The House, Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, please take a look at page 20 on your calendar for HB 721. Please read the minority report and the majority report. We all know what this bill is really about. This bill is an attack on private schools, religious schools and school choice. This bill amends current law for town tuitioning agreements. If a district does not have certain grade levels for their students, they make contract with another district or a nonsectarian private school with a tuitioning agreement to send their students to that school. This bill adds the requirement to any agreement that the receiving school must have an approved state special education program, approved by the State Board of Education and that goes for if it is a public school or a private school. Currently, the local school board is charged with the responsibility to qualify, approve and contract with another school to send their students and to have them provide the opportunity for an adequate education. But here's the real kicker. The new mandate for an approved special ed program is a requirement even if the district is not sending any special needs children to that new school district. What sense does that make? What is entailed with getting a special education program approved by the department? Let me go over a few of the items. This would be for any public or private schools. I said the State Department of Education has to review administrative staff and instructional staff, policy and procedures, fiscal aspects of the school, physical plant, compliance with state statutes and the State Board of Education rules, compliance with Federal statutes and regulations, review of complaint procedures, review of data systems and review of anything else mentioned in the special education rules. That's about half the list that is required. Again, these are new requirements being mandated for any private school that would enter into a town tuition agreement, whether there are special ed students or not. For special education services, we are required by federal law to provide the least restrictive environment, but this legislation has us provide the most restrictive environment for town tuitioning agreements. We all know what this is really about. Please vote red and Mister Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Speaker ShurtleffSo noted. Will the member yield to a question? Rep. Abramson, you may inquire.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker, and thank you for taking my question. It looks like this bill could increase costs for private schools. Could it be that some of these private schools could be closed down as a result of this legislation passing?

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you for the question. I don't know if it would require them to close down, but it certainly might discourage them from entering into any town tuition agreements, which would be a detriment to the school district that does not have those grade levels and to the students themselves.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Sunapee, Rep. Tanner to speak in support of the recommendation. Representative Tanner: Thank you, Mister Speaker. There is a small rural town in my district that has a two-room schoolhouse, three teachers and 28 students and they cover K through 4. In 2018, a bill SB 8 was passed called the Croydon Bill that expanded the options of towns like this one so that a school board could enter into a contract with the nonsectarian public or private school to provide education to students in grades not offered in their towns. I supported SB 8 after much deliberation. I had faith in the local education agencies, the school boards, that those elected officials would oversee the use of public tax dollars for the education of all the children in their towns, that they would require accountability to meet the standards for an adequate education and ensure all the students would have an equal opportunity to enroll in those private schools receiving public funds. I expected that elected officials would take care to review schools with whom they contracted to make sure they would and could deliver an adequate education for all. Imagine hypothetically a student whose been with five or six other students in this school since kindergarten. Now in 4th grade, she is looking to 5th grade at a new school just like everyone else but she finds out because of her learning disability or her physical disability or even the status of her parents, she's not a good fit at the school where her classmates are going. The good fit is determined by the receiving school, picking and choosing who may attend their schools, what services they will provide, what additional costs the parents will have to provide for their students in terms of uniform, transportation, materials and other things. We are talking about an elementary student who is doing well, who is accepted by their peers, has friends but can't be with them because she is not a good fit. She is anxious as they are about the new arrangement in education, but she is separate from her friends. She isn't a good fit because she needs some accommodations and support. As with any bill that becomes law, there are consequences. Some may be intended. Many are unintended. When those consequences are brought to our attention, we need to act to make it right. Last term, a study committee was formed under HB 1493 to address these issues with the Croydon Bill. The committee report stated, "The committee recommends this bill for future legislation as a concept that codifies the responsibility of the local education agency to provide individual education program services in terms of SB 8. The committee agrees that the language needs clarification in terms of what exactly it means regarding attendance, choices and access in relation to nondiscrimination." The committee ends with the question, "Does limited access mean that if a child cannot attend the school does not meet the standard of ascending school. HB 721 is the legislation that addresses the consequences of SB 8. This bill offers a very simple correction that includes the involvement of the Department of Education in the process of school approval for contracts between nonsectarian private schools and the local school boards. It ensures that the federal law for placement of a student to a private nonsectarian school will include the standard of least restrictive environment and prevent the unlawful use of public tax dollars to discriminate and segregate certain classes of children from their peers. Special education is no longer a signal of inferiority but is a smarter and more effective way to empower each learning with the idea of an individualized learning plan or IEP. You wouldn't segregate a student who wears an insulin pump, send a child with asthma to another school separate from their peers just for clinical visits. Where public funding goes, the commitment to public education to accept all students should follow. With public funding, must go public accountability and a commitment to follow the state and federal laws for nondiscrimination. This bill achieves both. I urge you to support 721. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Cordelli has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ladd for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know the school tuition program already guarantees a special education student the opportunity to attend an approved special education program. And, if I also know that a student with an IEP has the choice to select either a public school having an approved special education program or a private nonsectarian school that may have an affective learning program. If I believe this bill only serves to restrict private nonsectarian school choice, challenges local control, disregards parental rights and eliminates educational opportunities that best fit the multiple needs of all students, would I then press the red button to oppose this needless legislation? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mullen for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sue Mullen (D - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that in towns lacking schools are a particular grade level, tuition agreements using public tax dollars have been made between communities and private nonsectarian schools. If I know that current law allows for contracted schools to deny a student entrance because they have the need for a special education services or accommodations which the school feels they cannot provide. And, I also know that every student in our state has the right to attend schools that can provide an adequate education in the least restrictive environment regardless of ability or disability, that communities already have the financial obligation to provide such services and that this bill allows that this responsibility can be met in a variety of ways, would I support HB 721's intent to minimize educational.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend? I see a member getting ready to walk out. If you are not feeling well, by all means leave the chamber. I did not mean to embarrass you. We are in the voting mode. If the Sergeant-at-Arms would please assist if she needs it. Please proceed.

Rep. Sue Mullen (D - Hills 7)Would I support HB 721's intent to minimize educational discrimination by involving the Department of Education in both program development and oversight by pushing the green button?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 214 members voting Yea and 152 Nay, the Yeas have it and the recommendation is adopted.

Rep. Connie Lane (D - Merr 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I am here today to ask you to do the right thing for New Hampshire voters and vote for independent redistricting commission. We have an opportunity before us with SB 8 to put the interest of New Hampshire voters before our own, a chance to let the voters choose their elected officials rather than the other way around. Across New Hampshire voters are asking for a fair voting process. They want a transparent process for designing their districts. One that does not require herculean efforts for one party to be elected to office. One that does not let us as politicians choose our voters. We should be brave enough to let go of years of manipulating districts to ensure that one party is favored during the elective process. Gerrymandering is not rare in New Hampshire as the Governor stated in his veto message of HB 706 and as stated in the minority report to this bill. Quite the contrary, it has been the norm for decades. After the 1990 consensus the state was forced to admit to the New Hampshire Supreme Court that its plan violated the equal protections laws of both the New Hampshire and the United States Constitutions. The 2000 redistricting plan resulted in at least 4 lawsuits in federal and state courts. One issue involving the town that lasted 8 years. In 2010, the prime draftsman of the redistricting plan publicly acknowledge that it was drawn to favor one party. There were at least 5 lawsuits involving cities, towns and legislators against the state which resulted in a suspension of the filing period for the 2012 elections which disrupted the entire election process. And, if this embarrassing legacy is not enough to convince you that we have a problem, a report by New Hampshire public radio in 2016 crunched 30 years of election data and concluded that our New Hampshire Senate and Executive Council Districts are heavily gerrymandered. Clearly, we have a broken system and this bill offers us a bipartisan solution. An identical former version of this bill, HB 706, unanimously passed the body on the other side of the wall behind me and was unanimously passed by the House Election Committee. The bill before you, SB 8, passed 18-2 by the House Election Law Committee last Fall. The bill has been drafted to include us, the legislators, every step of the redistricting process. It contains the constitutional requirements for redistricting and the criteria that the commission must consider in its work. We are not abrogating our duties by establishing this commission. We will have the final vote on the map after a fair and transparent process. We get to participate in the choosing of the members of the commission and if we don't like their report and their map, we can vote it down and start again. No one says that the Governor abrogated his constitutional duty to choose judges when he created the Judicial Selection Commission through an executive order to assist him in that process. That commission helps him perform his duty. The same principle applies here. By enacting this bill we are establishing a commission to assist us with our constitutional duty to redistrict the state and we will be doing that in a way that puts the interest of New Hampshire voters before our own as legislators seeking easy reelection. There are a few things more important than protecting our constituents right to vote in a free and fair election. Please vote for SB 8, which creates a system that puts our constituents' voices first rather than the self interest in the party that will hold the majority of this body in 2021. Give our constituents a fair map and trust them to make the right decision at the ballot box. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffRep. Baldasaro has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Barbara Griffin for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the responsibility of redistricting by our constitution is ours, yours and mine, a responsibility that should not be avoided. And, if I know that the process of redistricting for a political event, elections, will always be partisan notwithstanding the process and we should embrace such a system that has worked for our governments in this state for hundreds of years. And, if I know that the size of our districts, yours and mine 3500, provides the most representative form of governance in this country making gerrymandering of districts rare and as evidence by the results of litigation...

Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)...as evidence by the results of litigation that have upheld the previous maps drawn by the constitutional method that we currently use and that the process as proposed to you, while purporting to avoid litigation, in fact anticipates it throughout by providing for the process. And, finally Mister Speaker, if I know that this body in the first year of this session, addressed the exact same issue with the exact same words in a bill that resulted in a sustained veto and that I do not want to start off this session by adopted Einstein's definition of insanity, would I now press the red button and defeat this bill?

Speaker ShurtleffThe House will be in order. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lane for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Connie Lane (D - Merr 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that voters desire a fair and transparent redistricting process, not one done behind closed doors designed to reelect the majority party. If I know that SB 8 is the result of a very hardworking bipartisan effort to achieve a fair and transparent process. And, if I know that nothing is more important than the right to vote in a free and fair election where voters get a real opportunity to vote for a candidate of their choice, then I would put the voters before our own self-interest and press the green button. Thank you

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 224 members voting Yea and 141 voting Nay, the Yeas have it and the recommendation is adopted. This bill will also be going to Finance.