UNDER THE RADAR: For the last decade, lawmakers have spent more time on one issue, education funding, than on any other except the biennial state budget. This year has been no different, although there was little interest in making wholesale changes to the formula passed last year, which was a combination of what the House and Senate developed but won't go into effect until later.

Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, who has long been in the middle of the education debate, proposed several changes this year in HB 1473. The biggest change would reduce the base per-pupil adequacy grant from $3,450 to $2,914 — a result of lower projected teacher costs — which would free about $100 million to $105 million to distribute to the neediest school districts.

“Everyone agrees we need to do that, and this would do that even without a constitutional amendment,” Hess said.

However, the Senate let the House know it had no interest in changing the distribution formula, which has essentially frozen state aid at the same level for the last three years and will again next fiscal year.

Consequently, the bill is headed for interim study, another term for “polite death.”

What isn't headed to interim study is a proposed constitutional amendment agreed to by Senate leadership and Gov. John Lynch that will be voted on Wednesday in the Senate.

The vote is likely to receive more than the three-fifths majority it needs to be placed on the ballot, with the backing of all 19 Republicans and Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, D-Manchester.

But the House leadership will not go along with the language developed by Senate President Peter Bragdon and Lynch's office with the help of attorneys Chuck Douglas, Ovide Lamontagne and Eugene Van Loan.

Hess said he supports the amendment, but there are many House Republicans who will not support any amendment that includes two words, "duty'' and "responsibility.'' Those members believe such wording would mean the state would continue to embrace the Supreme Court's two Claremont decisions, he said.

The Senate amendment does include "responsibility," though it gives lawmakers and the executive branch greater leeway in determining education standards and state aid. The state would no longer be responsible for providing and paying 100 percent of the cost of that “adequate education.''

“State aid to education is here to stay at or near its current level. It's become an entitlement program that school districts rely on,” Hess said. “Trying to reduce state education now will be about as successful as trying to reduce Social Security.”

He said this session is the last best chance to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to let voters weigh in.

“Let's not let the perfect stand in the way of the possible,” Hess said. “Let's give people the opportunity to express their opinion on what the state's role in education should be.”

The Senate votes on the constitutional amendment Wednesday afternoon. If it passes, it will go the House, which killed similar language late last year.

- - - - - - - - -

IS IT BULLYING? Rep. Susan Emerson of Rindge had a well-publicized dust-up with House Speaker William O'Brien over her attempts to amend the budget bill last year.

As a result, she introduced House Bill 1533, which would prohibit bullying in the State House and Legislative Office Building, and last week she testified about the incident at a public hearing on the bill, along with another person who witnessed it.

However, her testimony did not persuade the House Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification Committee, which voted, 13-2, to kill the bill.

Committee member Rep. John Cebrowski of Bedford wrote: “Expected cooperation with party platforms and principles is a fact of legislative life. But holding to your conscience is also a fact of legislative life. Whipping is a fact of legislative life, whether it be simple polling or verbal arm-twisting. Disappointment is another fact of legislative life. The ‘kitchen' can sometimes get hot.”

The bill is bound to receive some discussion Wednesday when it comes before the House.

However that is not the end of the story.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, asked the Legislative Ethics Committee to clarify what constitutes bullying by leadership when it uses strong-arm tactics to persuade members to support its position.

Vaillancourt made the request after an earlier public hearing on Emerson's bill.

In his complaint, Vaillancourt cites the Emerson incident and others, including the tactics used to persuade Republican House members to change their votes following a vote to approve an amendment to change the House redistricting plan.

After the vote, O'Brien stopped the House proceedings and called a Republican caucus. In his letter, Vaillancourt said “blatant intimidation, coercion, arm-twisting” was used in the caucus.

Back in session, the House reversed itself and defeated the amendment before approving the redistricting plan.

“You don't need to be a math expert to determine that many people changed their votes in the wake of what I am convinced was undue intimidation,” Vaillancourt wrote to the ethics committee. “It seems to me that the speaker and his minions and those who have failed to employ independent, objective judgment are guilty of ethics violations many times over, but then I'm not a lawyer.”

In its decision reached Friday, the committee said, “Such political questions must be determined by legislators themselves in the selection of their leadership, or adopting appropriate legislation or rules, or ultimately by the voters, but not by us under the present state of the guidelines. . . . It is for the Legislature, rather than the committee, to determine the line between permissible and impermissible methods for shaping policy in the development of legislation.”

The ruling adds: “If the Legislature were to articulate such limits through statute, rule or otherwise to govern legislators in the performance (of) their duties, actions in violation of such limits would fall within the committee's statutory jurisdiction.”

Given the ruling, no one should expect any change in leadership's methods for the rest of the legislative session.

- - - - - - - - -

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL DISTRICTS: The state Senate districts are not the only ones that would see some significant changes as lawmakers redraw the boundary lines in light of new census figures.

The five executive councilors largely decide where the district boundaries will be and then give the plan to lawmakers with the understanding there won't be any changes.

District 4 Councilor Raymond Wieczorek, R-Manchester, is not running for reelection, so the other four councilors carved up his district to shore up their districts and reelection efforts.

Under the plan, District 4 would add towns around Concord that have traditionally been in District 2 — Allenstown, Pembroke, Bow, Chichester and Loudon — and subtract the reliably Republican communities of Hudson, Litchfield, Candia and Raymond; Litchfield would go into District 5, the other three would go into District 3.

District 3 would move south and west. The biggest change in that district, represented by Chris Sununu, is that longtime anchors Dover and Portsmouth would move into District 2, along with Durham and Madbury.

Those changes would make District 3 solidly Republican.

The biggest change would be in District 2, which would not only pick up Portsmouth and Dover but also Keene and several other Monadnock area towns, making this district solidly Democratic. Councilor Daniel St. Hilaire, R-Concord, would have to fight hard to keep his seat as he faced Democratic challenger Colin Van Ostern this fall.

The only two Democratic strongholds in the southern half of the state not in District 2 would be the Upper Valley and Nashua.

In the realignment, District 2 would lose towns around the Hillsborough area when they moved into District 5.

With the loss of Keene, District 5, represented by Councilor David Wheeler, would become more Republican despite being anchored by Nashua.

The changes to District 4 — particularly the loss of Hudson — would make this district a little more Democratic but still Republican-leaning.


District 1, as it has done consistently for the last half-century, would move farther south along with the state's population.

District 1 would not change much in political leanings. Whenever current Republican Councilor Raymond Burton decides to retire, Democrats could have a fair shot at winning the seat.

- - - - - - - - -

MANCHESTER STANDS TOGETHER: The Manchester House delegation hopes to effect some changes in the House redistricting plan, which has already been approved by the House. The Senate is expected to approve it before going on break the week of Feb. 27.

Most Republican House members expect Lynch will veto the plan, setting up a situation similar to the one in 2002 that eventually led to the Supreme Court drawing the boundary lines for the House and Senate districts.

At issue for Manchester is combining Wards 8 and 9 with Litchfield, which could cost the city two representatives.

Currently, the city has 35 seats, though only 34 are filled. A special election will be held Feb. 21.

Under the House-approved plan, the most representatives the city could have would be 33, but it could be as low as 31.

At its meeting Thursday, all attending agreed to vote to sustain the governor's veto, including the 21 Republicans. Those Republicans would be voting with more than 100 Democrats and a least a dozen or more disgruntled representatives whose districts were changed in ways they don't like, and the governor's veto would be sustained.

Vaillancourt, who opposed the plan repeatedly, said he believes there are about two dozen Republican votes beyond Manchester's to sustain the veto.

That would be more than enough votes to send the plan back to the drawing board.

- - - - - - - - -

NO SUPPORT: Some House members have received anonymous email from the House Majority Office telling them leadership will not be supporting their bills.

The email is from the “House Republican Office.” It reads: “After careful consideration, the House Majority Office has decided to sign in in opposition to the following bill: (fill in the bill number and description).

“As you know, we are working very hard to promote good public policy and keep focused on our agenda. We believe this bill has flaws and may distract us from our focus on Republican agenda items. If you believe we've erred in our judgment or would like to discuss the issue more, please contact D.J. Bettencourt.

“Again, we will be signing in opposing the bill. We will not be testifying.

"We appreciate the hard work you do and look forward to working with you on future legislation.”

In some instances, the Majority Office has sent someone to testify against a bill, often Deputy Majority Leader Shawn Jasper, who last week left no doubt how the office stood on a bill to allow non-violent felons to possess firearms. He told the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee it should kill the bill, and it did shortly after the public hearing.

When the House Republicans outlined their agenda two weeks ago, Bettencourt lamented that Democrats and the media were focusing on issues such as guns and gay marriage instead of jobs and the economy, which he said is their focus.