#

As the Claremont School District reels from a massive budget crisis that’s forced layoffs, canceled sports, and even discussions of closing an elementary school, taxpayers are venting outrage at the nearly $40,000 severance package granted to the man who led the district during its financial collapse.

On Friday, SAU 6 announced it had “mutually agreed” to part ways with Superintendent Chris Pratt, who has been on paid administrative leave for weeks. Under the separation agreement, Pratt will collect $39,500 — the equivalent of three months’ salary — plus health insurance coverage for three months.

That payout, residents say, is salt in the wound for a community still reeling from revelations that the district is $5 million in arrears on bills, including health insurance, food service, and employee retirement contributions.

“Send the kids out to beg for sports money, get to the point of closing a school because of cut employees, have teachers try to raise money for printer paper … pay the resigned f**k up 40K,” resident Erica Sweetser wrote on Facebook.

Claremont’s shortfall came to light this summer, stunning taxpayers and forcing the elimination of nearly 40 positions. The district has already frozen purchases, canceled sports programs, and shelved hiring plans. Bluff Elementary School could close its doors as early as next year, though that proposal is currently on hold.

Independent auditor Michael Campo said the financial mess “likely began on Pratt and (Business Administrator Mary) Henry’s watch.” State officials had warned Claremont not to hire Henry due to her poor track record working for other districts.

Both Pratt and Henry were placed on paid leave as the deficit ballooned. Henry, who earned $135,000 annually, remains on leave.

Pratt, who took over as superintendent in January 2024 after serving as principal at Stevens High School, is the second consecutive Claremont superintendent to exit under controversy. His predecessor, Michael Tempesta, earned $147,000 a year.

School Board Chair Heather Whitney has publicly called for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office or the Sullivan County Attorney to open a criminal investigation into the crisis, saying taxpayers deserve to know if misconduct — not just incompetence — is to blame.

Claremont residents, already paying more than $23,000 per pupil, say Pratt’s severance is indefensible.

“Give the people who brought this disaster a summons, not a check,” resident Steve Scott posted. “A few hundred citizens, students, and parents should begin a protest on his front lawn demanding he donate that $40K to the deficit.”

Another resident, Tina Rock, questioned why the board approved the payout while the district contemplates shuttering a school.

“Disgusting,” she wrote. “He just opts out and asks for three months plus health care, knowing the predicament he helped put SAU 6 in. Whoever decided to go along with this … should be ashamed. He failed his job.”

Even before the budget meltdown, Claremont schools faced long-standing challenges. Despite significant funding subsidies from the state, 36 percent of students tested proficient in English language arts. Just 20 percent met standards in math and science, below state averages.

The SAU 6 Board issued a statement praising Pratt’s service and promising “a search for new leadership will begin immediately.” But taxpayers say words won’t be enough.

Pratt’s departure clears the way for Claremont Middle School Principal Kerry Kennedy to step in as interim superintendent. The board initially tapped Human Resources Director Patrick O’Hearn, but quickly reversed course after criticism over his lack of state certifications.

For now, the focus remains on stabilizing the district’s finances, avoiding school closures, and restoring public trust. Whether Pratt’s $40,000 payout will be the last straw for fed-up taxpayers remains to be seen.

The Claremont School District’s deficit crisis may force the closure of one of the city’s three underutilized elementary schools, Bluff Elementary Principal Dale Chenette told staff this week.

“The unprecedented financial crisis faced by our district has negatively impacted our Bluff community,” Chenette wrote in a message to staff Sunday night.

The proposed closure of Bluff, home to about 170 students, comes as the district struggles with a sudden $5 million deficit that has already led to the cancellation of contracts for 19 new teachers and layoffs of 20 non-teaching staffers, among other deep cuts.

Chenette told staff an emergency proposal will be presented to the Claremont School Board when it meets Wednesday.

Other steps taken by the board include a hiring freeze, which left Bluff unable to meet its special education obligations, Chenette said in his email.

“Part of the issue was created by the hiring freeze, which left vacant positions open. The problem has grown more dire due to the ripple effect of employment uncertainty and staff resignations,” he wrote.

The plan would send all of Bluff’s K-5 students and their teachers to either Maple Avenue or Disnard elementary schools. Bluff would then close.

School Board Chair Heather Whitney told NHJournal this week that the political will did not exist to consolidate Claremont’s three elementary schools before the crisis, even though that is an obvious and, ultimately, necessary move.

“Now we can tear things down and start from the beginning,” she said.

Bluff, Disnard and Maple Avenue currently enroll 563 students in grades one through five. Another 118 kindergartners are split among the three schools. Claremont attempted to reconfigure the schools in 2020 to make better use of taxpayer resources, but parents fearful of change rejected the proposal.

Under the 2020 plan, put forward by then-Superintendent Michael Tempesta, Maple Avenue would have become home to pre-K through first grade, Disnard to grades 2 and 3, and Bluff to grades 4 and 5.

Claremont now houses its 24 pre-K students in a separate facility. Instead of restructuring the three elementary schools in 2020, voters were asked to approve a $500,000 line item for building maintenance and repairs.

But the emergency is already taking its toll on students and staff, Bluff teacher Tammy Yates told the Valley News. Yates, who is also president of the Sugar River Education Association, said the rapid changes are harming morale.

“To say the rapid-fire changes and rumors have been destabilizing would be an understatement,” Yates said in a statement. “The pressure being placed on teachers and staff right now is untenable, and the demands are demoralizing and not in the best interest of Claremont’s children.”

Bluff, Maple Avenue and Disnard all currently offer kindergarten through fifth grade classes. All three schools have average class sizes well below the state limit and the state average.

According to state data from December 2024, Bluff’s average class size for first and second grade was 14.3 students. The state allows a maximum of 25 students in first and second grade, with a state average of 15.9. Bluff’s third and fourth grades average 12.3 students per class, compared with the state maximum of 30 and a state average of 17.1. Data for Claremont’s fifth grade is less clear, and the averages published may include other grades.

Claremont’s multi-million dollar school deficit crisis requires a criminal investigation, School Board Chair Heather Whitney told NHJournal.

“I personally believe the magnitude of our situation warrants an investigation,” Whitney said.

Whitney spoke to NHJournal on Sunday about the likely origins of the budget gap and the painful way forward for Claremont’s schools. Whitney said a thorough, forensic examination of the district’s financial records by law enforcement is necessary, if for no other reason than to rule out criminal activity.

While there’s not yet any evidence pointing to an intentional, criminal scheme behind the missing millions, Whitney wants the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office to get involved. She hopes that the crisis started due to errors and carelessness by district administrators, rather than malfeasance, but she wants to be sure.

“It’s difficult to reconcile how errors and oversights can explain this,” Whitney said.

Claremont discovered this summer that the district is at least $5 million behind on critical bills, including employee health insurance, school food service, and $1.2 million in state retirement plan payments. Since news of the situation became public, the board has worked to find the total dollar amount and the reasons behind the gap. At the same time, Claremont has made painful staffing cuts to save millions in order to keep the schools open for the academic year. 

But Whitney said the work to uncover the total deficit won’t be done for a few more weeks. In the meantime, the board knows enough that it has been forced to make decisive and difficult cuts, like 19 new teachers and 20 non-teaching staff.

“When we say we don’t know and can’t provide clarity, that’s the God’s honest truth,” she said. “We know how big this [tsunami] is, we just don’t know how many gallons.”

Superintendent Chris Pratt and Business Manager Mary Henry are still both on paid administrative leave. Interim Business Manager Matthew Angell has said he believes he will know more about the financial picture by the end of September. 

Following a public hearing on Wednesday, the district officially approved a Reimbursement Anticipation Note (RAN), described by some officials as a “payday loan.”

It will allow the district to bridge the current cash-flow gap to cover immediate operational needs like payroll and benefits, until state funding arrives.

The loan was taken from Claremont Savings Bank against monies to be collected by the district in the April disbursement of the education adequacy aid grant. Notably, the loan will not reduce the existing budget deficit.

The roots of Claremont’s school funding crisis may go back to at least 2016, the last year the district completed an on-time financial audit, according to information released last week. Whitney was new to the board in 2019 when then-Superintendent Michael Tempesta discovered the district was at least three years behind on the annual audits, she said. 

A key moment in the crisis appears to be in 2023, when district officials like Henry mismanaged the federal grants programs supplying millions in funds for the annual budget. Those likely errors were complicated by the previous administration’s mistakes in 2021 and 2022 when district officials falsely believed there were surpluses and returned about $2 million in total to the taxpayers. 

Those fiscal missteps occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and while the SAU 6 offices were undergoing a major renovation, Whitney said. Many critical financial records were physically misplaced as they were not digital and still kept on paper, she said. 

Going forward, the board will now require annual audits to be completed and presented to the public by the auditor, not a school district employee, so that the results cannot be misconstrued, she said. She also wants all documentation and reports on the federal grant programs to go to the board, and not just the administrators, as had been the practice.

“We were following previous practices of the board, and not what we now know are best practices,” she said. 

Claremont will now have to rethink its entire educational system, she said. In a way, the financial crisis frees the board to do difficult things that it previously could not. For instance, Whitney said the political will did not exist to consolidate Claremont’s three elementary schools before the crisis, even though that is an obvious and, ultimately, necessary move. 

The crisis also means Claremont schools can jettison educational programs that do nothing to help students learn. For too long, the district has been hamstrung by the current social-emotional educational theories instead of focusing on providing the best education for all students, she said. 

“Now we can tear things down and start from the beginning,” Whitney said.

The Claremont School District misused federal grant money for years, using the funds to pay people it later could not identify during a New Hampshire Department of Education review, among other financial red flags.

NHJournal obtained several state compliance letters revealing the disarray inside the SAU 6 business offices that led to the state withholding all federal grant funding for most of 2024. While the issues that halted the money were supposedly corrected in October of last year, a blistering 59-page compliance letter sent to suspended Superintendent Chris Pratt in July cited a host of old and new federal grant violations.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant funding pass through the state Department of Education to local school districts every year, with the state responsible for making sure local districts follow federal requirements. Claremont received approximately $14 million in federal funds between 2022 and 2024.

The letters and reports obtained by NHJournal show the district repeatedly failing to meet basic guidelines for spending this money. District officials were also unable to account for how that money was used.

Both Pratt, who started in January 2024, and Business Administrator Mary Henry have been placed on paid administrative leave. The Claremont School Board learned of a multimillion-dollar deficit that appears to have begun sometime in 2023, when Henry was hired.

The district is seeking an emergency $4 million loan to keep schools open this year as officials try to resolve the fiscal issues and fill the funding gap.

According to the monitoring report sent to Pratt, Henry, and Assistant Superintendent Michal Koski on July 7 by NHED Administrator Ryanne Dennis, there was a great deal going wrong with the federal grants programs.

For starters, Claremont could not prove it used certified teachers or certified paraeducators for Title I services as required by federal law. That’s because the district apparently could not name the people it employed based on its own records.

“We noted that (Claremont) indicated that it did not know the names of the educators providing equitable services through 2023-2024 Title I, Part A Activity #151757. As a result, (Claremont) was unable to verify whether the educators providing these services met applicable state certification and licensure requirements,” Dennis wrote.

Title I also requires that the district inform parents when a teacher or paraprofessional does not have state certification. Claremont did not do that, either.

“(Claremont) did not submit documentation showing that parents were notified when a student was assigned or taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who does not meet state certification requirements,” Dennis wrote.

Claremont repeatedly failed to show that it was following guidelines for the money it accepted. Even though it took money to help homeless students, the district failed to have appropriate policies in place as required and failed to provide the services paid for by the grant. Dennis noted Claremont administrators pointed to a 2009 policy that has never been updated to show compliance in 2025.

In addition to its failings on behalf of public school students, records reviewed by NHJournal indicate the district is not following Title I rules for non-public school students, either.

Title I services, such as reading assistance, special education tutors, or vocational programs, are required for non-public school students. That has been part of federal law since President Lyndon Johnson signed the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965.

“Upon such review, we noted that (Claremont) did not have evidence of engaging teachers and families of participating non-public school students in the inclusion of family engagement services and activities,” Dennis wrote.

For the services it did provide non-public students, the district was inappropriately paying unknown third parties to provide these programs while exerting little or no control over the grant money. In one instance, Claremont paid a private school to operate a summer school program for private school students with no oversight from the district and no federally approved contract. When asked, Claremont officials could not even name the tutors who taught at the program.

“This response raises additional concerns regarding [Claremont’s] oversight and suggests that the non-public school may be controlling the provision of equitable services,” Dennis wrote. “This lack of sufficient written procedures for monitoring the federal programs in which non-public schools participate, combined with potential misuse of federal funds through possible direct payment to a non-public school, is non-compliant with ESSA.”

Dennis also noted there is no documentation showing Claremont does not use federal funds to supplant, or replace, local funding altogether.

Claremont had its federal funding withheld in April 2024 when district officials did not have any documentation prepared for a state review, according to an NHED letter sent to Pratt.

“Given Claremont School District’s failure to comply with the ESEA Federal Programmatic Consolidated Monitoring requirements, the New Hampshire Department of Education (NHED) is required to withhold federal funding as a remedy of noncompliance until [Claremont] can provide required documentation and sufficiently demonstrate federal funds are being administered appropriately,” NHED Administrator Emily Fabian wrote.

In August 2024, Fabian responded to Pratt’s inquiry about the funding by again explaining that the district needed to come up with a corrective action plan for failing to provide records.

“This act of noncompliance was one of many throughout the monitoring process, and as such, the New Hampshire Department of Education (NHED) implemented remedies of noncompliance,” Fabian wrote.

By the time Claremont managed to come into compliance for the 2024 review, it was October, and the district had already lost out on any federal grants with Sept. 30, 2024, deadlines. According to former Claremont School Board member Frank Sprague, administrators have yet to submit applications for $1 million in federal grant funds due at the end of this September.

Claremont schools welcomed students back on Thursday, but not Superintendent Chris Pratt.

Pratt was placed on non-disciplinary, paid administrative leave by the school board during a nonpublic vote earlier this week. News of Pratt’s leave was not made public until Thursday, two days after the board’s decision.

Also on Thursday, confirmation came that the district is seeking a $4 million loan to keep schools open for the full academic year.

Those are the latest developments in Claremont’s self-inflicted school budget crisis. On Aug. 14, the school board announced a multimillion-dollar gap in the budget that could force schools to close.

Business Administrator Mary Henry is already on paid administrative leave amid questions about how the deficit deepened during her tenure. Frank Sprague, the board’s vice chair and former chair, resigned Wednesday, calling Henry and Pratt the “architects of the disaster.”

Human Resources Director Patrick O’Hearne will serve as interim superintendent, while outside school finance expert Matthew Angell will serve as comptroller to set the books in order.

“Patrick and Interim Business Administrator Matt Angell will continue to work closely with the board, auditors, members of the administration, the district’s attorneys, the Commissioner of Education and her team, representatives from the Governor’s Office, and the larger school community as we navigate through this difficult time,” Thursday’s statement read.

News of the changes is not going down well with Claremont residents. Spencer Batchelder said on Facebook that Henry and Pratt should not receive paid leave.

“Phew, glad we ruined 19 new teachers’ and 20 other staff’s lives while administrators sit at home collecting a paycheck. I know the reality, it’s just such BS. Anyone with any honor would resign,” Batchelder wrote.

The board has been scrambling to keep schools open since the deficit was discovered. Claremont’s elected board cut 19 new teachers, fired 20 non-teaching employees, and eliminated funding for school sports, but did not remove any administrators in response to the financial emergency.

O’Hearne’s appointment as interim superintendent is also drawing public criticism. He does not hold a state certification for the superintendent position. In fact, Claremont is the first school district he has worked in as human resources director, a role he began 17 months ago, according to his LinkedIn profile.

“Unless a large number of citizens come forward and demand answers, the only thing that is going to change is our property tax,” Kimberly Davis Fellows wrote on Facebook. “Personally, I want to hear from the people responsible for the continuous unqualified hires. Enough is enough!!”

The deficit largely stems from millions of dollars spent in anticipation of federal grant funding that never materialized due to procedural failures by the district. Claremont’s board and administration had been warned for years that poor financial records management and the lack of key policies put it at risk of losing federal funds.

Henry started her job in 2023, the budget year that outside accountant Michael Campo identified as the likely beginning of the deficit. Pratt started in 2024, and his first budget was for the 2025-26 school year. Sprague said Pratt and his team wildly overspent taxpayer money with that $40 million budget, while withholding key information from the board.

“Their 2025 budget, it was like teenagers with Dad’s credit card,” Sprague said.

Until this May, Sprague said, the board was receiving positive financial reports from the administration.

Republicans in the New Hampshire House have criticized Claremont’s leaders over the mismanagement, pointing to the city’s struggling public schools as an example of why Education Freedom Accounts and school choice are needed.

“As the overpaid and underperforming administrators of the Claremont School District pat themselves on the back for securing a loan, one is left to wonder how much the students and taxpayers are going to suffer when these same administrators inevitably continue to drop the ball in balancing their budget and the bank comes calling,” said Deputy House Majority Leader Joe Sweeney (R-Salem).

“Claremont made their intentions crystal clear when they decided to cut teachers, student services, activities, and sports, but left the administrators responsible for this boondoggle to collect their bloated paychecks.”

The district is close to finalizing a $4 million loan with Claremont Savings Bank to keep students in school this year. Claremont School Board member Candace Crawford is a former Claremont Savings Bank executive and one of the bank’s current corporators.

The loan is reportedly a grant anticipation loan, with the district planning repayment using state adequacy education grants. The school board has yet to hold a public hearing or vote on the loan, as is normally required.

In a bright spot for students, there is a public effort to fund sports through private donations. The Claremont City Council plans to vote Tuesday on a proposal to advance school tax payments to the district to help keep schools open. The council is also considering a plan to waive certain fees this year, such as payments for a school resource officer and sports field maintenance costs, which are usually billed to the district’s athletic department.

Hundreds of residents packed the Stevens High School auditorium Wednesday night to hear how the school board plans to navigate a multi-million-dollar budget crisis that could shut down schools for the foreseeable future.

Notably absent from the meeting were Superintendent Chris Pratt and Business Administrator Mary Henry. When pressed by members of the public about their absence, board attorney James O’Shaughnessey said he was legally limited in what he could disclose.

“The superintendent is not here tonight at the request of the board,” O’Shaughnessey said.

As for Henry—whose tenure coincides with the start of a deficit that could reach $5 million or more—O’Shaughnessey confirmed she is no longer managing the district’s finances.

“The business administrator is not in charge of Claremont’s finances any longer,” he said.

Both Pratt and Henry remain employed by the district, O’Shaughnessey added, though he implied changes may be coming. Pratt is technically employed by SAU 6—the supervisory union that includes Claremont and Unity. The SAU 6 board, which has the authority to dismiss him, is scheduled to meet Thursday night.

When asked whether anyone could be held criminally liable for the deficit, O’Shaughnessey said the problems appeared to stem from incompetence rather than fraud.

“There is no evidence we’ve encountered of fraud, theft, or misappropriation. It’s problems with financial records and poor management,” he said.

Independent auditor Michael Campo of Plodzik and Sanderson, P.A., suggested the district consider a forensic audit to determine whether fraud occurred. Such an audit would be costly and time-consuming, he said, but should be considered once the district stabilizes its cash flow.

Pratt, the former Stevens High School principal, became superintendent in January 2024 after the SAU 6 board fired Superintendent Michael Tempesta. Henry began in 2023 following brief stints as business administrator in the Fall Mountain and Hillsboro-Deering districts, where audits flagged serious record-keeping problems.

Campo said his firm is only now completing the 2022 audit because district officials repeatedly failed to provide required information.

“It’s been a challenge since the change of management and an inability to get information from management,” Campo said, noting that the audit will carry a negative review indicating significant accounting issues.

Campo added that the most severe financial problems likely began during the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years.

“I believe that is where there are significant issues with cash flows,” he said.

To stabilize the situation, O’Shaughnessey has hired Matt Angel, an experienced school business administrator, to serve as an advising comptroller while the board investigates the crisis and develops a plan to keep schools open.

“That financial picture has not been crystal clear,” O’Shaughnessey said. “There is no immediate or easy solution to the cash flow problem. It’s going to take time and more information to come up with a recovery plan.”

Board Chair Heathy Whitney said the district still lacks a concrete proposal to address the deficit, describing the crisis as comparable to the COVID-19 pandemic—except without outside aid.

“Unlike COVID, there is no state or federal funding coming to help,” Whitney said.

A letter from newly appointed Education Commissioner Caitlin Davis, received just before Wednesday’s meeting, made that clear. Davis wrote that the state will work with O’Shaughnessey but emphasized the issue remains a local one.

“At this time, this remains largely a local issue for Claremont School District,” Davis wrote, adding that the state expects audits to be completed, spending accounted for, and safeguards established.

O’Shaughnessey noted that bankruptcy or receivership would require legislative action. While schools are still scheduled to open in eight days, he said the board may consider delaying the start of the school year.

Claremont resident Zack Greenwood said he can’t afford to live in the city because of the failing school district.

Residents at the meeting voiced frustration and fear, citing soaring property taxes, declining enrollment, and poor student performance.

“I want to believe in the school board, I want to believe in the administration. But I want to know there are controls in place,” said resident Jerry Cross. “I love Claremont, I’ve been here 48 years, but there is something seriously wrong here.”

Cross said his property tax bill has doubled in the past year. Others said they can no longer afford to live in the city.

“You’re going to lose your community. The town is in peril,” Cross said.

Resident Zach Greenwood said he plans to put his home on the market, citing rising taxes and declining schools.

 “We all vote for you to oversee these things—we shouldn’t be in this problem,” Greenwood said. “My kids’ education is crap, and the school management is crap.”

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the legislature is underfunding education, but it won’t force the state to pay more.

The much-anticipated ruling in the ConVal education funding lawsuit finds the court backing an increase in the per-pupil adequacy grant to $7,300, while at the same time the justices refuse to force the state to pay up.

“I think the majority of the court had it right. The state underfunds adequacy, and that’s the core ruling in a very complicated decision,” Andru Volinsky, one of the lawyers involved in the original Claremont funding lawsuits, told NHJournal.

Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte criticized the decision, saying New Hampshire already spends more than enough on education.

“The court reached the wrong decision today. The fact is, New Hampshire is in the top 10 in the country when it comes to funding our children’s education,” Ayotte said. “We are evaluating the ruling to determine the appropriate next steps. In the meantime, I will continue working with the legislature to support our teachers and keep delivering a best-in-class education for every child in New Hampshire.”

The majority decision, authored by Associate Justice James Bassett, was accompanied by two dissenting opinions, reflecting the fact that the debate involves fundamental legal issues, such as the separation of powers within the state’s constitutional system. 

The ruling supports Superior Court Judge David Ruoff’s decision that state spending on local K-12 education must be increased by more than $550 million. Conversely, the justices also found that enforcing Ruoff’s decision by making the legislature actually pay that amount would violate the constitutional separation of powers.

Ruoff’s original decision established a proposed base minimum grant of $7,300, while also allowing the legislature to devise any other school funding system that met the constitutional obligations outlined in Claremont. Bassett wrote in the majority opinion that in so doing, Ruoff did not violate the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

“Instead, [Ruoff] weighed separation of powers concerns along with the history of school funding litigation, the significance of the fundamental right to an adequate education, and the need for a judicial remedy, and determined that [he] should establish ‘a conservative minimum threshold’ that base adequate aid “must exceed”: $7,356.01. In crafting a conservative minimum threshold, [Ruoff] carefully avoided the usurpation of legislative or executive branch powers,” Bassett wrote.

ConVal was joined by Winchester, Mascenic Regional, Monadnock Regional, Fall Mountain, Claremont, Newport, Hillsboro-Deering, Grantham, Oyster River Cooperative, Manchester, Windham, Derry Cooperative, Hill, Mascoma Valley Regional, Nashua, Lebanon, and Hopkinton.

State Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R-Tuftonboro), Chair of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, said the Supreme Court ruling does not mean the legislature will jump to hike school funding, despite the constitutional violation found by the justices.

“It was very interesting to see the split in justices on the issues of the amount of an adequate education and the immediate payment of the lower court amount,” Cordelli said. “It is also interesting that education funding was increased in the budget just passed, as well as the statement of principles regarding the separation of powers and the legislative versus judicial roles.”

The Supreme Court, though, found Ruoff did cross the line by ordering the legislature to immediately pay the difference. Basset wrote that courts can order the legislative or executive branches to make payments, but not in this case.

“Although we have rejected the proposition that the separation of powers doctrine categorically prohibits the judiciary from awarding injunctive relief like the immediate payment directive should the circumstances and the equities dictate, we conclude that, under the unique facts of this case, the trial court did not accord sufficient weight to separation of powers considerations in crafting the specific injunctive relief that it ordered,” Bassett wrote.

Which is why, rather than ordering the legislature to increase state spending, Bassett’s opinion “urges” them to do so.

“We urge the legislative and executive branches to act expeditiously to ensure that all the children in public schools in New Hampshire receive a State funded, constitutionally adequate education.”

The ConVal lawsuit, brought by the Contoocook Valley School District in Peterborough, argued that New Hampshire was underfunding education and thereby violating the state constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1990s Claremont decisions, that New Hampshire students have the right to an adequate education.

After years of litigation, Ruoff determined that the state needs to spend at least $7,300 per pupil, up from $4,200, in order to come into compliance with the Claremont decisions. Cordelli echoed the complaints of many when he said Ruoff should not be making law by setting a base amount for the grants.

“It is amazing that one unelected judge can determine the cost of an adequate education to the penny. As if money determines if students will learn,” Cordelli said.

But Volinsky said the Supreme Court got it right by backing Ruoff, even if they won’t enforce his decision.

“I think there are things in this decision that make clear that the rule of law abides and that it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to interpret the Constitution,” Volinsky said.

The Supreme Court was missing Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, who was recused, and Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz-Marconi, who is on leave pending a criminal case. In their place, retired Superior Court Justice Gillian Abramson and former Superior Court Chief Justice Tina Nadeau sat in on the case.

Justices Patrick Donovan and Melissa Countway disagreed with Bassett in backing the $7,300 total, writing in their dissent that Ruoff had ignored the funding school districts receive in addition to the adequacy grants when calculating his number. Nadeau and Abramson wrote their own dissent, arguing that Ruoff does have the authority to enforce the payment. 

The real-world consequences of the ruling are difficult to predict, legal experts and legislators told NHJournal.

The state budget, passed last week, includes the statement that “The legislature now deems it necessary to definitively proclaim that, as the sole branch of government constitutionally competent to establish state policy and to raise and appropriate public funds to carry out such policy, the legislature shall make the final determination of what the state’s educational policies shall be and of the funding needed to carry out such policies.”

Cordelli said Tuesday’s ruling, if implemented, will lead to less local control of schools, pointing out that, with more state money comes more state influence in the classroom.

“I have been warning folks for a year that they should be careful what they wish for,” Cordelli said.

Lawmakers are considering a new solution to New Hampshire’s (potential) $500 million education funding dilemma:

Ignore the state Supreme Court.

A proposed House concurrent resolution (HCR) allows lawmakers to say the state Supreme Court’s 1993 Claremont decision, which defines a constitutional right to an adequate education, is a non-binding suggestion and not a court mandate.

“This simply affirms that the power of judicial review is not the power to force the other branches to pass legislation,” said Rep. Greg Hill (R-Northfield), a lead sponsor of HCR 11.

Hill brought his proposed resolution to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, hoping to inspire lawmakers to take control of the education spending issue. He argued the Claremont decisions regarding “adequate funding” were wrongly decided and violated the separation of powers. 

“This (resolution) says that we, the House and Senate, find the lines of responsibility between the legislative and judiciary to have been crossed,” Hill said.

The Claremont Decision is a fiscal time bomb that could finally go off this year. The pending ConVal school funding decision, which could force a $500 million per year state spending increase, is based on the court’s view of how much funding is “adequate.”

The House Judiciary Committee also heard testimony Wednesday on a proposal to possibly impeach the ConVal judge, Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff. The proposal does not make any specific claims that Ruoff committed an impeachable offense; it only seeks an investigation into his conduct.

In November 2023, Ruoff sided with the Contoocook Valley School District in finding the state is still violating the Claremont decision by underfunding schools. Ruoff ordered the state to up the per pupil adequacy grant from $4,100 to at least $7,400. The state has appealed to the Supreme Court and a decision is pending.

HCRs do not have the force of law in New Hampshire, making the proposal as a defiant gesture rather than a policy change, said Greg Sorg, an attorney who backs the resolution. Defiance against judicial overreach is now needed, he said.

“I always felt it would be a healthy thing in an egregious case like this if the legislature repudiated the court,” Sorg said. 

House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Tim Horrigan (D-Durham) said the legislature is already ignoring the Claremont decision, and has been for the past three decades. In the 16 budgets passed since the 1993 decision, the legislature effectively ignored the ruling and continues to underfund education.

“Haven’t we gotten away with not funding education? Haven’t we triumphed over the courts?” Horrigan said.

New Hampshire lawmakers approved about a $150 million increase in public school funding in the last budget. The state spends more than $1 billion on public education, including adequate education grants and statewide property tax revenue. If the ConVal lawsuit decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, the state will need to come up with another half a billion dollars. 

Zach Sheehan with the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project, said the state only pays for less than a third of public education costs. Local taxpayers carry the heaviest burden, paying 70 percent of the education costs through local property taxes. That burden is because the state has failed to live up to Claremont, Sheehan said.

Horrigan suggested increasing statewide taxes to pay for education — the most obvious option being an income tax — would lower the local property tax burden. 

“Isn’t that an option?” Horrigan asked.

Sorg is skeptical that adding an income tax would lead to a smaller overall tax bill for Granite Staters.

“I think the appetite of the schools for money is just limitless,” Sorg said.

As the New Hampshire Supreme Court considers the $500 million ConVal education funding decision, GOP lawmakers have come up with a solution for the endless legal drama: Get rid of the Claremont decisions.

In an amicus brief filed with the court this week, a group of 31 House and Senate Republicans justify ending Claremont by linking it to the logic behind the Roe v. Wade decision that created a woman’s right to an abortion. 

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe with the recent Dobbs decision, restoring the right of voters to set the abortion laws in their own states. Like Roe, they argue, Claremont was a bad decision that took authority away from local communities and created endless legal battles.

“In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the morass into which it had ventured in 1973 and overruled Roe and Casey, returning the controversial policy issue of abortion to the policy-making branches of the 50 state  governments,” the brief states.

The landmark state Supreme Court Claremont decisions from the 80s and 90s found that all New Hampshire children have a right to an “adequate education” and that the state has a financial obligation to fund that education. 

State Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said the Claremont rulings have done more harm than good, taking away local control from communities and creating the legal environment for the costly ConVal decision.

“The decision has run its course and its not taking into account the entire state of New Hampshire,” Lang said.

But Noah Telerski, with the liberal NH School Funding Fairness Project, said the brief is an example of blame shifting by the GOP lawmakers.

“Instead of owning up to their failure to adequately fund education in compliance with the Claremont rulings, these legislators are instead arguing that Claremont should be thrown out,” Telerski said in a statement. “They are trying to blame the court for their own failure to comply with the court’s rulings over the past 30 years. And this begs the question, what do they think the state’s role in funding education should be?”

Lang, along with House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and 29 other GOP lawmakers, signed on to the amicus brief, promoted partially by the fact the New Hampshire Department of Justice isn’t trying to overturn Claremont. The DOJ, in representing the state in the ConVal appeal, makes the error of not challenging Claremont, the brief states.

The DOJ is focusing on getting the ConVal decision overturned, but that leaves open the possibility for more lawsuits over school fusing down the line, the brief states.

“If this Court were to reverse the lower court order, it would soon  enough be called upon to pass on the constitutionality of another school funding law, and another, and another, until the Court would be forced to confront the decision the amici are urging it to confront now,” the brief states. 

In the ConVal ruling, Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff sided with the Contoocook Valley Regional School District which argued the state’s per pupil adequacy grant of $4,100 was too low to provide the constitutionally guaranteed adequate education. Ruoff determined the grants should be a minimum of $7,300 per pupil for every pupil, representing an immediate $530 million spending increase.

Some lawmakers were horrified by the notion of a single judge arbitrarily creating a taxpayer-funded mandate, entirely outside the legislative process.

The $4,100 adequacy grants are average for most districts, but the legislature increases those grants for the poorest communities under the current system, Lanf said. Ruoff’s solution takes away the legislature’s ability to target school aid to poor communities like Claremont, he said.

“Towns like Claremont, towns like Berlin, would be devastated,” Lang said.

New Hampshire could see economic growth grind to a halt, tax rates explode, and the state government take control of local schools if the state Supreme Court upholds the rulings in the Rand and ConVal education funding cases.

That’s the scenario laid out by free-market think tank American Institute for Economic Research in its amicus brief filed in court this week.

The state is appealing the Superior Court rulings in the Rand and ConVal lawsuits which, if enforced, upend the current school funding system by bringing back so-called donor towns and adding more than $500 million of taxpayer money to the state adequacy grant system.

AIER Senior Research Fellow Jason Sorens told NHJournal school funding isn’t about left or right politics, but about avoiding negative consequences like ballooning taxes, anti-business and growth measures, and the loss of local control. 

“Should we encourage towns to have low property values? Should we punish towns for choosing to allow apartments or commercial development?” Sorens said.

Last year, Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff ruled in the Rand v. New Hampshire lawsuit the state’s Statewide Education Property Tax system is unjust since it allows communities with high property values to keep excess SWEPT funds, essentially paying an unequal tax rate than communities with lower property values.

Then in the ConVal v. New Hampshire case, Ruoff ruled in favor of the coalition of school districts led by the Contoocook Valley School District that argued the state is violating the constitution by failing to fund an adequate education. Ruoff ruled the state’s per-pupil adequacy grants need to go up from $4,100 per pupil to at least $7,300.

Sorens and AIER President William Ruger said they want New Hampshire to keep its current system and find other ways to fix education without restrictive government action or more taxes.

“School finance equalization has been a big driver of new taxes and unnecessary government growth across the country,” Ruger said. “AIER’s economic analysis shows that it has mostly been based on misconceptions about the alleged ‘inequity’ of locally funded education. With this case, we hope the Court will set a new precedent, based on sound economic reasoning, that vindicates local control of school funding and decentralized competition among governments.”

The old donor town system of transferring tax dollars from property-rich towns to property-poor communities will return if Rand is upheld, Sorens said. That system brings economic stagnation and real inequality.

Asked if he would describe the donor town system as a “progressive property tax,” Sorens said it’s worse.

“It’s punishing whole towns for having high property valuations, not individuals,” Sorens said.

Advocates for a state school system funded by handouts from so-called “wealthy” towns need to check their math, Sorens said. He pointed out the proposed plan would see people in Lebanon subsidizing education in communities like Brookline, despite the latter having one of the highest median incomes in the state. Meanwhile, Lebanon has one of the highest child poverty rates, Sorens said.

“It redistributes income from poor people to rich people,” Sorens said.

The Rand decision ignores the fact towns that encourage business, commercial enterprise, and housing tend to have higher property valuations. If donor towns come back, New Hampshire will see municipalities in an arms race to kill business, discourage building more housing, and drive out innovation with restrictive zoning laws, Sorens said.

“It incentivizes towns not to grow their property tax base,” Sorens said.

With ConVal, Sorens said nearly every school district in the state can already afford to fund an adequate education without the state adequacy grant. Instead, New Hampshire should give parents more options like more charter schools, more Education Freedom Accounts, and open enrollment for all public schools, Sorens said.

Vermont’s misguided attempt to fund its education system should serve as a warning to New Hampshire, according to Sorens. The 1997 Act 60 plan to pool all education property taxes in Vermont and send that funding to each district has resulted in a restrictive government that punishes communities for spending more on education money than poorer communities. Vermont has also taken away control of the education system from local boards and forces consolidation into large, regional districts.

“The state gets deeply involved in local budgeting and administration,” Sorens said. “We doubt many New Hampshire residents would be happy with their towns being forced to join these big regional school districts.”

Sorens may be familiar to Granite Staters as the man behind the Free State Project. He is credited with coming up with the plan to have libertarians move to New Hampshire in 2001 in order to enact a libertarian agenda.