State appeals ConVal school district case

The state has appealed Judge David Ruoff's decision in the ConVal school district's lawsuit, finding that the state failed in its duty to fund an adequate education as required by the Constitution.

A week after appealing Judge David Ruoff's decision declaring the statewide property tax on educational facilities unconstitutional, the state appealed the ConVal School District's decision finding that the state failed in its duty to fund an adequate education as required by Part II, Article 83 of the Constitution and ordered by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1993 and reaffirmed in 1997.

In his appeal of Ruoff's decision to strike down the statewide educational property tax, Attorney General Anthony Galdieri challenged the Supreme Court's rulings in the seminal Claremont case. His appeal in the ConVal case took the same line, suggesting that if Ruoff's orders are based on the prior precedents the Supreme Court set in the Claremont cases, “then they should be overturned.”

The ConVal case was filed in 2018. After a trial, Ruoff ruled in favor of the plaintiffs but declined to quantify the cost of adequate training, arguing that that was the legislature's responsibility. Both parties appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The justices, overwhelmed by the real issues of the case, remanded the case for a second trial and ordered Ruoff to quantify the cost of adequate training in dollars.

After weighing the evidence presented at trial, Ruoff calculated that the cost of base funding was at least $7,356 per student, which he called a “conservative minimum threshold that such funding must exceed,” but noted that “the actual cost is likely much higher.” That figure, he concluded, demonstrated “the inadequacy of the $4,100 base funding amount set by the Legislature in 2023” and would represent an increase in state education funding of “at least” $537,550,970.95. Ruoff issued a preliminary injunction requiring the state to pay the amount, but it was later stayed.

The state did not present an affirmative defense at trial or on appeal that the $4,100 base amount was sufficient to provide an adequate education. During the trial, Ruoff noted that the state had “presented no evidence to justify the base amount.”

Instead, Galdieri argues in his brief, the state's obligation is strictly limited by two laws, one of which defines the content of adequate training and the other of which prescribes its cost.

Content consists of 11 “learning areas”: English/language arts and reading, math, science, social studies, arts, foreign languages, health and wellness, physical education, engineering and technology, personal finance, and computer science. Costs consist of a baseline of $4,100 per student along with differentiated per-student assistance of $2,300 for those eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, $800 for those learning English, and $2,100 for those receiving special education.

These laws, Galdieri argues, “do not suggest that the state's funding obligations extend beyond the statutory educational program to also cover all the ancillary services a school district needs to operate a school.”

In other words, the state claims it bears no responsibility for the costs of transportation services, building maintenance, technical support, library staff, janitorial services, school nurses, guidance counselors, principals or administrative staff. During the trial, the state unsuccessfully attempted to exclude testimony from school district officials about these expenses. In addition, Galdieri points out that some of these incidental costs are regulated by other laws, while others are at the discretion of local school districts.

“The court erred in reaching a different conclusion,” Galdieri wrote. “The result represents a blatant violation of the separation of powers doctrine. If affirmed by this court, this ruling would represent an unprecedented transfer of power from the legislative branch to the judicial branch. It would allow a single judge to define adequate training and, through an injunction, spend more than half a billion dollars of state taxpayer money without any authorization or oversight.”

In 2006, the Supreme Court expressed concern that “this or any other court could not assume the role of the legislature in making education and tax policy.” But the justices added, “The judiciary has a responsibility to ensure that constitutional rights are not eroded. When other branches of government do nothing, a remedy is not only appropriate but essential.”