In testimony in opposition to the ABC Plan (submitted to the House
Education and Finance Committees), State Senator Jim Rubens, chair
Senate Ed Committee and Republican candidate for Governor, wrote:
ABC Shuts Out Voters, Taxpayers and School Boards; Drives Up Spending
The department of education would determine local tax rates and spending.
The department of education is granted exclusive authority to set minimum
education spending rates for middle/junior high and high schools. (193-E:3,
IV).
"Each school district shall appropriate an amount … as determined under RSA
193-E:3 … without a vote of the school district." (193-E:9, I). The ABC tax
and total control plan delegates the unelected, unaccountable Department of
Education to set mandatory spending levels in every community. ABC prohibits
any level of expenditure less than, roughly, today's state average. More
cost-effective, efficient schools are prohibited by law. Local voters and
taxpayers are cut entirely out decision making.
ABC would put local schools under total control by the politically appointed
state board of education. Local curriculum, instruction, staffing and
"corrective action" plans would be mandatory and would be controlled and
approved by the state board (193-E:4, I, VI and 193-C:9, I & II, as amended).
Local schools would be compelled to perform according to yardsticks
established by the state board (193-E:4, II). Compliance with state board set
minimum standards would be mandatory (193-E:4, III; 189:1, 2 & 24, as
amended).
The total net first year cost of ABC is greater than $123 million because
towns receiving no aid but spending less than the state average are compelled
spend more and raise local taxes.
ABC runs afoul of Article 28-a by granting the state board of education
unrestricted ability to create new spending mandates paid for by state and
local taxpayers.
Deficient schools would be placed under the state board's orders and would
be given a "quality assurance" team, run by the department of education. This
is the same department that has failed in its duties to administer, monitor
and help control costs in special education and opposes proven-effective
phonics based reading instruction.
The Attorney General would be authorized to sue local school districts to
compel adherence to taxing, spending and management control by the state board
and department of education. (ABC, Section 73).
The Shaheen administration's desire to set education policy in secret and
without accountability to the public remains evident in the ABC tax and
control plan. Slated for repeal is RSA 189:4, requiring state board of
education decisions to be made in writing, recorded and noticed to any
affected school districts.
ABC unconstitutionally removes due process protections for towns
disagreeing with DRA assessments.
"Appeals which have not bee finally ruled upon by the
board on or before the expiration of such 60 day period shall be deemed
denied." (Section 29, RSA 71-B:5, II)
ABC attempts to conceal the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" prohibition
against "disparities" with a statement that educational services need not be
"identical" (193-E:4, IX). Only a constitutional amendment can void the
Pandora's box of adequacy lawsuits facing the state. ABC's statutory language
will have no beneficial effect. The "strict scrutiny" language in the court's
decision forces the state to prove a "compelling state interest" in any
"disparity" between school districts, schools, and conceivably services for
each child.
The State Assessment Tests Should Not Be Used to Allocate Rewards or
Sanctions
The state frameworks in RSA 193-C would become mandatory (193-E:4, I and
193-C:3, IV, as amended).
The state assessment tests are not nearly accurate or reliable enough to be
used to reward or sanction school districts, as would be required under RSA
193-C:1, VI. Please see the 1997 report of the Assessment Oversight
Committee, chaired by Senator Rubens, for more details.
ABC is Blatantly Unconstitutional
"The phantom tax credits are a fig leaf to cover ABC's blatant
unconstitutionality." Approximately half of towns' ABC tax rates are not
proportional, with variance among tax rates by as much as 15 to 1. The very
first paragraph of the Claremont decision states that even a 4 to 1 ratio
among tax rates is impermissible "fiscal mischief."
NH courts have already
ruled unconstitutional exemptions providing property tax relief for persons
owning more expensive homes at the expense of lower income property owners,
Felder v City of Portsmouth (1974) 114 NH 573, 324 A2d 708.
ABC Increases Tax Regressivity
ABC would completely eliminate the local personal income sensitivity feature
of the Augenblick formula as of 2001, thus making state aid more regressive.
The difficulty of raising ABC's $15.06 in education property taxes varies
between towns depending, in part, upon local personal income.