Gladys Tantaquidgeon was born in Uncasville, Ct. on June 15, 1899 to parents of Mohegan heritage. She was a descendant of the famous 17th-century Mohegan Sachem, Uncas. Gladys was trained from an early age in herbalism and tribal spirituality and went on to dedicating her life to preserving the beliefs, customs, and traditions of Native Americans throughout America.

In 1931, she, along with her brother and father, founded the Tantaquidgeon Indian Museum in Uncasville. This is the oldest Native American owned and operated museum in the country. In 1934, Gladys worked with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for more than ten years, promoting Native American artwork and centuries-old customs that had been banned by the federal government. She was essential in the work of gaining federal recognition to the Mohegan Tribe in 1994.

The following is a list of Gladys Tantaquidgeon’s, also known as the Mohegan Medicine Woman, accomplishments:

• Pursued Ivy League education as a non-white woman, 1920s
• Co-founded Tantaquidgeon Museum 
• Fought for civil rights in the 1930s
• Social work for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
• Economic development work for the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, late 1930s and 1940s
• Worked at Niantic Women’s prison as a librarian in 1940s 
• Provided free community education about Indian lifestyles 1960s-1990s
• Ensured friendly relations with the town of Montville and all of Connecticut
• Preserved traditional Mohegan spirituality
• Worked to preserve the environment
• Documented traditional Native herbal remedies
• Preserved traditional Native ceremonies and artforms
• Preserved the meaning of traditional Mohegan symbols
• Recorded and shared old Native American stories

She and her brother believed education was the best cure for prejudice, "You can't hate someone that you know a lot about."

Gladys passed away on November 1, 2005.

Conservatives sure are hell bent into twisting themselves into chocolate covered pretzels in their quest to destroy public schools. In the late 1990’s, the New Hampshire school funding system was found to be unconstitutional by the NH Supreme Court. The governor and legislature were ordered to define the sections of a constitutionally adequate education, figure out the cost of doing so and pay for it with taxes that were equal across the state. We are now at the end of 2024 with members of far-right extreme conservative groups having infiltrated our legislature and local town governments, doing all they can to put an end to public education. 

An amicus brief was filed in early October to the NH Supreme Court, alleging the court incorrectly ruled on the Claremont cases way back in the 1990’s and would like that ruling overturned. As a refresher (and at the risk of being redundant), the NH Supreme Court had ruled the state must put into effect its constitutional duty to provide its students with an adequate education and come up with a school funding system that fairly taxes its citizens in order to do so. In the meantime, while the state and public schools are still waiting for the results of that ruling to take effect, more than thirty Republican legislators signed on to the brief. 

The two current lawsuits, Contoocook Valley School District et al. v. State of New Hampshire and Steven Rand et al v State of New Hampshire say the state has failed to meet the obligations imposed by the court in 1997, that taxpayers in different towns do not pay equal rates of taxes for education, and that students do not have equal access to quality public education. 

Let’s try to follow along with this seemingly never-ending litigious mess: 

• the NH Attorney General’s Office is defending the school funding system by claiming it is constitutional and the plaintiffs haven’t proven the state to be distributing less for an “adequate education.”
• the AG’s Office has additionally stated the courts are prohibited from requesting legislators to disburse particular amounts on schools under the separation of powers doctrine.
• -the extremist legislators are now asking the NH Supreme Court to overturn the Claremont decisions, whereas the AG’s Office is not.
• the extremist legislators claim in 1993 and 1997 the NH Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Article 83, part 2 as granting the duty to provide education to the state.
• the extremist legislators feel that Article 83 be read in connection with Article 6, part 1 which states: “As morality and piety, rightly grounded on high principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society, therefore, the several parishes, bodies, corporate, or religious societies shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both. But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination. And every person, denomination or sect shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect, denomination or persuasion to another shall ever be established.”
• But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination. Just wanted to repeat that.
• the argument from the extreme legislators is for the constitution to be understood as to require an education for all students while giving local control on how to pay for and provide that education.

In the event the Claremont cases are overturned, the state would no longer be obliged to finance the adequacy formula. This is what gives extra help to towns who can’t raise enough funding for their schools through just the statewide education property tax (SWEPT). That decision would grant legislators the ability to considerably lower or eliminate altogether, state spending on education.

Muddy up the waters, then take another step closer to getting rid of public schools. Be careful who you vote for, you just might get what you didn’t want.

Inquiring minds want to know . . .

The following is taken from the Executive Council website:

The Executive Council of the State of New Hampshire has the authority and responsibility, together with the Governor, over the administration of the affairs of the State as defined in the New Hampshire Constitution, the New Hampshire statutes, and the advisory opinions of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Attorney General.

Each of the five Executive Councilors represents one fifth of the population or approximately 263,000 citizens. Councilors are elected every two years, concurrently with the Governor. The Councilors participate in the active management of the business of the state. They receive assistance from the Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services and the Attorney General who review requests involving state funds since no expenditure can be legally authorized without the availability of adequate funds.

When a contract for the state comes in at more than $10,000 it goes before the Executive Council who then votes on whether to approve or disapprove of it. They decide if this is a good use of taxpayer money, then send their decision back to the governor. It is one more form of a “check and balance” system in our state government.

Other duties of the council is to approve appointments of Commissioners, Commissioners of Deeds, Judges, Justices of the Peace and Notary Public. They also manage and oversee the state’s 10-year highway plan while keeping an eye on the state treasury,  ensuring departments don’t spend more than permitted, or use funds for something else not approved by the legislature. 

Additionally, they serve as “go-betweens” for individuals, municipalities and organizations with the state government. They can also hear requests for pardons.

A councilor’s term is 2 years and is made up of both Democrats and Republicans at any given time. Their collective decision(s) can have a positive or negative impact on our state, which makes this elected position very important.  

On Saturday, Nov. 2nd from 1:15 -3:00 a “Freedom March” is planned in Keene. Join other democracy lovers at Keene State College on Main Street at 1:15 for a walk to picturesque Central Square. There we will hear speakers who are passionate about: 

• Climate Action
• LGBTQ rights
• Reproductive rights
• Voting rights

Bring your homemade freedom signs, bring your family and friends, bring your enthusiasm! 

To register and learn more: keene-freedom-march.eventbrite.com

See you there!

Good question. I don’t know. Let’s find out together. . . 

Property tax rates are set every fall by the Dept. of Revenue Administration (DRA) and is meant to be a means of checks and balances for each community. Each municipality sends in its total assessed value, exemptions, credit figures and municipal budget for a rate calculation. County and school districts do the same by sending in their proposed budgets and the state legislature sets the education budget. 

When the DRA receives all required documents, the tax rate is calculated by dividing budget totals by the total taxable assessed value of the city or town. Let’s put this in understandable numeric terms: if the total of all the budgets for a community is $100,000 and the total taxable assessed value of that community is $1,000,000 then the tax rate would be set at $10. 100,000 divided by 1,000,000 would equal .10 or $10 per thousand.

OK, now that we get the gist of it, would it surprise you to know that over the past 20 years property taxes have tripled?? Why? Have costs and spending increased in our cities or towns? Yeah, probably, but the main culprit for these increases has been the state placing more costs onto the property tax payer. Let’s explore a few places where that is happening:

-Meals and Rooms Tax: RSA 78-A became law in 1967 and is a tax collected by hotels, restaurants, caterers, and other businesses. That tax money is then sent to the state. Some of that money goes toward school building loans and tourism promotion. Additionally, state law requires 40% be returned to towns based on their population, but for far too many years the state has ignored their legal obligation for revenue sharing. In the meantime, revenues have increased due to this tax but barely 21% sees its way back to communities. This leaves the property tax payer stuck with making up the difference while the state has reaped the benefits of millions of dollars.    

-Business Profits Tax: Enacted in 1970, this is a flat-rate tax on a business’s taxable income (taxable income determined by federal income tax rules, with a few adjustments) and historically has been one of the largest sources of general fund revenue. However, since 2015, Republican legislators have continuously lowered the state’s business profits tax, taking it down from 8.5% to 7.5% in intervals of two-tenths of a percent. The reduction has been praised as a way of making NH more enticing to businesses, encouraging expansion, hiring more employees and growing the economy.
Who benefits? The state, with business tax revenue increasing 118% since the tax cuts began. Originally, the state was obligated to share with municipalities, but with incremental decreases over the course of 20 years, municipalities now receive nothing, having to make up for that loss (millions of dollars) with increasing property taxes. 
Not surprisingly, the majority of Republican candidates running for either re-election or for the first time are in favor of decreasing this tax while they are against a capital gains tax on our wealthiest residents (which is basically just a handful). 

-State bridge aid: With no funding by revenue from gas and tolls the amount of “Red List” bridges either grows or stays the same. Towns whose bridges need repairs do so at their own expense, property taxes. Luckily, because of the Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Act that was passed into law by Pres. Biden in 2021, a lot of communities will see federal monies to aid in needed repairs. 

-Education Freedom Accounts: Otherwise “fondly” referred to as those damn school vouchers! Article 83 of the NH constitution specifically states “. . . that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.” What part of that wording is so hard for Republican candidates to understand as they continue to raid the funding for public education. 

This is unsustainable for property owners. If you feel the same way then be sure to use your voice and your vote on Nov. 5th!

Last year New Hampshire State signed into state law that any government reference to a holiday on the second Monday in October must be called Columbus Day (see XXV: 288:1).  It’s one of our evolving holidays, for sure:  Washington’s and Lincoln’s Birthday became Presidents’ Day, Decoration Day became Memorial Day, but they held the same themes.  (Don’t look for Fast Day anymore – could be scary, except that it too evolved.)  The second Monday in October is changing in a somewhat contrarian way from the original. 

Columbus Day originated as a celebration of the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus, an Italian sponsored by a Spanish Queen.  Those who promote this celebration see it as a triumph of the human spirit and thirst for knowledge, with a bold sailor setting off into the unknown.  The holiday later evolved into celebrating the Italian immigration that followed, along with the settlement of the Western Hemisphere with a variety of European systems. 

That “discovery” has become recognized for the exploitation it was, and the genocide that resulted. Indeed, we know and accept that the real drivers were for resource extraction, subjugation, and religion, and the expansion of European culture without regard to any culture that existed. 

Indigenous Peoples’ Day shifts the theme to acknowledge the reality of the European invasion.  Instead of the invader Columbus, it celebrates the peoples that were and are here in the Western Hemisphere.  We now condemn the way these cultures were treated; indeed, it could be a day of mourning as well. 

Is it reasonable to hold these two thoughts in our hearts and minds at the same time?  Can we honor Columbus for a spirit of adventure and boldness, no matter what the real motivators may have been?   Can we simultaneously honor the cultures that were here, are here, and would have been here at the same time?  Western culture in the Americas (even the naming convention) is now an established fact.  It is the freedom we now enjoy which allows us to acknowledge and seek redemption from the original sin of the genocide Columbus precipitated. 

The thought takes us further:  does exploration always lead to exploitation?  European powers sailing the world in the vaunted “Age of Discovery” certainly led to the exploitation of peoples that had not the ability to resist. Is it likely – or even guaranteed - that all state-sponsored or commercial exploration results in exploitation? It sure seems that way  – although the jury is still out on moon landings and Mars probes,  I wager Martians are watching nervously.  I would proffer that exploration, where one side has some advantage over the other, will no doubt lead to displacement of the “explored” culture by the former’s; without going too far back, consider the spreads of Islam and Christianity, totalitarian communism, and the spread of capital market driven democracy after WWII.  Existing cultures tended to disappear. 

Seems that Gene Roddenberry had it most closely to some ideal:  the Prime Directive, not to interfere with an indigenous culture until there is some level of technical equality.  Even then, Star Trek is riddled with violations.  Can we do better?  Or will we too be displaced someday….

Nope, not a rock band. Kelly Ayotte is a candidate for the office of New Hampshire governor and her ties to the extremist groups we have here in the state.

But let’s begin with her now full support of Donald Trump for President. In 2016, then US Senator Ayotte insisted Trump was a "role model" for her daughter, but quickly changed her mind after the 2005 Access Hollywood tape surfaced with him proudly bragging about grabbing women without their permission. Kelly decided she just couldn’t “support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women.” Quickly forgetting about Trump’s misogynistic inclinations, Kelly played a key role in shaping what has now become an extremist Supreme Court. She accompanied Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch by introducing him to various senators ahead of his party-line confirmation on April 10, 2017. Kelly has now thrown her full support behind a convicted felon and convicted sexual assaulter for President. 

Kelly Ayotte, Moms for Liberty, Liberty Alliance, Jason Osborne and Jeremy Kauffman. Hoo boy . . .

Moms for Liberty is best known for teaching parents that public educators are the enemy. They don’t want children to be taught how to think for themselves. In NH “Moms” offered a $500 reward to anyone who could get an educator punished for teaching "divisive concepts." They strongly encourage book banning, not just for their own kids, but for everyone else’s. There is an active chapter in Hillsborough county headed by Rachel Goldsmith, former executive director of the Free State Project and wife of Libertarian Party of NH member Jeremy Kauffman. 

Jeremy Kauffman, whose Libertarian Party posted on “X”, but quickly deleted, the words, “Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero.” Kauffman has endorsed Kelly. 

Jason Osborne, Liberty Alliance member, majority leader of the NH House of Representatives and husband of Sharon (no, not that one). Sharon is the director of Latitude Learning Resources, a nonprofit which offers cross-curricular classes for homeschoolers and other students. Sharon is very happy to receive the school vouchers, a program Kelly would like to see expanded. Osborne is originally from Defiance (yes!) Ohio, where his family founded Credit Adjustments, Inc., a debt collections company. He came to NH in 2010 with the Free State Project and unsurprisingly has endorsed Kelly in her bid for governor. 

Trump supporter and House Representative Jonathan Stone has also endorsed Kelly. Stone has voted against free school lunches for low-income children and raising the minimum wage. He does support the school voucher program and exempting firearms manufactured in NH from federal laws and regulations.

And out-going governor Chris Sununu has given his endorsement also. He too, has done his share of flip-flopping from no to Trump, to stumping for Nikki Haley then back to the convicted felon again who Sununu has stated "contributed" to the unsuccessful insurrection!

What a Motley Crue indeed! 

Remember House representative Jason Gerhard? The Liberty Alliance and Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) member from Northfield? He had that fabulous idea for expanding the free market in New Hampshire by enabling us to sell our own organs? Yup, him. 

In addition to that wacky attempt at legislation, he had also sponsored a bill to have NH secede from the rest of the nation and thought ex-felons regaining their gun rights was the way to go. 

Alrightee, then . . .

In Concord, the Warren B. Rudman Courthouse has a rule of no electronics and no recordings in the building. The same rule as almost all federal court buildings have nationwide. Last Sept., Gerhard went to the courthouse to attend the sentencing hearing for Free Stater Ian Freeman of Keene, who was being sentenced for his involvement in a money-laundering scheme using Bitcoin. Upon being told to turn off his cell phone in the courthouse, Gerhard refused and was subsequently arrested. 

In Jan., Gerhard was again in federal court but this time he was there for a hearing on charges stemming from his own arrest last Sept. Having learned nothing about rules, laws or ordinances, he again took out his cell phone in the lobby of the courthouse and was again arrested. The fines are, for the most part, a slap on the wrist at $100. However, Gerhard has stated he also won’t be paying them. 

At the beginning of this year’s legislative session in Jan., Gerhard sponsored HB1455-FN which was to allow recording in NH’s public places, federal courthouses included. The following month the bill was voted “Inexpedient to Legislate.” (This means a bill is considered not advisable or practical to become law.) So that bill went nowhere.

And neither is Gerhard. He is not running for re-election.

The young man looking to fill Gerhard’s House seat is James Thibault from Franklin, who thinks just like the extremist incumbents running for re-election. So if you know anyone from Franklin or Northfield please share this information with them as you urge them to vote blue up and down the ballot.

The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire is the basic law of the state, and all statute laws must comply. This constitution went into effect June 2, 1784, replacing the state's original Constitution of 1776.

The constitution is divided into two parts: a Bill of Rights and a Form of Government. Subsections of each part are referred to as articles. Article 83 of the NH constitution specifically states “. . . that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.” This part of the article was amended in 1877 to keep public monies out of religious (private) schools. 

A lawsuit was brought against the state in the early 1980s concerning the manner in which public schools were funded. The state agreed to provide 8% of the cost of education to a fund destined to help poor districts. The state never fully funded its promise and by 1989 Claremont's Stevens High School lost its accreditation as the district could not keep up with needed repairs.

In 1993, the New Hampshire Supreme Court understood Part II, Article 83 as a guarantee to students a right to a public education. Four years later, the NH school funding system was found to be unconstitutional and the governor and legislature were ordered to define the sections of a constitutionally adequate education, figure out the cost of such and pay for them with taxes that were equal across the state. Four governors and their legislatures refused to comply with the Court's orders leading the Supreme Court to again find the school funding system unconstitutional in 2006.

Here we are at the end of 2024, and NH has been all but taken over by extreme conservative groups who have infiltrated our legislature and local town governments. Time and again, common sense proposed legislation is defeated by the extremists. 

Now the subject of funding public education is making the rounds in court again and two amicus briefs (friend of the court) were filed. One was filed by the Commission to Study School Funding asking the court to reaffirm the Claremont rulings and to provide special assistance to "less affluent cities and towns to improve student equity and reduce unfair property tax burdens.” The other was filed by the following 31 members of Liberty Alliance and Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) with the goal of putting an end to NH's constitutional mandate to educate every child. 

Sen. Timothy Lang, District 2
Sen. Howard Pearl, District 17
Rep. Keith Ammon, Hillsborough County, District 42
Rep. Harry Bean, Belknap County, District 6
Rep. Jose Cambrils, Merrimack County, District 4
Rep. Glenn Cordelli, Carroll County, District 7
Rep. Jess Edwards, Rockingham County, District 31
Rep. Keith Erf, Hillsborough County, District 28
Rep. Juliet Harvey-Bolia, Belknap County, District 3
Rep. Gregory Hill, Merrimack County, District 2
Rep. William Infantine, Hillsborough County, District 16
Rep. Jim Kofalt, Hillsborough County, District 32
Rep. Rick Ladd, Grafton County, District 5
Rep. Wayne MacDonald, Rockingham County, District 16
Rep. Carol McGuire, Merrimack County, District 27
Rep. Dan McGuire, Merrimack County, District 14
Rep. Jason Osborne, Rockingham County, District 2
Rep. Sherman Packard, Rockingham County, District 10
Rep. Kristine Perez, Rockingham County, District 2
Rep. Katy Peternel, Carroll County, District 6
Rep. Andrew Renzullo, Hillsborough County, District 13
Rep. Alvin See, Merrimack County, District 6
Rep. John Sellers, Grafton County, District 18
Rep. Vanessa Sheehan, Hillsborough County, District 43
Rep. Joe Sweeney, Rockingham County, District 25
Rep. Chris True, Rockingham County, District 9
Rep. Len Turcotte, Strafford County, District 4
Rep. Michael Vose, Rockingham County, District 5
Rep. Scott Wallace, Rockingham County, District 8
Rep. Thomas Walsh Jr., Merrimack County, District 10
Rep. Kenneth Wey, Rockingham County, District 14

Do you have children or grandchildren in public schools? Are you an educator, perhaps a school board member? Do you want to see public education fairly-funded? Are you tired of paying property taxes knowing that a portion of them goes to private or home schools in direct disregard to Article 83 of the NH Constitution? If so, be sure to vote accordingly next month. 

Birth control. No one else’s business or concern except for you, your partner and health care provider. Or so we thought . . .

The diabolical folks who put together their dystopian, conservative, all-controlling plan for American citizens would happily disagree. They plan to either dismantle or get rid of entirely, government entities, organizations or departments whose sole purpose is to keep Americans safe, informed, healthy, educated, accepted etc. They are targeting the Department of Education, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Head Start Program, Immigration, repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement to name several avenues of disaster they would like to take us on.

Why stop there when the decision of family planning should also be an issue controlled by the government only?

Through the Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as Obamacare) women had access to no-cost birth control and no-cost emergency birth control. Not surprisingly, the no-cost birth control benefit is one of the most popular features of this law. 

According to the National Women's Law Center, over "62.4 million women now have coverage of birth control and other preventive services without out-of-pocket costs," all thanks to the Affordable Care Act. "Women across the country are using the benefit and reaping the benefits of birth control, both to their health and economic security."

In 2017, Trump's administration weakened the ACA’s contraception part of the law by permitting employers to deny birth control coverage if they personally had a moral or religious objection. 

The Project 2025 mandate also recommends ending funding to Planned Parenthood, an organization instrumental in providing 4.6 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, 2.25 million contraception services, over 450,000 cancer screenings and prevention services (breast exams and Pap tests), and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services. The availability of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is also in question should our democracy fall in Nov. Planned Parenthood provides so much more than abortion services.

Is this what we want for our daughters and granddaughters? If not, be sure your vote speaks for them.