracted by other debates. Is the Fall Mountain agreement clear and fair or not? This is the debate you should be having prior to Town Meeting. Charlestown just got well over an extra million dollars allocated to it by the state. Did it help your problems? I don’t think so. We need transparency and you don’t have it.

Universal problem 4 – Opposition is better when it begins “Yes, but…”

Here is my observation. I may be wrong; this is simply what I see. It is indisputable that the status quo in Fall Mountain School District is a problem. When 300 people show up at a deliberative session and neighbors are turning on each other, a change is needed. Who is trying to work on it? The withdrawal committee is proposing ideas and plans. Have I missed the other side? I hear members of the school board and district personnel tearing down the withdrawal committee and proposal. Who is working on the alternative? Who is working on the new simple, transparent articles of agreement that would eliminate the distrust and suspicion? Who is proposing a “one district solution” that addresses all of our concerns? I wish that I had two plans for reform to choose between. At the beginning of this process, I was naive and optimistic. I honestly believed that the uproar and progression of the withdrawal movement would finally prod the district, board, and other towns to recognize that our unique situation is something to be solved. I thought that the result would be a solution that made withdrawal obsolete. Instead, I just see a lot of back and forth yelling “withdraw!”, “don’t withdraw!”. I hope that in the short time we have left, some brilliant group proposes an alternative. That is my sincere hope and I am so disappointed.