nhsba

New Hampshire School Boards Association

Legislative Bulletin

May 18, 2012 

  

A Brief Summary of Education Issues at the State House  

__________________________________________________________ 

Legislative Schedule

The House and Senate have both completed work on bills received from the other body (House bills in Senate, and Senate bills in House). When agreement occurs on the exact same language, the bill moves to the Governor for review. When the language is not in exact agreement, either body may "concur" with the language of the other body and keep the bill alive, "not concur" and thereby kill the bill, or not concur, but request a committee of conference to reach compromise. Both the House and Senate are sending 'messages' back to the other body, informing them of action taken on bills. Next Thursday, May 24, is the last day to form Committees of Conference on specific bills. The following Thursday, May 31, is the last day for Conference Committees to come to closure and file a report. Thursday, June 7, is the last day for the legislature to take action (vote) on a Committee of Conference report.

______________________________________

Education Funding Constitutional Amendment

CACR 12, currently containing language that gives the state the "full power and authority" to determine "amounts of state funding...as it may judge", clearly puts current state funding levels at risk and allows the state to break its promise of a state commitment to public education for all children. Committee of Conference meetings are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, May 22 & 23, at 1 pm. House conferees (Reps L.Ober, Hess, Balboni, and Renzullo with Foose as alternate), and Senate conferees (Senators Bradley, D'Allesandro, and Stiles), will then attempt to reach a compromise on proposed language.

 

ACTION ITEM

Please contact your local representatives and senator to express your opposition to such proposals. CACR 12 diminishes the current "fundamental right" to an education, and removes the obligation to ALL public school students: the result will be significant reductions in state aid for education. Such action will place even more strain on the local property tax, if those lost revenues are indeed replaced. If not replaced but followed by budget cuts, losses and reductions to educational programs will mean fewer educational opportunities for our youth.

______________________________________

Retirement:

"Spiking Fee/Assessment" to Impact Everyone

SB 228 was amended by the House and changes the current "125% Spiking Provision" to a formula that assesses spiking fees on any retirement payment, removing the 125% 'buffer'. Without the 125% provision, penalties will be assessed for any severance payment made for unused sick/vacation pay, or any severance pay or other cash incentive. While these benefits are common in contracts, many were negotiated to include a provision for no retirement payments that exceeded the 125% limit: changing those terms is not possible while the contract is in effect. The House version will simply begin assessing costly penalty fees for all such payments. The Senate version, supported by NHSBA, repeals the provisions that establish penalty assessment fees. Retirement reform measures adopted last year impacting non-vested and new employees will, over time, address the issues concerning pension "spiking", and school boards have already begun implementing severance package limitations in their negotiated contracts

 

ACTION ITEM

It is imperative to contact  your senator, voicing opposition to the House proposal and support of the Senate version. As passed by the Senate, SB 228 repeals the flawed pension spiking provision scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2012. The House language changes the rules that were originally provided to public employers, now assessing a penalty even on those contracts that were changed to reflect the intent of the legislature when it first identified 'spiking' as a problem. The new proposal simply seeks to continue the downshift of costs onto local budgets for a problem created by the legislature when it first defined "earnable compensation" and included all such end-of-career payments.

 

Defined Contribution Plan Update

SB 229- The "DC" Plan Study: The House adopted significant changes to the Senate 'study' bill. While the House version continues to create a study for the implementation of a DC plan, the study committee is drastically changed. Four House members and two senators are joined by "advisory" members; non-legislator appointments made by public employers and the public members with expertise in finance and plan design. These advisors would be non-voting members, thus all committee decisions/votes could be controlled by four legislators (who may not even run or be re-elected next fall) effectively removing the local government participatory factor. The study committee must issue RFPs to qualified pension plan entities, study proposed plans, examine transition and set-up costs as well as expected performance and level of financial risk, with a final report due no later than Nov. 1, 2012. Vendor selection must occur by August 2013 with a final contract by September 2013, implementing the plan on Nov. 1, 2013. The new plan will cover all state employees hired on or after Nov. 1, 2013, with provision to cover employees of local governments (municipalities and school districts) that choose to participate. Finally, the bill also includes a "default" state employee DC plan that goes into effect only if the Committee issues its Nov. 2012 report, thus requiring new legislation to change any provision(s) of the "default" plan.

Option to Create Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) Trusts

SB 83 enables municipalities and school districts to create other post-employment benefits (OPEB) trusts. The House amended the bill to limit the creation of such trusts only for liabilities created on or before Jan. 1, 2012. House members wanted to make clear that they discourage granting any such benefits and therefore limited the trusts to liabilities already incurred in the past.

______________________________________

Education Tax Credits (Vouchers): SB 372 and HB 1607

Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly adopted basically the same version of these bills, with the program of education tax credits to begin on Jan. 1, 2013. (The House vote was 236-97: the Senate vote was 17-7.) Given the similarity and agreement between the House amendment to SB 372, and the Senate amendment (including a floor amendment) to HB 1607, it is anticipated that either the House or Senate will concur with one of the versions, sending the bill to the Governor for final review. After receiving the bill, the Governor has five days in which to sign the bill, veto the bill, or allow the measure to pass without signature. When the bill is signed, it becomes law; if it is neither signed nor vetoed, it becomes law without signature. If the bill is vetoed, it returns to the body where it originated, with a veto message. This veto, to be overturned, must have a two-thirds roll call vote in each body. These tax credits result in less revenue for the state while it continues to claim a lack of resources to meet current obligations. Both bills "recapture" state adequacy aid to locals, thus increasing the local property tax, but do limit the total amount to of 1% of a school district's total voted appropriations for the prior year. "Stabilization grants" are provided to districts for any losses in adequacy in excess of the of 1%. In effect, the bills rely on local funds to promote a state initiative/policy.

 

ACTION ITEM

Please contact your local legislators and share your opposition to these bills. The legislature should not be diverting money from the state and local districts for private school purposes. Local districts will see little or no reduction in their expenses and fixed costs, yet will still be required to forfeit money in lost adequacy funds. The reduction in state revenues will only make it harder for the state to pay the bills it owes, which are currently underfunded. Rather than diverting scarce tax dollars away from our public school classrooms, and arguably for unconstitutional purposes by paying tuition at religious schools, NHSBA urges the legislature to support improvements in our public schools and meet current funding obligations and promises.

______________________________________

Authorizing the Retention of Funds by a School District

SB 373 was approved by the House on a 245-68 vote. The enabling legislation allows, with legislative body approval, school districts to retain up to 2.5% of their net assessment. The bill was amended to apply to city school districts, as well as a non-germane amendment applicable to Manchester's regional vocational center.

______________________________________

School District Financial Obligations for Charter Schools

SB 300 was adopted by the House and places more specific responsibilities on local districts and charter schools to determine the delivery of special education services for students at charter schools. The school district must convene a meeting of the IEP team, inviting a representative of the chartered public school. At the meeting, the IEP team shall determine how to ensure the provision of a free and appropriate public education in accordance with the child's IEP. If the child requires transportation to and/or from the chartered public school before, after, or during the school day in order to receive special education and related services as provided in the IEP, the child's resident district shall provide for it.

SB 404 was adopted by the House, addressing procedures for tuition and transportation reimbursement for students enrolled in career and technical education programs. The House included an amendment, changing the definition of "sending district" as it applies to students attending regional vocational education programs. For students attending a charter school, the sending district shall be the school district in which the student resides. This places transportation and financial responsibility on school districts for placement/attendance decisions over which the district has no authority.

 

Please share your legislative concerns with  your local legislators.

___________________________________________________________

For the complete text of any bill, go to the  general court web site and enter the bill number, e.g. SB372, HB1607 or CACR8, and make sure the Session Year is 2012.

 

For more information on specific legislation, please call Dean Michener, NHSBA Director of Governmental Affairs at 603-228-2061, or email: [email protected]. 

Dean Michener
NHSBA Dir. of Governmental Affairs