5 Sharon Avenue....... Merrimack NH 03054 2 June 1998..............

New Hampshire Supreme Court
Concord NH 03301

To the Justices:

Thank you for welcoming public comment on the matter recently referred to you by the Senate regarding the "ABC plan." I write to you today as a parent, a New Hampshire resident, and a taxpayer.

Question 5 from the Senate is "Would the ABC legislation violate the section of the state constitution that bars unfunded mandates on cities and towns ... by requiring that every school district prepare and implement a local education improvement and assessment plan? Does it violate that constitutional provision by requiring schools to adhere to state minimum standards 'without providing every school district sufficient funding to pay for such mandates'?"

I urge you to recognize that a state mandate, however noble and constructive the purpose, is still a mandate. Any "requirement" from the state on cities and towns that requires expenditure of funds should be paid for by the state, unless the local governing body votes to assume the cost (NH Constitution, part I, article 28-a). Until and unless our legislature chooses to amend the constitution so as to render article 28-a invalid, I ask that you interpret the article in light of its plain meaning.

Having no other formal way to express my concerns over your decision in Claremont II, permit me to address those concerns here. I am afraid that the role of parents in education was forgotten in the concern over funding. If education is a state role -- a duty, as you held the "cherish" and "encourage" language (NH Constitution, part II article 83) to mean -- then are parents only to write the checks?

How much actual leeway in education will remain under the strictures of Claremont II? If the state is responsible for education in terms of both defining adequacy and providing funding, is there a substantive role left in education for parental decisions and for local boards? Is adequacy to be defined in all its parts by reference to the state constitution? If so, are we looking forward to curriculum litigation? That could become a full-time job for you. Yes, there are boards on both the state and local levels that handle curricula now. If, however, "constitutional adequacy" is the benchmark by which education is to be evaluated, that is surely a matter of constitutional interpretation, which will make litigation not a last resort but routine. I don't envision a branch of state government delegating the task of constitutional interpretation to a local school board.

I regret that Justice Horton's dissent in Claremont II attracted no concurrence. While expressing respect for his colleagues and indeed for all who are concerned about inequities in education, he acknowledges that it is not his role to establish educational policy or to dictate the financing thereof. That, I fear, is exactly what time will prove the court did in Claremont II.

Respectfully,
(Mrs.) Ellen Galarneau Kolb