Journalism 101

 

There was voting in Hampton yesterday, and about 10,000 ballots were cast, although with the ballot running into what felt like 100 pages, not all voters voted on every warrant article. Mad Dog typically skips the warrant article yes/no vote on allowing Mrs. Moneypenny to plant petunias across the sidewalk on the grassy strip by the road which technically belongs to the town, for which she needs voter permission to plant. Live Free or Die, New Hampshire.

Among the warrant articles to go down to defeat was the article awarding $52,000 to the Sacred Heart School of the Catholic Church of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal.   During the Deliberative Session on this article the woman who writes the checks to cover the invoices presented her from the school for computers admitted she had no idea whether those computers were used to stream services from St. Patrick's cathedral. 

That question arose because the argument has always been that none of this taxpayer money ever goes to buy crucifixes or Bibles, but is only used for "non religious purposes," as if you can separate the peanuts in the stew from the tomatoes, so it's safe to dip in your spoon, even if you're allergic to peanuts.

But what is really fun is to see is how the reporter for the Seacoast News, Max Sullivan, who has reported on this warrant article for years, wrote about this defeat.

 Sullivan's previous stories about this warrant articles featured quotes from the principal of Sacred Heart, along with a photograph of her standing in front of some poster with an inspirational message, like "It's All About the Kids!" Nowhere in his paragraph are responses from any of the opponents of the article. Well, saying "any of the opponents" may be a bit of a reach, as there has only ever been one opponent to speak against the warrant article, (until this year when a public school teacher expressed doubts, without fully opposing it.) But Sullivan has never interviewed this rowdy opponent, which prompted the malcontent to question the owner of Seacoast News whether Sullivan was a member of the congregation, which the owner heatedly denied.

Here is Mr. Sullivan's rendition:

"Voters have supported funding under RSA 198:49 to the Catholic school each year since 1975. The state law was created to allow non-public schools the means of attaining education resources normally provide to public schools by the state. None of the funds are used for religious purposes and are directly used to benefit the students of Hampton who attend the school. The article which was not recommended by the School Board or the Budget Committee was defeated by a vote of 1,345 to 1,961."

Of course there are things to unpack here:

1/ None of the funds are used for religious purposes we've covered: school funds are not fungible, i.e. if you pay for paving the parking lot, the church school has more money to spend on the altar.

2/ The article was not recommend by the School Board or the Budget Committee: In previous years the School Board was stacked with members of the congregation of the Church, and so they were voting taxpayer funds to support their own church. This year, the Board is not so overwhelmed by church people, and at the Deliberative Session there was much ire coming from congregants about the Board's change of heart. For years, the congregants thought it was just fine to have the recommendations of the School Board printed on the ballot; this year there was prolonged objection.

3/ The RSA is the law which has been used to circumvent the state constitution which clearly states no citizen's taxes can ever be allocated to any church or religious organization, a provision which has suffered local nullification since 1975. Here's the actual constitutional passage: "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." That passage is so clear that efforts have been made to expunge it in the legislature. Not a problem in Hampton, where we simply ignore it.

 

4/ The $52,000 is used to benefit the students from Hampton who attend the school, but only 25% of the students are from homes in Hampton, which means 75% of the students benefited are from households where the parents are paying taxes in another town. As was noted at the Deliberative Session, what this article has guaranteed is not equal treatment for all Hampton kids, it has guaranteed that anyone from neighboring towns who want their kids to have a Catholic education can send there kids to Hampton, where the taxpayers will pay for it. Mr. Sullivan echoes the words of the Sacred Heart principal who frequently uses that phrase: funds "are directly used to benefit students of Hampton who attend the school." True enough, but there are precious few of those attending the school and the funds are Hampton taxes supporting kids from towns which are not Hampton.

And, oh, Mr. Sullivan has never addressed the question about  the woman who has  written those checks to cover Sacred Heart invoices for so many years: Is she herself a graduate of Sacred Heart?  Is  this town official, who has been writing checks from taxpayer funds all these years, never having refused to pay an invoice from the school, actually writing taxpayer checks to her own alma mater?

So, some significant points have been missed by Mr. Sullivan. 

When he was challenged about why he never interviewed the rowdy article opponent, Mr. Sullivan replied he had tried to call that man but never got an answer, and he was writing under deadline. The opponent asserted his phone showed no such phone  call, and no message was left. 

There you have the essence of journalism along the Seacoast. 

Some have decried the death of local newspapers. 

Mad Dog wonders whether we are better off without them.