Hampton School Board Splinters Over Sacred Heart School Warrant Article

Tuesday, December 12, 2023, a night which will live in epiphany. 

The Hampton School Board has 5 members. 

It is still not clear whether that coveted box at the bottom of the ballot saying "Recommended by the School Board" will be attached to the ballot article. Someone has to "check" on it with someone. 

School Board meetings have agendas and rules, and they open with a time for public comment and members of the public are allowed 3 minutes to speak their minds and then the chairperson cuts them off. Nobody gets to hog the microphone.

So, the public, all three of them, got their 3 minutes each.

The link below shows the whole meeting, but the parts of the meeting devoted to the Sacred Heart School (SHS) funding begins after the Pledge of Allegiance with public comment, and then there are about 2 hours of meanderings through committee reports and idle chatter, then the vote and then a bizarre post mortem comment session. You just have to scan through it.

None of the School Board members explained the reasons for his or her vote, except for Frank DeLuca, who said he had to abstain because he is a parishioner of Our Lady of The Miraculous Medal church, and one of the speakers had remarked that any parishioner of the church voting to funnel public funds  for his own personal church would violate his public trust as a public official, and apparently Mr. DeLuca got that message.

While none of the School Board explained a vote, in the prior meeting the chairperson had said she was voting public funds to a church school because she care about "every Hampton child," including those attending SHS. That was addressed by one of the speakers who remarked that she had failed to mention that 75% of the SHS students are not even from Hampton, and that even if you focused on the 25% of students who live in Hampton, "caring about the children," as he did, did not mean he wanted to pay for their first communion dresses. He said that was the job of the parents, not the taxpayer. 

He also went on to say that while some argue this issue is not about separation of church and state, but instead it's simply "all about the children"  (even those attending SHS,) the truth is that while this may be about the kids,  it is not only about the kids: It's also about the principle of separation of church and state.

To make that point, a famous speech by John F. Kennedy got read, and is there for all to see on Channel 22, in which he says, "Because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured...So it is apparently necessary for me to state again, not what kind of church I believe in, for that should matter only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no church or church school is granted any public funds...Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped."

Instances of the ripping of that fabric in Hampton, New Hampshire were recounted: men driving by, shouting profanities, while children played in their yards, online vilification of Hampton women as being "God hating," all because these mothers had  signed a petition for separation of church and state.

(Apparently, John F. Kennedy would have been called a "God hater" by these people.)

And the vote came, amid some confusion. 

The Vote:

To recommend: Virginia Bridle Russell

                             Les Shepard

Abstained:          Wendy Rega

                             Andrea Shepard 

                             Frank DeLuca

Although a majority of the School Board did not vote to recommend (a majority of 5 is 3), it is not clear what the white box with the recommendation will say. Do you need a majority (i.e. 3 Board members) or simply a plurality for that coveted "Yes, recommended by the Board"?

To Mad Dog's mind a "recommendation" should mean, we affirmatively recommend this. But when the majority say they can neither recommend nor oppose, that is not a recommendation. But that may not be what the powers that be think.

Mad Dog actually liked the post show show: Because, apparently, there is a rule that there should be 30 minutes in total of public comment, and the chairperson had limited the three public commenters to 3 minutes each, interrupting any speaker who went past 3 minutes,  there were only 9 minutes of 30 spent in public comment. 

So after the vote was taken and safely stowed away, they called for the other 21 minutes of comment from the crowd of 2 people who constituted "the public." Only one actually spoke and he was told he had better limit his remarks to  3 minutes. (Not clear what happened to the remaining unspoken 19 minutes.)

During this session Frank DeLuca asked the lone speaker why, after all these years, after voting through this warrant article every year since 1994, anyone would now find a reason to oppose it. The reply was simple enough: the man who rose to oppose said he was not living in town in 1994, but even if he had been, he said, simply doing something over and over because "we've always done it that way" is not always a good idea, especially if an important principle has been ignored by that custom. He cited the racial segregation of schools, which had always been done that way, but eventually we decided that custom was unprincipled.

This was a particularly rich moment because in the previous School Board meeting, when asked if he was disturbed at the article which gave public funds for religious purposes,  Mr. DeLuca said he said he hadn't seen the warrant article yet, so he couldn't possibly comment on an article he had not yet seen. But tonight he said, well this same, identical article has been presented the same way every year for the past 29 years, so what are we arguing about?

When Ginny Bridle Russell said she supported the warrant article and she would never abstain, but would always take a stand--but she hoped voters would vote their own conscience. The member of the public replied, "Well, but then you are taking a stand to try to influence voters." 

This exchange finally aroused Les Shepard, who raised his hand and object to the public addressing the chairperson in such a manner. The public man was told that School Board meetings do not allow for "back and forth," between the School Board members and the public, which, of course, was exactly what Ms. Russel had precipitated.

Watching this youtube now, it is apparent that the chairperson of the School Board has taken the idea of a "Bully pulpit" into a new realm of "The bully from the pulpit."  The chairperson cut off criticism of herself, declared herself immune, declared herself righteous and outspoken and then withdrew to allow her fellow Board members to close ranks around her. 

If ever there is a contest for "most controlling personality" we have our candidate for the honor right here in Hampton.

So, all and all, it was an exciting night. Two and one half hours of dreary boiler plate declamations, interrupted by 30 minutes of the fog of war.

The youtube video below shows the discussion of the warrant article beginning right after the Pledge of Allegiance at 1 minute, with three speakers from the public, each speaking 3 minutes and that ends around 12 minutes. Then there is a nearly 120 minute interlude during which the School board discusses a variety of things, including, literally the paint on school walls but the vote on the article occurs at 2:02, two hours after the meeting began. So if you can scan ahead, go for it. The vote is worth watching. (If anyone knows how to edit a youtube video so only the 15 minutes devoted to the Sacred Heart School warrant article shows, please let me know.) It was during this exchange, the Board said only they can ask questions but they do not answer questions from the public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Mo0VoF7oA

Sound and fury signifying something. 

We don't yet know what. 

Hampton School Board Ducks and Hides

 

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference...

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew—or a Quaker—or a Unitarian—or a Baptist... Today I may be the victim—but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

--John F. Kennedy

At their meeting last night, November 14, 2023, the five members of the Hampton School board provided the adults and children of our town with a lesson in Lincoln's famous observation, "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

But they tried.

You can see this display of four adults trying to talk about anything but the issue plainly put to them, and one who did, but later dodged responsibility.

The link below begins with a presentation by school children talking about their visit to an environmental camp, which allowed the Board members to smile warmly at the children of Hampton, and to prove, once again how all they care about is every Hampton child. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HonSScjwzGA

But at 19 minutes and 29 seconds a citizen rose to ask the Board members about their votes 9 months earlier to fund the Sacred Heart School, and he asked if the school Board members cared about using taxpayer funds to pay for religious ceremonies and pageants at the school.

The chairperson Ginny Bridle Russel, paused a moment, and then started to move on without commenting, but then Andrea Shepard raised her hand and began a lament about what a difficult and wrenching decision this was and wound up saying she had really, really tried to reach a conclusion but she was still undecided about how she felt about using taxpayer funds to fund streaming of religious services on computers paid for by Hampton taxpayers.

Les Shepard then tried to dodge the bullet entirely by saying the Board had no such request in front of it yet, rather than say what he intended to do when that request arrived. In fact, he was assured by Ms. Russel the Board does have the request and is processing it. To which he said something to the effect of, "Oh, well, then."  He then sank into what looked like a stupor, as if by falling asleep at the wheel, he could avoid facing the consequences of any statement about giving money to buy paper crowns for nativity scenes at the school.

Frank Deluca saw this as a nifty dodge and said, in effect, we may never get the request the Board had already received--a neat trick considering the school has submitted this same warrant every year for the past 50 years and had again this year-- but he would withhold judgment about whether to recommend it, as if the challenge to say how he felt about sending dollars to fund religious teaching had been fully met. He did say, however that kids had no real choice but to go to SHS when the public schools shut down during COVID, obliquely suggesting the snowflakes who shut down our public schools had it--the flight to parochial schools--coming, and again, believing he had deceived everyone in the room to think that he had not remained silent because he was talking about something, just not about the actual question of whether taxpayers should fund religious pageants or computers which stream a mass from St. Patrick's cathedral. On that he remained silent.

Wendy Rega began boldly, but then, inexplicably, tried to absolve the Board of any consequences of of their opinions, even if they stood up boldly and voted to fund a Christmas manger scene, to send kids on a field trip to the Vatican or to pay for invoices for painting the walls of the classrooms. The Board cannot prevent the warrant article from being placed on the ballot, Ms. Rega said, as if that were the point. All we do is make a recommendation, as if that recommendation were immaterial and without importance. 

This ploy has got to be a truly brilliant example of the meaning of the word "disingenuous," in the sense of someone saying something she claims to know less about than she clearly really does know.

Lying silently in front of the meeting was the simple truth that in a package of warrant article ballots extending 30 pages, most citizens simply read the panels at the bottom of each article and if the school Board and the Budget committee recommend it, they shrug and vote for it.  Recommendations against a warrant article are typically a death sentence for that article; recommendations for are typically followed by a rubber stamp approval.

Finally, Virginia Bridle Russel, the chairwoman, inveighed against this whole idea of the importance of the Board's recommendation and said it was up to citizens to "do their own research," as if citizens were lining up for vaccines at the warrant article vote. 

Nobody rose to object that Ms. Bridle was taking the same position as the captain of the ship who directs his crew to pull hard to starboard and when the ship runs aground claims to have nothing to do with it; the crew should have done their own research.

Ms. Bridle Russel then launched into her tremulous support for "every child in Hampton" as if those who opposed religious education funding did not care about those poor students at Sacred Heart.  She did not mention that 75% of the SHS students do not come from or live in Hampton, that those Hampton taxpayer dollars are not paying primarily for Hampton kids, but for kids whose parent want them to be in a Catholic school, no matter where they live. We care about those Hampton kids who go to school in Massachusetts, Ms. Russel said. Our love for Hampton kids is so consuming, it extends to even those kids from surrounding communities who want their kids taught at a religious school and to kids who are for reasons unstated, sent off across state lines. 

At this point nobody shouted from the audience, "Ginny, I love all the children of Hampton, too!  But I don't want to pay for their confirmation dresses or their bar mitzvahs! That's what they got parents for."

Ms Russel did not say whether or not it bothered her that taxpayer dollars may be used to stream services to SHS kids, except by not commenting on it: As was said, silence implies consent--she did not object to that practice, therefore, she is willing to allow it.

To the great credit of the Board, nobody tried to make the argument made by Samuel Alito and John Roberts, that if a local government decides to fund any form of private school when it allocates funds for the education of kids in its community, it cannot "discriminate" against religious schools, as if that invidious comparison between racial "discrimination" and religious "discrimination" actually is not obscene. "Discrimination" when it comes to race, of course is directed at something the Black child and parents cannot help, cannot change, their own skin color. Discrimination in how we hand out taxpayer dollars, is a different thing entirely, because that word is about the distinction we make between people who do not have a choice and those who do.You can send your kid to a school where religion is never mentioned, pro or con, or send your kid to a religious school for a religious education. That is a choice, and we can make a distinction between religious schools where kids are taught about Jesus Christ and, possibly about the "sin of homosexuality," and public schools where neither of these are mentioned.

During the discussion of the warrant article, an amendment to give the same amount to any religious school requesting funds as is given to the Catholic school was proposed but  was rejected with the argument that then Hampton might have to fund a "Church of Satan" school. 

Which is to say, in Hampton, we only fund churches we like.

And so, there we have it. Taxpayers for Religious Education.

John F. Kennedy must be rolling over in his grave.