Did you know that New Hampshire taxpayers spend $3.55 BILLION to educate the roughly 165,000 public school students? Students who are CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED a right to an “adequate” public education. The state provides about one billion of those dollars through state taxes. The remaining amount comes from property taxes. This translates to what an individual district is able to offer can oftentimes vary from district to district. It also means the tax burden can vary for property owners in the same regional school district where students from different towns attend the same schools. 

Our elected officials in Concord are still trying to figure out a formula for what they want to spend. Unfortunately, that formula only covers about a third of the state’s CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to public school students. The rest of the required funding goes to the property taxpayers. 

For more than thirty years, the state has repeatedly lost lawsuits for failing to live up to its CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to adequately fund public education. 

This past week the Senate Finance Committee acted on an amendment to the budget, changing the formula once again. This new Senate formula increases the pupil adequacy aid just a little, increases aid based on students receiving free and reduced fee lunch and to towns with low property tax bases for each student who receives the free or reduced fee lunch. While this is seen as an improvement, it still falls short of the funding formula the House passed earlier. It also comes nowhere near what is needed to fund what students need and deserve in the public schools. 

Again, this budget fails to ADEQUATELY fund education but at the same time looks to expand school vouchers (also known as the “education freedom account”)! A large majority of students in the voucher program are either already homeschooled or attend private schools. This proposed expansion could cost $48 million each year in new state spending. Will that come from property owners again? NH families and students deserve a fair funding formula for the roughly 165,000 public school students. They deserve to have schools that are safe, fully stocked and fully staffed.

On Wednesday, June 7, the full Senate will vote on HB 367 and this is where you come in. Please click the following link, CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR, and ask them to vote NO on HB 367!

New Hampshire can do so much better for public school students and property owners! 

There was a lot of steam coming out of my ears after last weeks meeting of the Keene City Council’s Municipal Services, Facilities & Infrastructure (MSFI) Committee, on which I sit, in which most of the good and useful things were stripped from our city’s planned downtown infrastructure project. 

I’ve been on the losing end of votes before, but this one hurt. The project, under the plan adopted by the MSFI Committee, will spend $14+ million to dig up and disrupt our downtown for three years, replace a bunch of pipes, and then cover everything up and leave basically everything exactly the same as it was before.

The proposed expanded greenspace and pedestrian access to our Central Square? Dropped from the plan.

A new traffic pattern that keeps cars from stacking up on Main Street? Nope! Under this plan we may continue to appreciate the sounds and fumes of automobiles at any of Keene’s parking-adjacent outdoor dining opportunities.

Protected lanes for bicycle and scooter users? Oh no, we can’t possibly allow that. We might have the alleged widest paved main street in the world, but it’s just not wide enough to cover four lanes of traffic, three to four rows of angled car parking, AND protected bike lanes. 

We mustn’t inconvenience drivers at all, you see. Its more important for drivers from Swanzey to have a heavily subsidized place to park in the center median of Main Street than it is for bicycle riders living in Keene to be able to transit the center of their community safely.

What’s really rubbish about this whole thing is that, if MSFI’s plan is what the City Council eventually adopts – excluding whole emerging categories of inclusive, low cost, environmentally friendly transportation – it’s going to cost Keene taxpayers a whole a bundle of money.

Today, we live in an era – perhaps an era that won’t last much longer – when there is a great deal of development money on the table that is available to pay for projects that support non-automotive forms of transportation.

In particular, RAISE grants, available through the Department of Transportation, exist to “communities build transportation projects that have significant local or regional impact and improve safety and equity.” If Keene were to attract a RAISE grant, that could easily be expected to cover $8 million or $10 million of the eventual price tag – and possibly more.

The city of Berlin, NH got $19.5 million from a RAISE Grant, which it is spending on a pedestrian-focused plan that includes heated sidewalks. Take a look at the complete list of 2022 RAISE grant recipients, and the common theme in the 166 grant awards to municipalities across the country is that these are creative, innovative projects that benefit more than just automobile drivers.

In comparison to these projects, I think the project that was originally proposed – and recommended last year by a committee that spent six months looking at the issues – stacks up nicely and would make a good case for attracting some of the $1.5 billion that has been set aside to fund these grants.

RAISE stands for Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity, and ideas like protected bike lanes, better walkability, and expanded greenspace fit well into the goals and purpose of the grant. There is significant money on the table, and we are in a position to get it.

By contrast, I am confident that the plan outlined by the MSFI committee would attract zero dollars, leaving Keene taxpayers on the hook for the vast majority of that $14 million bill.

Fortunately, the MSFI Committee does not have the final word. While the gutted version of the plan that passed through MSFI is currently what’s on the table, the City Council voted on Thursday to delay the final vote until after we have a chance to listen to a presentation by Jeff Speck, a renowned expert on walkability, who has been invited by the Keene Downtown Group to speak at on June 12.

I sure hope Mr. Speck has some novel and convincing ideas, because its going to take the votes of 8 City Councilors to get the downtown project back on track. If you live in Keene – support having a downtown that’s built around the needs of people, rather than the needs of automobiles, and if you would rather not have the city be on the hook for the full price of a $14 million project – now is a good time to make sure you City Councilors know how you feel.

Today we celebrate Memorial Day, a day in which we remember and honor all our servicemen and women who lost their lives on various battlefields. Memorial Day began as “Decoration Day” having come about during the Civil War. People went around placing flowers on the graves of those who had died fighting. The war ended in the spring of 1865, claiming more lives than any conflict in American history. The end of the war also saw the establishment of the country’s first national cemeteries. Three years later, Decoration Day was formally established on May 5, 1868 by the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of Union veterans. On that first Decoration Day in 1868, Gen. James Garfield gave a speech at Arlington National Cemetery. 

On May 30, 1873, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant led the observance with a crowd of about 5,000 people who later decorated the graves of the roughly 20,000 Civil War soldiers. Children who were orphaned placed small American flags and flowers on top of both Confederate and Union soldier’s graves.

It was not until after World War I, for all American soldiers who had died in wars, to be remembered. The name was then changed from Decoration Day to Memorial Day and was observed on May 30 for many decades.

In 1968, Congress passed the “Uniform Monday Holiday Act”, thereby changing Memorial Day to the last Monday in May and making it a federal holiday. This was to create a three-day weekend for federal employees and went into effect in 1971.

Memorial Day observance consists of laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, along with various parades, speeches and religious services throughout the country. 

Memorial Day and Veterans Day (November 11) honor the sacrifices made by United States veterans. 

But it is on Memorial Day we somberly honor and remember all those who died. 

Give peace a chance. John Lennon, 1969

Our roads, highways and bridges are maintained using revenue from each state’s gas tax, New Hampshire being no different. The Dept. of Transportation (DOT) put out a report in 2020 which predicted that form of revenue will begin to shrink as more and more people utilize environmentally friendly electric vehicles and/or hybrids.

In the recent past the NH Legislature has attempted to establish a means of collecting fees from the owners of these vehicles in order to continue the task of maintaining our roads. Those attempts failed.

On February, 9, SB 191-FN was introduced from the Ways and Means Committee as an Act “relative to road toll registration surcharges for electric vehicle”. Sponsored by Sen. David Watters (D), this bill would impose a flat fee of $100 to the owners of electric and hybrid vehicles each year when registration is due. 

On Monday, May 15, Sen. Dan Innis (R) brought forth an amendment to make two changes to the proposed bill. Because a hybrid is exactly that, a vehicle which runs on both electricity and/or gasoline, owners of those vehicles should be charged only $50 at registration time. The second change left out wording permitting the DOT the use of up to 20% of the raised funding to construct more electric vehicle charging stations. 

Innis’ amendment did include the following: “Electric vehicles contribute to the reduction of air pollution in New Hampshire and serve an important role in transitioning the transportation sector to clean energy.”

On May 15, the Senate Finance Committee approved a budget amendment that would require owners of electric and hybrid vehicles to pay an extra fee when they register those vehicles. The goal is to get back that revenue in the highway fund from drivers who now have little or no use for gasoline. 

The Senate Finance Committee is still working on changes to the budget passed by the House which will then go to the Senate for a vote. Should the electric and hybrid vehicle registration fee end up in the final budget and is signed by Gov. Sununu later this summer, NH will join over 30 other states that currently have additional registration fees for EVs and/or hybrids.

Here are several comparative (except Texas) state-by-state fees:

Colorado: $50 annual fee for full-electric and plug-in hybrid (PHEV) vehicles.  
Illinois: $100 annual fee for EVs beginning July 1, 2019. 
Indiana: $150 annual fee for EVs; $50 for hybrids and PHEVs.  
Minnesota: $75 annual fee on EVs.  
Missouri: $75 annual fee on EVs, and $37.50 on PHEVs.  
Nebraska: $75 annual fee on alternative-fuel vehicles, including EVs.  
North Carolina: $130 on plug-in vehicles, including EVs.  
Oregon: $110 annual fee on PHEVs  
South Carolina: $120 biennial fee for EVs; $60 biennial fee for hybrids.  
Texas: $400 to register their “clean vehicles” and $200 every time they renew their registrations.   
Tennessee: $100 annual fee for EVs.  
Virginia: $64 annual license for EVs.  
Washington: $150 annual fee for EVs.  
Wisconsin: $100 annual fee for EVs.

Next year, the Department of Environmental Services’ (DES) rules regarding the citing of landfills in New Hampshire are due to expire.

The current 30-year old rules require a mere 200-foot minimum setback from bodies of water.  Recognizing the complete inadequacy of these rules, a bipartisan majority in both houses of the legislature passed legislation last session to bring New Hampshire’s siting codes into the 21st century, only to see these efforts vetoed by a governor in the pockets of corporate interests. The House voted overwhelmingly to override the veto, but the Senate failed to deliver for the people and public health.

This year, we continued the fight against special interests.  I wish I could say we won.  

HB56, sponsored by Hillsborough Rep. Megan Murray (D-Amherst), offered an important step in the right direction.  Instead of an arbitrary setback distance, HB56 would codify a minimum five-year distance from any perennial body of water, based on seepage velocity of groundwater between the landfill site and the protected body of water. This would allow ample time for detection of landfill leaks and remediation efforts long before our rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes are polluted.  

This legislation would have made an important statement about the legislature’s defense of public health and safety, without imposing undue regulatory burdens on companies applying for permits to open landfills in our beautiful state.  HB56 passed the House in March with broad bipartisan support but the Senate sided with Gov. Sununu and corporate interests (i.e., Casella Waste Management) to kill the bill in April.

When we were hearing HB56 in the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, Republicans told us there was a better bill coming from the Senate, one that could provide the protections we were looking for and actually be signed into law.  If only that were so.  SB61 would put in place a 24-month abeyance on landfill permitting while DES hires a consultant and writes new rules based on recommendations.  

During public hearings, assistant commissioner of DES Mark Sanborn repeatedly threatened that any amendments offered by the committee would cross the lines drawn by the “stakeholders” he represented and lead to a veto.  When asked who these stakeholders were, his response was pretty transparent – the governor and business interests.  He added “the public” as an afterthought. 

The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a public hearing and a public work session on SB61 before the final executive session on May 23rd.  Democratic leadership worked hard with Senate sponsors, an industry lobbyist, and a representative from North Country Alliance for Balanced Change to find compromise language that would ensure at least some integrity in the process of choosing a consultant and writing rules based on their report.  

Our concern was that DES could, and would, hire a consultant to write a report to suit the special interests that have already clearly expressed their opposition to stringent standards to protect public health and the environment.  (Everyone can see this sham process at work right now in the Department of Education’s current rule-writing.)  Their repeated efforts to neuter proposed changes to SB61 to put the public over corporate profits confirmed our concerns.

During the sausage-making legislative process, we often hear the old cliché “You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”  Cliché though it is, it is also often sound advice.  I tried hard to accept the argument that something would be better than nothing, and that the abeyance would give us time to conduct oversight and take future action to steer the rule-writing process.

The more I had to tell myself that this bill was better than no bill, the more I came to realize that I was trying to convince myself to vote for legislation that I could not support. For me, the straw that broke the camel’s back came when the industry lobbyist flat out refused to accept two small but important changes – changes that speak directly to the intent of the legislation and the integrity of the process.  

First, the bill as written calls for rules that take into account “representative travel time” of groundwater. “Representative” is purposefully vague and would allow for tests to be repeatedly made in areas developers know will provide a low average.  You could drill over and over again in a 50-square foot space that you know will yield the results you want and submit this data as “representative.” 

We proposed amending the language to take into account “variability across the site,” ensuring data that is genuinely representative of the hydrogeology of the site. This effort to prevent cherry-picking data by economic interests at the expense of the environment and public health was declared impermissible by the industry lobbyist.

Even more blatant was their unequivocal rejection of efforts to change the language calling for “adequate protections” of water sources with the language used in the Clean Water Act, “to protect perennial surface water with an ample margin of safety.”  They rejected language that calls for “an ample margin of safety”!! That tells you everything you need to know. 

This isn’t about the perfect being in the enemy of the good. What is left of the good in legislation that is so thoroughly shaped by the industry it purports to regulate? How can we honestly say we expect the rule-writing process to have any more integrity?  

I hope my committee colleagues who voted for the bill (colleagues whom I respect and whose integrity I do not doubt) are correct and we can exercise sufficient oversight in this process.  I am doubtful, but despite my doubts I will remain engaged, critical, and vocal in my opposition to corporate power putting profits over people and the environment.  

Republican primary candidate Nikki Haley came all the way up from South Carolina to sell transphobic bigotry to New Hampshire, but New Hampshire isn’t buying. 

Haley spoke today at Saint Anselm College – which is normally the Jerry Falwell University of the north – but the particular event she spoke at was Politics and Eggs. David Weigel described the program as a “nonpartisan breakfast speech/Q&A series – a polite crowed of businessmen and nonprofit people, not a GOP base crowd.”

So it fell flat when she tried to throw some red meat from the culture war to what turned out to be a more broad-minded audience than she expected. After warming up with a standard racist attack against “Critical Race Theory” (so six months ago) she decided to pitch her brand of malicious transphobia.

"Everybody know about Dylan Mulvaney? Bud Light? That is a guy, dressed as a girl, making fun of women."  she said.

Haley was referring to the recent stupid thing in which very online conservatives have been declaring themselves to be deeply upset that a Bud Light bottle featuring a rainbow on the label was shared with a trans woman for promotional purposes.

I’ve been telling conservatives that Bud Light tastes like malted sadness for years - if you are a beer drinker there are a million better options out there. But turns out conservatives don’t mind the taste at all - its tolerance and understanding they cannot abide. 

Nevertheless, what plays well in South Carolina is less enticing in New Hampshire. 

“Crickets from the crowd at Saint A’s” was how Jake Lahut described the response, “where we have a lot of suits and ties, a lot of business associations, not a lot of Fox News viewers apparently.”

Ha ha!

On Thursday, May 18, the “Parental Bill of Rights” was closely defeated by five votes, 195-190. Only two Republican representatives voted to defeat the bill. A separate vote was then taken to indefinitely postpone this bill, which means SB 272 is dead, this year and next year. The subject will not even be discussed. 

As a reminder, this particular legislation would have required school staff to give information, upon parental request, about their child’s gender identity, preferred pronoun use, even which clubs they showed interest in. However, only if the staff could show “clear and convincing evidence” that abuse or neglect to the child would take place, then privacy for the child would be honored. Just one more thing educators should not have to keep tabs on.

On to the school vouchers: Voucher Expansion Bill HB 464 was also defeated. The legislation would have opened the voucher program to more students but without an income eligibility limit. This expansion program would have eventually drained the education trust fund in addition to breaking the budget. The Senate Education Committee unanimously recommended defeat for this bill. 

What did get passed was HB 367. This bill now raises the income eligibility of the federal poverty level from 300% (where it is now) to 350%. For a family of four, the threshold will now increase nearly $20,000. Currently, 85-90% of students in the voucher program are already in private schools or are home schooled, which means they are not costing the state any tax expense, but receive aid at the expense of property owners. 

Should this voucher program continue to grow, it will be competing with public schools for those very tax dollars intended for public schools. As it stands now, the state is still failing to meet its constitutional duty to “adequately” fund the public schools. 

By contacting our elected officials, New Hampshire was able to defeat the two above mentioned bills. Let’s do this again with HB 367 which will be coming before the Senate Finance Committee. We need to contact members of the Senate Finance Committee and ask them to vote NO on HB 367.

We have seen the results of taking a moment to let our voice be heard to our elected representatives. Let’s keep the momentum going!

“AAPI” stands for Asian American and Pacific Islander. 

Beginning in 2000, the U.S. Census had made the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) a specific category from the Asian American category. There are more than fifty distinguishable ethnicities of the Asian American and NHPI population in the United States. With more than 20 million people identifying as Asian/Pacific Islander, these are the fastest-growing groups in the country, and the 2020 census reflected that. 

But a little history first; On May 7, 1843, the first Japanese immigrant arrived in America. On May 10,1869, the transcontinental railroad was completed. This railroad was worked on by approximately 20,000 Chinese immigrants. For these two significant dates in May, an AAPI Heritage Week proclamation was signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Thirteen years later, Congress passed an amendment which declared the entire month of May as AAPI Heritage Month. It was to celebrate achievements and culture with “appropriate ceremonies, programs and activities.”

Here in New Hampshire the largest Asian American ethnic groups are as follows: 

• Indian – 10,904
• Chinese (except Taiwanese) – 9,514
• Filipino – 6,304
• Korean – 4,447
• Vietnamese – 3,897
• Nepali – 2,549

The largest NHPI ethnic groups are as follows:

• Native Hawaiian – 579
• Guamanian or Chamorro – 268
• Samoan – 199

The number of AAPI adults eligible to vote in NH grew by 80% between 2010 and 2020. We have also seen their addition to the Congressional legislature in Concord. Rep. Latha Mangipudi is from Nashua and is serving her fifth term; Rep. Ben Ming is from Hollis and is serving his first term; Rep. Luz Ray is from Dover and she too, is serving her first term. 

But they are not alone in their contributions to our state democracy. Nikhil Vootkur, Susmik Lama, and Mahendra Bakshi are AAPI Caucus Officers At-Large; Maitri Chittdi is the NHDP Secretary; Shanika Amarakoon is the Portsmouth City Chair and Mohammad Saleh is the Cheshire County Chair to name but a few! 

On May 12, during the McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club Dinner, the above-mentioned and many more were given a tremendous shout-out by the NHDP for “their countless contributions to the Party.” We were also fortunate enough to have as keynote speaker Congressman Ro Khanna from California.

May we all continue, together, to move New Hampshire and the country forward!

MULTILINGUAL VOTER HOTLINE If you, or anyone you know, has difficulty with language access or needs any other type of voting assistance (including questions about polling locations or voting procedures), please call the National Asian American Voter Hotline at 1-888-API-VOTE (1-888-274-8683)

Governor Chris Sununu’s classic style of leading from way, way, way behind was in fine form last week with his recent flip flop on marijuana legalization. 

The guy who, a few weeks ago was on the Bill Maher show asking, “who calls it ‘pot’ anymore?” has looked at the polling and recognized that young people are never going to vote for a guy who is the prime reason the “Live Free or Die” state has yet to legalize the weed.

So, rather than lifting a finger over the past few months to engage in the ongoing legislative process surrounding legalization that passed with a strong majority in the House, he finally chimed in with his two cents just a couple days after the bill was killed by Republicans in the Senate.

This is the well-practiced Sununu tactic of trying to have it both ways, like the way he claims to be pro-choice and pro-life, depending on the audience, or the way he can’t decide if he supports or opposes Donald Trump on any given day.

In this case, Sununu is acting like he’s joined the substantial majority that favors legalization, while kicking the can on doing anything about it another legislative year down the road – after the Republican primary is over, when he’ll be free to walk back his position.

And its worth noting his position is stupid. For a guy who was opposed to cannabis yesterday, today he seems very concerned that taxes are low enough on it so the state-owned monopoly can undercut Massachusetts and sell as much dope as possible along the I-95 corridor. 

Yes, he’s another one of those who doesn’t see marijuana legalization as a social justice issue so much as a business opportunity. Big growers will get all the state's business, while no provision is made for people who just want to have a couple plants in their garden.

One thing that irked me about the interview when he announced his flip-flop, is that he also repeated that unfounded myth about marijuana being laced with fentanyl, which is about as credible as the stories about bad guys who put razor blades in apples during Halloween. The fact that Sununu doesn’t seem to know this suggests that perhaps he’s not the best choice of people to design our state’s marijuana policy. 

I’m glad that Sununu has finally joined the circle on legalization, but don’t pass him the blunt just yet.

According to Gun Violence Archive there have been more than 200 mass shootings in 2023. A mass shooting is defined as having four or more people killed or injured. An average of fifty people a day are killed in the United States by a gun, surpassing Australia, Canada, England and many other countries. There have been more than 600 mass shootings per year in the last three years, averaging nearly two a day.

How many guns are there in America? A Swiss-based research project called Small Arms Survey, estimates in 2018 there were approximately 390 MILLION guns in circulation! That was five years ago! How many more are in households now? And how many more are military grade assault weapons?

Recently, there were two more mass shootings in Texas, five people were killed at a private home, eight more at a shopping mall near Dallas. Here in the “Live free or Die” state, four people were shot on Saturday, May 13 around 4:50 pm. They were attending a college graduation party in Manchester. There were about thirty people in attendance, which included babies and young children. Most of the people were outdoors when a vehicle drove up to the house. Out jumped two people, masked and wearing hoodies, who began to shoot at the attendees. Luckily, all four victims are expected to recover.

Yes, we might be THISCLOSE to becoming another Texas, or Ohio, or Kentucky, or Louisiana, or Florida, or . . . the list goes on. But it doesn’t have to, at least not here in New Hampshire. We need to show a lot of these NH House members and Senators the door in ’24 for not voting in gun violence prevention laws that would keep us safe not only in schools, but at the grocery store, a shopping mall, a church, a party, any neighborhood in any city or town. 

Three years ago, Gov. Sununu vetoed the red-flag bill, which would have permitted concerned relatives or police to petition a court to TEMPORARILY remove guns from a person threatening to harm him/herself or others. The suicide rate in NH is rising faster than anywhere else, this red-flag law could have been utilized in cases of extreme risk. To justify the veto, Sununu claimed he would continue to work on mental health issues and suicide prevention, but not at the expense of a gun owner’s constitutional rights. Your right to life clearly means nothing. 

This past April at the NRA Leadership Forum in Indianapolis, Indiana, Sununu gleefully claimed to the audience, “Yeah, well they gave me a red-flag law and I gave them a red veto pen”, which elicited applause. Sununu needs to be shown the door in ’24.

A point to remember, “Shooters do not act alone. They are assisted by fifty Senators, 210 House members and the NRA.”