Key Dates In Kansas School Finance History New Hampshire Can Learn From

(See if you notice any chance for voters to weigh in on education funding.)

1972 : Caldwell v. State of Kansas, No. 50616 (Johnson County District Court).

A district court found the Kansas public education funding system unconstitutional.

1973 School District Equalization Act established in response to Caldwell.

1976 In Knowles v. State Board of Education, the district court struck down the 1973 School District Equalization Act as unconstitutional.

Sept. 10, 1990: Officials with 31 school districts file a lawsuit in district court challenging the legality of the state's school finance formula.

Oct. 14, 1991: A district court issues a pretrial opinion, in Mock v. State, finding that the state's school finance formula is unconstitutional. In its pre-trial opinion the court stated that: “the duty owed by the Legislature to each child to furnish him or her with educational opportunity equal to that of every other child”. This Equity Suit was the most common type of eduction funding lawsuit in the 90's before Adequacy Suits became popular.

May 5, 1992: Legislators approve a new school finance formula, providing money on a per-pupil basis.

Dec. 2, 1994: The Kansas Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the new school finance formula.

May 21, 1999: Administrators and parents file state and federal equity lawsuits, claiming the latest finance formula is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection rights of minority and poor students.

Nov. 21, 2001: District court dismisses the state lawsuit.

2002: Robinson v. Kansas, 295 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.) Earnestine Robinson, on behalf of her minor children, filed suit along with other plaintiffs against the State of Kansas, its governor, and two state education officials challenging the state's school financing scheme. Plaintiffs claimed that the Kansas State school financing results in less funding per pupil, in schools where there are more minority students.

Jan. 24, 2003: The Kansas Supreme Court reverses district court decision to dismiss the state case, ordering a new district court trial. Montoy v. State, 275 Kan. 145, 62 P.3d 228 (Kan. 2003) (“Montoy I”).

Sept. 22-Oct. 1, and Nov. 25, 2003: District court testimony and closing arguments in the school finance lawsuit.

Dec. 2, 2003: District court issues a preliminary order saying the school finance formula is unconstitutional, and orders the Legislature and executive branch to fix the flaws. District court gives legislators until July 1 to fix the formula.

Jan. 2004: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius outlines a three-year plan to increase school funding by $304 million annually through higher sales, income and property taxes.

Feb. 2004: Sebelius signs a bill allowing an expedited appeal of any preliminary or final district court order that strikes down a law because it violates the education article of the Kansas Constitution.

March 26, 2004: State attorneys appeal with the Kansas Supreme Court.

May 8, 2004: Legislature adjourns having rejected more than two dozen proposals to increase funding for education, ranging from tax increases to use of transportation and state reserve accounts. Schools are to receive about $2.7 billion in state aid for 2004-2005 school year.

May 11, 2004: District court issues another order, effectively closing schools after July 1. Schools are to remain closed until the Legislature fixes flaws in the school finance formula.

May 19, 2004: Kansas Supreme Court issues a stay of Bullock's order. Schools remain open for 2004-2005 school year.

Aug. 30, 2004: Arguments before the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the state and the State Board of Education.

Jan. 3, 2005: Kansas Supreme Court rules the state does not spend enough money on public schools, and gives the Legislature until April 12 to address its concerns. Montoy v. State, 278 Kan. 769, 102 P.3d 1160 (Kan. 2005) (“Montoy II”). The State Supreme Court uses an Augenblick and Myers cost study of approx. $850 million in needed spending – the standard amount Augenblick seems to offer as a “one size fits all” solution to education funding suits in its several decades of selling “education funding formulas”.

March 30, 2005: The legislature responds by enacting House Bill 2247. The bill increases funding for K-12 public schools by $142 million. The Governor allowed the bill to become law without her signature.

July 28, 2006: Montoy v. State, 112 P.3d 923, 279 Kan. 817 (Kan. 2005) (“Montoy III”). The Kansas Supreme Court held that the legislature’s appropriation of $142 million in response to the Montoy II decision was not sufficient to bring the state’s school finance system into compliance with its duty under the state constitution to provide "suitable provision" for education.

July 28, 2006: Legislators approved large increases in funding for at-risk programs during the past two years to comply with Kansas Supreme Court orders. By 2008-09, the state will be spending $261 million on at-risk programs, five times as much as it did in 2004-05.

November 14, 2006: As part of the latest State Supreme Court ruling, an audit of education spending was completed by the state auditing division. They found that 17% of a random sampling of students did not qualify for the free lunch programs they were receiving, costing the state $19 million dollars per year in increased costs which will escalate to $46 million by 2008 – 09.

Shows you just what the courts can do with education funding when they put their minds to it. No wonder our New Hampshire State Supreme Court and Legislature are so excited about “solving” the Claremont Eduction funding problem.

We are only half way there!

(No Amendment No Peace)

Big Voter Thumb In The Eye Of Our Activist Court

As I sat watching the absentee ballots being stacked up on a table in Ward 3 in Manchester Tuesday it was apparent that Questions One, protecting property rights, and Two, restoring small town representation in the Legislature, would win - overwhelmingly.

So the same voters who think tax and spend liberals are the answer to NH's problems are still alert enough to NOT trust the NH State Supreme Court?

I guess they have learned and are learning a few things about our power-hungry court:

a. Don't trust them with your property, ever!

b. Our small towns deserve representation in Concord.

c. Claremont is a black hole of spending and court dictates for decades.

d. NH judges who will try to fix a divorce case for one of their own can not be trusted. (still applies)

The passage by overwhelming numbers of Questions One and Two is excellent news for taxpayers. Nothing like New Hampshire voters getting used to voting YES on Constitutional Amendments to clean up and end the Claremont scam!

Congratulations to Chuck Douglass for his work on One and good luck with the pending Democrat mail-jamming case.

And a big thanks the NH Farm Bureau for all the work on Question Two.

You won't see much about these two Constitutional Amendments in the antique NH Media but they are good for New Hampshire.

Why?

There is an old saying: Judges count ballots too.

(Better put some ice on that boys!)

Welcome To New Hampshire/Jersey

Yes, a lot of the soccer moms and portfolio voters you saw at the polls Tuesday were from out of state originally.

You know the ones I am talking about - pony tail, baseball type cap that says Martha's Vinyard on it or some such thing, driving a Volvo wagon. Its almost like a uni-sex uniform.

Well these "angry at Bush," "anti-war," but don't really want to get blown up at Starbucks voters just handed New Hampshire progressives a perfect two year storm.

Here is the Education Funding lawsuit time frame from where these "property value" voters came from.

Does it look like Claremont so far?

Feb. 1970 A lawsuit, Robinson v. Cahill, brought on behalf of urban school children, charges the state's system for funding schools discriminates against poorer districts in a equity suit.

Apr. 1973 The New Jersey Supreme Court rules that heavy reliance on property taxes for education discriminates against poor districts

Jul. 1975 The Public School Education Act, Chapter 212, creates a new state-funding formula for public schools, but lawmakers do not raise tax pay for it.

Jul. 1976 The NJ Supreme Court shuts down the public schools for eight days because the Legislature failed to fund the new formula.

July 1976 The first New Jersey state income tax is then enacted!!!

Feb. 1981 New Lawsuit! Abbott v. Burke on behalf of urban school children.

1985 NJ Supreme Court issues Abbott I and orders the legislature to fund education so that urban and suburban children receive equal education.

1986-87 Trial in Abbott before judge.

Aug. 1988 Judge orders a complete overhaul of State's system of providing urban education.

May 1990 Governor Jim Florio introduces a $2.8 billion state tax increase to pay for the new order to placate the court.

Jun. 1990 The NJ Supreme Court rules in Abbott v. Burke (Abbott II) Education funding in NJ ruled still inadequate and not equal.

Mar. 1991 Governor Florio diverts a paltry $360 million of the new income tax to property tax relief.

Jul. 1992 Education funding litigants re-start Abbott. Now Abbott III.

Jul. 1994 In Abbott III, the NJ Supremes declares education funding unconstitutional. The Court gives the legislature until 1997 to raise more taxes..

Feb. 1995 The NJ Department of Education tries to comply.

Nov. 1995 New Gov. Whitman changes the school-funding formula by capping spending in suburban districts.

Jan. 1997 Education funding litigants sue again to force the legislature to raise more taxes to spend more on the 1990 and 1994 Abbott rulings.

May 1997 The NJ Supreme Court once again declares all previous attempts at raising taxes to fund education unconstitutional, orders more spending and turns authority of the legislature for funding over to a Superior Court judge.

September 1997 $246 million more taxes ordered to the urban districts to comply with the Abbott IV ruling. Spending between urban and suburban “equalized”.

Jan. 1998 Court orders statewide preschool, and renovations of schools at an additional cost of $312 million a year.

May 1998 The NJ Supreme Court rules again in Abbott V, and orders entitlements for urban school children including: whole school reform, full-day kindergarten and preschool for all 3 and 4 year olds, and a comprehensive state managed and funded facilities program to correct code violations, to eliminate overcrowding, and to provide adequate space urban schools. More supplemental programs are also required such as health and social services, increased security, technology alternative education, school-to work, after-school and summer-school programs.

Jul. 1999 Education litigants sue again at the NJ Supreme Court level for more tax money.

Mar. 2000 NJ Supreme Court, in Abbott VI, rules that the State had failed to comply with previous rulings and orders more spending.

Jul. 2000 Legislature enacts school construction program for school districts statewide.

Apr. 2001 Administrative Law Judge Masin says: not enough.

Sep. 2001 Litigants sue again for fully funding preschool.

Oct. 2001 Supreme Court issues first half of Abbott VIII.

Feb. 2002 Supreme Court issues second half of Abbott VIII.

Feb. 2002 Gov. McGreevey Administration enters fray.

Mar. 2002 McGreevey Administration spends and extra $233 million more trying to satisfy courts.

Jun. 2002 Supreme Court issues orders one year freeze of Abbott “remedies”.

July 2002 – August 2005  One set piece of legislation and court case after another.

Jan. 2006 The NJ State Board of Education adds “rural” districts to its list of underfunded schools.

May 2006 The NJ Supreme Court issues an orders funding freeze, while legislature comes up with spending plans.

May 2006 The NJ Supreme Court sets time frames for district school districts to request more tax money and orders state to pay for all opening expenses for new schools.

November 2006 Governor Corzine who has already increased the sales tax by 17% is looking to consolodate 618 school districts in 21 county district to provide PROPERTY TAX relief! He is looking at handing control of all school spending, with veto power over even local budgets, to soon to be created  SUPER-SUPERINTENDENT.

This can only get better.

Election Day Wrap-up

I spent a long day at Ward #3 in Manchester on November 8. I was asked to be a Republican challenger and accepted, as I do not often get a look at city politics up close.

We had a list of 695 pieces of returned mail a candidate sent to people on the Ward #3 voter checklist. That amounts to 21% or so of the whole list which is an opportunity for almost anyone to walk in and say they are a person on that list they know will not come vote.

There were several interesting events I guess I can write about.

Several people came in and gave their name to vote to one of the ballot clerks in front of us challengers. We would ask to see their I.D. if they showed up on the returned mail list. Several had no I.D to show us, several said they moved, some had changed addresses and promptly showed I.D.

What gets touchy is when a person is in some sort of temporary housing and has assistance from the city etc. It takes a little figuring out by the addresses but you certainly don't want to make a scene out of asking for I.D. once you understand how that works.

My favorite was a young fella who did not have a license to show me when I challenged his domicile. I told him I found him on the returned mail list and asked if he had moved etc.

The answer:

“My drivers license has a Massachusetts address on it”.

So when you think about it, what he was trying to not say was: “I have a Massachusetts drivers license”.

It was his second time voting this year, as he had already voted in the Sept. primary. It appears he was an out-of state campaigner for one of the candidates. He was allowed to vote and I will certainly be tracking his career in politics. As well as adding the young campaigner to my extensive NH Voter Fraud display.

You haven't seen my Voter Fraud Display? Oh it is quite a collection of stuff. It takes about an hour and a half to go through and people who see it are usually quite energized about the voting system here in NH.

When you think about how many close elections we have in NH and what it takes to run for office it would be nice to know that the people who vote in your ward – live in your ward, or even state, but this is NH after all and we have one of the most sloppy election systems in the country.

All day long voters got out forms of I.D they did not need to show as they walked up to vote. One woman was stunned that no I.D was required. She said that it looked like anyone could walk up and claim they were her. She gets it! Lynch does as well. That is why in his first term as Gov. he vetoed Voter I.D., the single thing he has actually done in two years.

I had the pleasure of sitting with Jerry Thibodeau, a young get-out-the vote activist from the Democrat side. Jim Wieczorek was there all day, Greg Saltz came late and took over for me so I could go home and feed “wonder dog.” The lovely Tracey Buckley was the Moderator and she had a very competent team.

At the end of the day a young guy was walking towards us with a reporters pad. I spotted him first and told Jerry and Greg to not talk to him (but they did) because talking to the “press” is never good for conservatives.

They asked him if he was a reporter and he said no, that he just worked for the Union Leader once in a while. Typical.

So just as Jerry and Greg were talking to Mr. Cub Reporter a guy walks up to vote who was on the returned mail list. I challenged him, and it turns out, he was from another ward. This went on as Mr. Cub Reporter was getting Greg and Jerry to repeat some comments they made for his supposed “non-reporter” story. Typical. The whole purpose for us being there unfolds in front of the “reporter” and he missed it.

The 60's Are Back!

Congratulations are in order!

Liberals and progressives turned out their Volvos and won BIG!

“Moderate” Republicans should be happy with the results.

 Now we get to find out what “Caring About People” and “Change” really mean.

I will enjoy the debate and count the days until the income and sales taxes come up.