Lynch’s Education Amendment Rises from the Dead

By Jim on February 24th, 2008

Yet another version of Lynch’s amendment for educational funding.

It got through the Senate but now faces a potential meat-grinder in the House.

For the second year in a row, House lawmakers are poised to grapple with a proposed constitutional amendment on education funding. And like last year, the plan will likely face more obstacles in the House than it did in the far smaller Senate, where the latest version of an amendment sailed through on a 19-5 vote last week.

“I’ve mostly talked to people who, like me, don’t think it’s a good idea at all,” said Rep. Liz Hager, a Concord Republican. “I hope the votes are not there in the House for it,” she added, describing last year’s House vote rejecting an earlier version of the amendment as “so strong.”

The amendment – a signature issue for Gov. John Lynch – would allow the state to bypass portions of a state Supreme Court ruling and give lawmakers broad authority to direct the state’s education dollars to certain districts. This latest version has bipartisan Senate origins. In a turnaround from last year, when the majority of Senate Republicans opposed a proposed amendment, this plan was crafted by Senate Republican Leader Ted Gatsas and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Foster, a Democrat.

But the bipartisan display in the Senate may not signal a change in the House.

I think I would rather wait until after the election on this issue. Let’s see if the Dems can be booted out of the majority and if the Repubs can get a strong conservative majority. It would be better if the pubbies had a stronger position to negotiate the language of this amendment…something along the lines of what Senator Clegg wanted.

Only two Republicans – Robert Letourneau of Derry and Bob Clegg of Hudson – opposed the amendment yesterday. Clegg attempted to amend the proposal to bind the state to pay for any new programs or mandates, expressing concern that the amendment could allow the state to impose so-called unfounded mandates on municipalities. The amendment failed after a party-line vote.