NH Supreme Court issues a stay over school funding decision

The New Hampshire Supreme Court granted a stay over a school funding lawsuit decision Wednesday, hitting pause on a sweeping order that would force the state to double its spending on public schools.

Without comment, all five justices concurred with the stay over the lawsuit, Contoocook Valley School District v. State of New Hampshire. The move allows the state time to appeal a November Rockingham County Superior Court decision up to the Supreme Court.

The November decision, issued by Judge David Ruoff, found that the state was not meeting its constitutional obligation to provide an “adequate

education” because the minimum, per pupil amount provided to school districts – about $4,100 per year – is too low. Instead, Ruoff said, the state should spend at least $7,356.01 to account for realistic public school expenses.

Under New Hampshire’s school funding system, any school costs not covered by the state must be raised by local property taxes.

Last month, Ruoff denied the state’s motion to reconsider or delay his decision and ordered that the state move ahead immediately. But the Supreme Court’s stay overrides that order. The state has said it will appeal the matter to the Supreme Court, promising what could be a years-long, high-profile court fight.

In its motion to the Supreme Court to stay the ruling, the Department of Justice argued the state would “suffer irreparable harm” if Ruoff’s order were not paused, since the order would require a $537.6 million annual spending increase to the state’s Education Trust, which currently spends just over $1 billion per year.

Republican politicians have criticized Ruoff personally: Senate President Jeb Bradley, of Wolfeboro, accused Ruoff of judicial overreach during a press conference in January.

And Gov. Chris Sununu has suggested Ruoff should no longer serve as a judge.

“That judge is a politically activist judge that I think has no place on the bench,” Sununu said at a recent Chamber of Commerce event, in remarks reported by New Hampshire Public Radio.

“I even voted for the guy when I was on the (Executive) Council,” Sununu continued. “I couldn’t be more disappointed. Because it was all politics.

“… A judge shouldn’t be telling the state a dollar amount. That’s not a judge’s job.”

But advocates in favor of changing the state’s school funding balance say that Ruoff ’s ruling acknowledged a reality – that the state does not pay enough for districts to run their schools – and sought to correct that reality by forcing the Legislature’s hand.

“The track record of the Legislature, as exemplified by decades of inaction, is not one of proactive, meaningful reform to school funding to fulfill the constitutional right of New Hampshire students to an adequate education,” said Zack Sheehan, executive director of the advocacy group New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project, in December.

The ConVal case is one of two active school funding lawsuits. The second case, Rand v. State of New Hampshire, was brought by taxpayers, who argue the state’s property-tax-driven school funding system is not equitable and disproportionately hurts taxpayers in poorer towns.

In the Rand case, Ruoff issued a partial summary judgment ruling in November that found that the statewide education property tax (SWEPT) is not constitutional and should be changed to redistribute revenue from wealthier towns to poorer towns. The Supreme Court did not issue a stay over that order Wednesday.

The Rand case was filed after the ConVal case. Plaintiffs in the Rand case have not yet received a full superior court trial; attorneys for the plaintiffs say they are waiting to see if the Supreme Court will attempt to take up the two cases together or split them and let the Rand case work its way through a trial in Rockingham County Superior Court.