#

New Boston residents opposed to a two percent spending cap warrant article are going to court to stop voters from being able to decide on the measure. And they have a hearing scheduled for Friday.

A group of pro-spending-hike residents filed a lawsuit this week asking a Hillsborough Superior Court judge to force selectmen to reschedule a canceled deliberative session on the spending cap. Residents Jon-Paul Turek, Robert Belanger, Richard Backus, Dan MacDonald, Keith Prive, Elizabeth Whitman, Eileen Belanger, Marie MacDonald, and William Gould want to be able to change the proposed two percent cap ahead of the Town Election.

State Rep. Keith Ammon (R-New Boston) is backing the spending cap in response to years of rising property taxes in town. He recently told NHJournal opponents want to raise the cap to as much as 50 percent before it goes to voters, making the measure meaningless. 

“I don’t think that’s legal,” Ammon said.

The current controversy centers on the Feb. 3 Town Meeting deliberative session where the spending cap proposal was discussed. Both Town Moderator Lee Nyquist and Town Attorney Michael Courtney told people at that meeting the numbers in the two percent spending cap could not be changed under state law. 

But the residents opposed to the cap say that’s wrong, and they should have been allowed to change the numbers on Feb. 3.

“The misinformation provided by the Town Moderator and Town Attorney at the deliberative session constitutes a clear procedural defect, as it directly misled voters and deprived them of their legal right to amend (the spending cap,)” the lawsuit states.

After getting stymied at the Feb. 3 meeting, the anti-spending-cap group pushed New Boston’s Board of Selectmen for an emergency deliberative session where they could get their way. But Ammon went to court arguing such a move is illegal. The Selectmen stood down, canceling the planned Feb. 18 session.

Now, residents who want to spend beyond the cap are asking the court to force selectmen to hold the special deliberative session anyway, claiming it is the only way to protect the integrity of Town Meeting.

“The decision to cancel the Special Town Meeting was not an act of prudence but an act of abdication—one that directly harms the registered voters of New Boston by allowing an improperly handled warrant article to proceed to the ballot without correction,” the lawsuit states.

New Boston education spending has been soaring for years. Between 2001 and 2019, the school population grew by 22 percent, but spending jumped by 104 percent. Per pupil spending rose from about $16,000 to more than $27,000 over that same period.

With New Boston’s Town Meeting set for March 11, timing is running short to make any changes. A hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for Friday in the Hillsborough Superior Court — North in Manchester. 

New Hampshire taxpayers don’t have to pay a $537 million education spending bill just yet, as the New Hampshire Supreme Court stayed the decision in the ConVal lawsuit.

In a unanimous decision issued Wednesday, the Supreme Court put a hold on Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff’s November order that the state’s per-pupil spending must go up to at least $7,300. Ruoff had denied a motion to stay his decision pending appeal earlier this year.

Gov. Chris Sununu praised the stay decision, saying Ruoff’s ruling went too far.

“Today, the Supreme Court rightfully paused an attempt by one judge to usurp the power and preferences of both the legislative and executive branches,” Sununu said. “Grateful for the Supreme Court’s action to stay a decision that was so clearly overreaching.”

According to Senate President Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), implementing Ruoff’s order would wreck state finances, hurt lower-income communities, and eventually force an income or sales tax on Granite Staters.

“This decision could mean a $500 million spending increase for New Hampshire taxpayers and could cause reduced education funding for all the original towns that brought the Claremont education funding lawsuit by limiting the legislature’s ability to target special education aid to local school districts that need it the most,” Bradley said in a statement. “I remain optimistic that the Supreme Court will recognize that such huge financial decisions rest with representatives and senators that the people of New Hampshire have chosen.”

Lawmakers are looking for an affordable funding solution, and according to House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry), the Supreme Court’s stay will give both houses time to keep working.

“We’re hopeful the Supreme Court has a different take on the matter than the lower court that will be less costly to taxpayers. The stay will allow the legislature more time to further analyze the situation,” Packard said.

The Peterborough-based Contoocook Valley Regional School District filed the lawsuit in 2019, arguing that the state’s education grant of $3,600 per pupil was far below the true cost and, therefore, unconstitutional. ConVal and the dozens of school districts that joined the lawsuit wanted closer to $10,000 per pupil.

Ruoff originally refused to set a dollar amount when he ruled the state violated the constitutional right to an adequate education, leaving that up to lawmakers. But a subsequent appeal to the state Supreme Court resulted in a 2021 order that forced Ruoff to come up with a figure.

Since the ConVal lawsuit was filed, lawmakers and Sununu have bumped up the grants to $4,100 per pupil, an amount Ruoff still found unconstitutionally low. Ruoff’s decision acknowledged it is up to the legislature to determine the funding but that it can be no less than the amount he set.

“What is the base cost to provide the opportunity for an adequate education 239 years after that fundamental right was ratified in our constitution? The short answer is that the legislature should have the final word, but the base adequacy cost can be no less than $7,356.01 per pupil per year, and the true cost is likely much higher than that. At a minimum, this is an increase of $537,550,970.95 in base adequacy aid to New Hampshire Schools,” Ruoff wrote.

The legal tussle over New Hampshire’s state spending for education “adequacy” is unrelated to another hot-button political issue: Taxpayers are already burdened with increasing education costs even as the number of students is declining.

The total cost of education in New Hampshire, including the portion paid through local property taxes, averages more than $20,000 per pupil. That’s up from about $11,000 total per pupil spending in 2000. Over the same time, the state’s student population has fallen by more than 20 percent. According to the Department of Education, student enrollment numbers in the Granite State have dropped from 207,684 in 2002 to 165,095 in 2023. That’s a decrease of 42,589 public school students, or about a 20.5 percent decline during the past 21 years.