The justices are weighing whether to uphold a lower court ruling that found the current school funding law unconstitutional, or gather more facts about the law's effects.
The suit led by Londonderry and Merrimack….and joined by some 18 other school districts hinges on a basic contention: that current law fails to defines educational adequacy and specify what it costs. Chief Justice John Broderick, repeatedly asked the state to prove plaintiffs wrong.
"Where in the statutes has the state of NH defined constitional adequacy, somthing this court has asked the legislature and the governor's office to do for nine years?.Could you explain to me where that is?"
"It's in rsa e-193 e2"
That's Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards…….
"That is the state's definition of a constitutionally adequate education."
The law Edwards cites was enacted in 1998 and is the statute that governs all other laws and regulations pertaining to the delivery of state education. Chief Justice Broderick…responded to Edwards' claim by reading to from a 2000 high court decision.
"'It is not possible to determine the level of funding to provide a constitionally adequate education until its essential elements have been identified and defined.' That was 2 years after 193 e 2, which you say was is the definition. was enacted. Did we not know about 193 e2 in 2000?"
"No, you did know about that your honor."
"When we said that what do you think we meant by that?"
"Your honor, I'm not sure what you meant by that. What the legislature has done is done its job."
When asked how that job could be measured -- Edwards argued that plaintiffs are wrong to want the state to specify, or "cost out" adequacy….She says if current law allows schools to complaint with state regulations, then what ever that costs, is, by definition, enough. She said Plaintiffs would at the very least should have to prove a student had been harmed by current law. ……Arguing on behalf of Plantiffs, Concord Attorney Bill Chapman said not such trial is necessary. And he noted that past court rulings are quite clear that the state needs to define, cost, fund and verify the delivery on an adequate education.…..
"There are four mandates that state has conceded for many years it has to meet, and the state has not met any of those mandates, and that's what the trial court said."
Associate Justice Gary Hicks met that statement by asking Chapman what he would propose to make adequacy more explict.
"Can you be more specific about what your client says is missing from the definition?"
"I can't"
That prompted a basic follow up from Justice Linda Dalanis
"Then how will we ever know? If nobody knows what's missing or not missing that how can we possibly tell?"
Overall, the questions from the justices seemed to indicate a reluctance have the high court itself set a definition of adequacy….Chief Justice Broderick several times said the educational funding is a decision the people's elected representatives should make……..He also seemed leery of the idea of single lower court imposing a definition after a trial.. On the other hand, Broderick appeared less than comfortable with the anything short of compliancy with an earlier ruling that said paying for the cost of an adequate education is a state responsibility.
"What I'm talking about is writing a check -- Claremont II is about writing a check for constitional adequacy. The state of NH does that."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo