« No There, There | Main | Honey, Does This Fuse Go With My Outfit? »

Thank You Senator Estabrook For Looking Out For The Little Guy

I love to compare other school finance disasters with what the school lobby is trying to ram through New Hampshire’s Legislature. Never do you find a pro-Claremont Funding Scam schemer holding any other state up as an example of how education EQUITY – ooops, we call it ADEQUACY now, works so well.

California was the first state to fall victim to a Claremont type extortion suit in the late 70’s. The schools there went from #1 in the country to a paltry 47th now. (All this with a property, sales, and income tax!)

But there is more! Like they didn’t get spanked enough through suits, bait and switch legislation is also “hurting the children’s” taxpaying parents. Here is how it was set up.

I n November of 2000 , California voters passed a ballot initiative known as Proposition 39, which for the first time, permitted school bonds to be approved with a 55% “super- majority” as an alternative to the historic 66%. They took the bait.

Since the pass age of Proposition 39, Californian’s school construction proponents have had the choice of whether to seek the old 66% supermajority thought special elections, or the new lower hurdle of 55% if they put the bond measure on a regularly scheduled ballot, limit the size of the bond, and agree to abide by several administrative requirements.

Local elections that rely on 55% approval have been very successful, with more than 80% passing!

Prior to 2001, more than 40% of local school bonds failed. From 1998 through November 2006, local bond elections generated $36.1 billion for school facilities.

Of the 931 elections under the two-thirds requirement from 1986 through 2006, 55% succeeded. Of the 393 elections relying on 55% approval between 2001 and 2006, 83% succeeded.

If you want to pass a school bond in California, a good old-fashioned political campaign is all you need – not necessarily a good plan for a new school to sell to voters. Turnout is the key to passing a 20 or 30 year bond, so along with the bricks piling up - so did the bond debt.

Now its 2008 and the State of California is in a financial squeeze of $16 billion dollars. Where do you suppose, frugil NH voter, that much red ink bling is going to come from – seeing as the Govenator borrowed billions to balance the budget last time around?

It looks like the public schools – which now depend on STATE money more than ever, may have to take a slight hit of about $4.8 billion.

And then we have The Granite State.

We have a pending Claremont scam suit promising MORE free state money to offset the dreaded, stable, locally controlled, property tax. (Its all “up there ^” in an alien transport vessel tucked behind the dark side of the moon.)

But this isn’t over!

We have an opportunity to stack up local bond debt in NH just like our friends in California are now going to pay for with a property tax instead of all the free state dollars. It is called:

SENATE BILL 479

AN ACT relative to the vote required for passage of school bonds.

SPONSORS: Sen. Estabrook, Dist 21; Sen. Kelly, Dist 10; Rep. M. Smith, Straf 7

COMMITTEE: Public and Municipal Affairs

ANALYSIS

This bill changes the required majority vote for passage of notes or bonds issued by a school district from 2/3 to 3/5.

Get the picture?

Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 01:14PM by Registered CommenterEd Naile | Comments4 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (4)

I know several people in the California school system from teachers through senior management at the district level and also on school boards. Your history is instructive of how not to run a business. Not mentioned is that, with the exception of bonds, virtually all the rest of the funding is passed down from the State based on average daily attendance (ADA). As such, there is no incentive on the part of local boards to do more than fight for more bonds for schools and keep ADA at it's maximum. Local people and the Boards ignore the real source of the funds. Curriculum and text book choice comes also from the State. Just to demonstrate how crazy it is, a month ago I talked to a school baord member in a town nearly identical in size to Manchester. He is also a teacher (can you spell conflict of interest?... Board members receive $700 per month stipend plus health care for their hard work and diligence spending taxpayer money). I looked at a recent Board agenda. Most of the time appeared to be taken up with reviews and approvial of student suspensions.

15 years ago when I moved from California to New Hampshire, I calculated I could afford a 12% pay cut at the gross level and still live better in New Hampshire and not have to deal with Rodney King riots, traffic, and pollution... and my children received a better education. Now tell me again why we need to change!
April 1, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterdave
dave:

And then we have Kentucky, the state our Claremont case is designed after.

Billions were spent complying with the phony claim of ADEQUACY not being met. And what do they have to show for it?

I talked to a Kentucky Dept. of Ed. official last year and she told me (off the record)they could have achieved the same results by firing bad teachers and getting rid of scam superintendants. But the new buildings are nice.

Test scores or any measurable definition of success is not there yet. Maybe a few billion more will do it?.
April 1, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Note the roll call vote on this 14-10 passage in the Senate. There was one crossover from each party (Barnes, DeVries) but other than that - straight party line. Another indication we need to shift that balance in November. Of course it will be too late on this bill as I see it passing in the big-spending House and receiving a Lynch signature faster than you can say "tax increase".
April 2, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterConcerned Taxpayer
I was a product of California education before the state became the land of fruits and nuts and everything that was loose west of the Rockies rolled towards the Pacific. I left the State in the late '60's and returned 20+ years later to something I could not identify and immediately made plans to move to NH. Depite this I encourage everybody I meet (particularly the loony left) to move to places like California or Florida. That keeps NH clean... even though I do admit we seem to have a much too porous southern NH border.
April 2, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterdave

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.