I read with interest the op-ed column by New Hampshire state Sen. Ruth Ward, R-Stoddard, (“A budget that works for New Hampshire,” June 25) and am disappointed by her words. I will be gathering data and information over the next year’s time and it will show conclusively that this budget will do nothing to improve the finances of the Newport taxpayer.
When will Sen. Ward accept that it is the state’s responsibility to fund education for its students? The state Supreme Court said so nearly 30 years ago.
Ward was also chair of the Education Committee and then dismissed the work of the commission that was put in place to determine what an adequate education entailed. The commission’s work was properly done based on the parameters it was given and it was completely disregarded. Sad, really sad.
Regarding “education freedom accounts” and expanding school choice: Low-income residents in Newport will likely continue to struggle and will likely not be sending their children to a private school. The credit being offered would not cover the tuition at other schools. Also, the town’s property tax will increase so homeowners would have to pay for that out of their budget, as well.
As far as parents who may have a special needs child being able to use the education credit to pay for a specialized education that better suits their child’s needs, most of the private schools that I am aware of could not and would not address the needs of a child with an individualized education program. Special education is still the only resource for those students so identified, and when is the state going to start paying for it? It is the state’s responsibility to provide an adequate education!
Lastly, for the work done by Sen. Ward and her committee colleagues, I would give them an F for their mathematics, but I will give her an A for the fiction she wrote in the column.
GUENTER HUBERT
Newport, N.H.
I am sure New Hampshire state Sen. Ruth Ward, R-Stoddard, had good intentions in her work on the budget and in her op-ed (“A budget that works for New Hampshire,” June 25). However, a budget that sneaks in a misguided and uninformed effort to limit the teaching of our country’s history of racism and rules on a woman’s right to make decisions with her doctor on her pregnancy, is not a budget. It is an unethical way to exert control in arenas where the Legislature has no business.
And if school choice means directing funds away from public schools instead of supporting them, then that budget that does not work for me.
DENA B. ROMERO
Hanover
Hanover voters need to be aware of an important issue on our Town Meeting warrant. Article Five, as petitioned, aims for the elimination of the town manager form of government (“Do you favor the continuation of the town manager plan as now in force in this town?”).
We have been fortunate to have the wise, competent leadership of Julia Griffin for 25 years. She has proven again and again how important having a strong, informed town manager and Selectboard is to Hanover. The town manager plan works well. And those petitioning to abolish it seemingly offer no alternative.
Please vote between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on July 13. Vote “yes” in favor of maintaining our current town manager plan if you care about our community and the future of Hanover. And request an absentee ballot if you will be away on Town Meeting Day.
MELANIE PODOLEC
Hanover
We read in your pages that a child cannot be disciplined by school authorities for what she says off school grounds (“ ‘Cursing cheerleader’ wins free speech case,” June 24). What a relief to know that. We also read that the New Hampshire Senate has inserted into the pending budget resolution a nonspending item of statutory law that purports to govern the speech of teachers and children in public schools by limiting the discussion of certain ideas, words and supposed doctrines that by (slim) majority vote, the Senate has deemed “divisive” (“NH budget impacts school funding,” June 24). Which I suppose means that the Senate recognizes the fact that not everyone agrees with its judgment. The concepts or terms in question have been linked to what is known as “critical race theory.”
Theories are developed to explain facts. Once proved, a theory is not a theory. It is a law. Or a settled finding of fact. Theories are learning tools meant to be used, tested and approved of or disapproved of in the process. Hence it is impossible to have unanimity with respect to the validity of a theory in advance of testing. Theories are by their nature divisive. They are conjectural. Einstein’s theory of general relativity is still being considered and tested by physicists and astronomers. And critical race theory is nothing more nor less than a perspective offered on matters of race relations in America and abroad, past and present. Divisive, perhaps. Perhaps unifying. Right, or maybe wrong. But theory, not laws or settled facts that rule our lives and must be enforced. It is a subject for school debate and social discussion, nothing more nor less.
I believe there once was a rule in the New Hampshire Legislature about attaching nongermane nonspending amendments to spending bills. A budget is a spending bill, is it not? I wonder what happened to that rule. In any case, I doubt this foolish attempt at mind control of our society will pass the laugh test if it is enacted into law.
TYLER P. HARWELL
New London