By an overwhelming 19-4 vote the Senate has passed a constitutional amendment to better target education aid.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein reports.
The debate on the Senate floor was oddly subdued.
Maybe it’s because there was little doubt the constitutional amendment would pass.
Or, sponsor Democrat Joe Foster says, maybe it’s because the 24 senators had a big lunch.
1:23 Chinese food will do that to any group.
Foster made his joke, after his amendment had passed in a landslide.
But before lawmakers had voted, the Nashua Democrat was all business.
He warned his colleagues that the new funding formula that he and others are working on is not going to make many people happy.
1:20 when it’s released, unless we spend millions more than we are spending today, I predict none of us in this body will like the results. The plan that we will put forward will not be as good a plan as we could do. Why? B/c it can’t be.
It can’t be, Foster went on, because court decisions require the state to send a so-called universal grant to every student, even those who live in wealthy communities.
Amendment supporters argue the students in property rich towns don’t need state aid.
Foster, himself, has called sending millions of dollars to communities like Windham, Hollis and Amherst bad education policy.
Only one senator stood up to speak against the amendment that’s backed by the Republican leader, the Democratic Majority Leader and Governor John Lynch.
Republican Bob Clegg said he worried the amendment would open the door to unfunded mandates from the state.
2:03 when the state decides you need pre-school, you ready to pay for it? b/c if they define it as part of adequate ed. and you pass this amendment, it states the general court will decide how much money to give you...it suddenly says, whatever we decide you need, you are going to do.
Clegg’s amendment to add language to guard against unfunded mandates failed on a party-line vote.
Apart from Clegg’s comments and some brief discussion about reducing the court’s role, the debate lacked much substance.
If anything, senators were more focused on what House members will do with the amendment.
The amendment’s future in that body is far from certain.
Democratic leadership has expressed a willingness to consider the measure.
And House Republicans have said they are too, if the current language is changed so that all communities are guaranteed some aid.
The wild card is rank and file Democrats.
Senator Iris Estabrook, one of three Democrats to oppose the amendment, says she worries a constitutional amendment would result in so-called middle-tier towns- not rich, not poor- losing guaranteed state aid.
4:01 how many communities can exist without the universal grant...reamins a huge concern for me. And what will happen at the local level, when those communities realize they are carrying that full burden on their local property taxes.
Estabrook’s comments are a likely preview of the kind of resistance the amendment will face in the House.
Next week, Estabrook, a chief architect behind the new funding formula, is expected to release some details about the plan.
Those details could go a long way in determining how likely rank and file Democrats will view the amendment.
For NHPR News, I’m DG.
