Public Funds for Church School: The Ghost of JFK

 

"I believe in an America where separation of church and state is absolute, where no public funds are ever granted to any church, or to any church school. Today the finger of suspicion may be pointed at me, but tomorrow, it may be at you. Until the whole  fabric of our harmonious society is ripped."

--John F. Kennedy

Hampton Union Publicity 

Yesterday, the Hampton Union published an article about the fight over a Hampton warrant article, voted in every year, which sets up an account ($55,000 this year) from which bills are paid, after being presented by the Sacred Heart School (parish school of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal) to the SAU treasurer. 

The Hampton Union quotes an attorney parishioner, who claims that despite the clear language of the New Hampshire constitution saying, "But no person shall every be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination," state supreme court decisions say otherwise. No response to that assertion was solicited or elicited by the reporter, Max Sullivan. The fact is, despite what Ms. Nevins (who always identifies herself as "attorney Nevins") says, this is by no means settled law. Mr. Sullivan simply quotes her, but never investigates whether or not this is true.

Beyond that, Ms. Nevins allowed that the 1969 decision public funds may go to religious schools "if sufficient safeguards are provided," and clearly there are no safeguards with respect to this tithe to the school. The treasurer of the SAU, Mariah Curtis, has on several occasions admitted she has no idea what the bills for supplies are used for, although "everything is audited."  As opponents have suggested molding clay may be used to fashion crucifixes for classroom walls, and computers may be used to stream religious services--there is no safeguard at all. Ms. Curtis admits in all the years she's been presented invoices from the church school, she's never once refused to pay for an invoice

The history of this warrant article is reported to date to a time when public schools were crowded and diversion of students to the church school was seen as a way of saving money, but the reporter failed to say that is no longer true in Hampton, and, in fact there are empty seats at Hampton public classrooms, and the SHS award diverts needed funds from public schools. That $55,000 could pay for a desperately needed school custodian.

The principal is quoted as saying this is all about educating Hampton students, whose parents pay taxes in the town, but she does not say that only 25% of the students at the school are from Hampton; the rest are from out of town. 

So what the taxpayers are really paying for is to support families from anywhere who want to educate their kids in the Church.

This phrase, "It's all about the kids," particularly galls opponents because it says really, "it's only about the kids," which of course is not true. It's also about separation of church and state. Not to mention there is something so sanctimonious about saying "I am all about the kids'" as if you are more about the kids than the opponents of the article, who feel they are just as much "about the kids."

The warrant article process is, of course tainted by a state law which requires that the School Board and the Budget Committee vote to either recommend or to not recommend voters vote for the article and those recommendations are printed right below the article and right above the checkboxes "yes" or "no" where the voters marks their ballots.

One might ask why the state wants these boards to put their thumbs on the scale so flagrantly, but one look at the 20 page "ballot" and you know why. Voters are allowed to vote based on what the authorities in town recommend, authorities who have presumably given more thought to the article than the voter who has only thought about it for a minute.

This year, Mr. Sullivan tells us, the School Board voted 2 in favor to 0 against to 3 abstentions to recommend. He tells us two of the 3 who abstained abstained because they were parishioners. He does not mention these two parishioners voted public funds to their own church last year when the warrant article vote came up, but this year they were called out for that at a public School Board meeting, and they abstained rather than being accused of doing what they had done in the past--voting for public funds to their own church. 

The 3rd abstainer, Wendy Rega, had voted against the article last year, but this year she thought it would be defeated only if she abstained, because if she voted no, then a majority of the Board would have voted, (i.e. 3 out of 5) and it would be carried as a 2-1 vote. But with her abstention, it was a 2-0-3 vote and that meant the majority had not voted. It was a tactical move. Mr. Max Sullivan reported none of that.

He also did not mention that Ginny Bridle Russel, the chairperson of the school board voted for the warrant article as a School Board member and again as a Budget Committee member, so she got to cast deciding votes twice.

He did not mention that the Budget Committee voted 4-3 to recommend, and it is not known how many of those 4 voters were parishioners. And he did not report what the three No voters had said to explain their votes. Sullivan explained why the abstainers abstained--but he did not give equal space to those who voted against the article.

So, according to the Hampton Union, the fight over separation of Church and State is over in Hampton.

As Justice Sotomayor has noted, with the current United States Supreme Court it may be that separation of church and state is now unconstitutional. It certainly is in Hampton.

And it's too bad, really.

What was that "finger of suspicion" JFK was talking about? Well, in 1960, I well recall being told by my neighbors, "Oh, you can't vote for a Catholic to be President. You may as well move the Pope into the White House. Your taxes will go right to the Church."

JFK promised that would not happen and he kept that promise. It is his legacy, his sacred legacy, that nobody ever asks if a candidate for high office is Catholic anymore.

I've met plenty of people who do not even know Joe Biden is Catholic. Never comes up. John F. Kennedy did that for us. This abstract notion, separation of church and state, which elicits nothing but dull stares and slack jaws from so  many, has very real, practical consequences.

So, when the voters at the Deliberative Session on February 5th, mustered out to vote for the warrant article, to support their Church and their faith, they will actually be doing just the opposite.

They will be voting to destroy the legacy of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which allowed Catholics to fully participate in the politics of their nation, without that ugly "finger of suspicion" pointed at them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CClNXNeYBIw&t=7s

Recommended Votes in Hampton, NH: Live Sly or Die

The old tradition of town meetings in New Hampshire has been replaced by a curious practice called "warrant articles." 

With a population of 20,000, the town of Hampton can no longer simply gather its citizens together to consider questions important to the running of the town, like what the school budget, now close to $21 million, should be, or whether or not Mrs. Johnson should be allowed to plant her petunias on the far side of the sidewalk, on land belonging to the town, but in front of her yard. 

All these things get placed on "warrant articles" which fill well over 20 pages and which the average citizen has little insight about. Most people go to the high school cafeteria in early March are handed a thick packet and they mark off "yes" or "no" in the boxes at the bottom of the article guided by a rectangle which says, "Recommended by the School Board" or "Recommended by the Budget Committee." 

Just imagine if the New York Times reported that ballots for the Russian or for the Nigerian presidency contained a little rectangle just above the voting box which said, under Vladimir Putin's name, "Recommended by the Presidium" or simply, "Recommended."

What a cynical howl would arise from American throats if ballots contained such endorsements. 

"Sham elections!"

But in Hampton, New Hampshire, voters are told an article granting public funds to a church school has been recommended by both the School Board and the Budget Committee and then, once the votes are counted, everyone says, "Well, that's democracy. The voters voted for it!" 

Back and Forth and the Hampton Froth

Hampton, New Hampshire is a very civilized town. Citizens are not allowed to confront each other except according to very strict rules: During School Board meetings, members of the School Board may ask questions of members of the public, but members of the public are not allowed to ask questions of the School Board; same is true for Budget Committee meetings. 

No "Back and Forth!"

But back and forth is allowed at the "Deliberative Sessions" where warrant articles are discussed. The old town meetings are simply not practical in a town of 20,000, we are told, although fewer than 500 ever attend a deliberative session.

During, these exchanges, citizens are expected to keep their comments to below 3 minutes, so everyone can have a chance and nobody hogs the microphone.

The upcoming session to discuss the warrant article granting public funds to the Sacred Heart School promises to evoke a "to and fro among citizens." There is a moderator to be sure things don't get too testy, although in the past the moderator has also made sure one side doesn't prevail if it's the side he does not favor.

Here is an preview of what may happen this time:

Ms. Proforma:  Giving this small amount of money to the Sacred Heart School is all about the kids. This is a wonderful school, which teaches real values and we are sniping about the money when it's all about the kids! I have been in education for 20 years, and I'm there because it's all about the kids. That phrases has profound meaning for me, because, that's why I'm here!

Mr. Contrarian:  You know, I sort of feel insulted by that phrase--as if you are more about the kids than I am. My objection to this article has to do with its violation of the separation of church and state.

Ms. Proforma: Well, but it's all about the kids in the end. Do we fund this wonderful school for the kids, or not? It's all about the kids!

Mr. Contrarian: This reminds me of the man who lives next door to the woman who grows a fabulous flower garden. I mean, it's gorgeous: reds, purples, yellows. But, the problem is she uses a really pungent fertilizer to grow those flowers, and so the man walks over and says, "Love the flowers, but you know, the aroma just knocks me off my feet!"

And the woman responds: "But it's all about the flowers!"

You see, they are talking past one another.

Obadiah Youngblood

Ms. Profundo: People who talk about "separation of church and state" always say this article is about being constitutional, but those words "separation of church and state" are nowhere in the constitution. It's just not a thing!

Mr. Contrarian: This is true: those 5 words together do not appear in the Constitution. But this Constitution was written in the 18th century, when they used different words. And the very first words of the Bill of Rights, the First amendment, are, "Congress (i.e. government) shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." 

Now what could that mean? How can government establish religion? Well, the only 2 ways I know is to either simply declare an official religion--like the Church of England--or to give money to support religion, the way Germany does: if you register with your local Lutheran church, then 3% of your income tax goes to that church. This warrant article is like that--government funds, public funds, to a church.

Obadiah Youngblood

Ms. Proforma: Separation of church and state discriminates against religious schools.

Mr. Contrarian: Justice Alito would agree with you. He wrote that in his opinion about that case in Maine about the kids who lived in a part of the state so remote the only school within reach was a religious school, but the state refused to fund it because it was a religious school and taught evangelical Christianity--a violation of church and state. But Justice Alito said that is discriminating against religion. 

I agree with Justice Alito, it does discriminate. But I think that's a very good idea. We discriminate every day, as we make choices. Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing.  Discrimination on the basis of race can be bad, but discriminating about which institutions we support with public funds is essential. We can choose not to support a specific religion because we know that will protect all religions to thrive, not favor one.

If we did not do this, then religions looking for an audience could simply seek out under-served areas and grow there with government support, no matter how extreme their views might be.

Ms. Profundo: Well, but these public funds are not used for religious purposes by the school. And this school has more non Catholics than Catholics. And the religious teaching is pretty minimal.

Mr. Contrarian: The fact is we have no information about how much religious instruction occurs at the school or how the money is used. But we do know that you cannot separate the school from the church. The church would give up nearly everything else it does rather than lose its school because the school is necessary to continue the work of the church, to bring the next generation of Catholics into being. That is essential for the church, but we should not grant taxpayer funds to accomplish this.

Ms. Profundo:  But this is hardly a church school. It's more a private school.

Mr. Contrarian: A private school with crucifixes on the wall and most of its budget from the archdiocese of Manchester. You cannot say it's just "Catholic lite." 

In the state of Utah, a state heavily dominated by one church, the kids in the public schools, which receive public funds, leave the school building at noon, walk next door to have lunch and religious teaching at the Mormon church school, and  they return about 90 minutes later to have their public school classes. That is a way of guaranteeing separation of church and state. Hampton could learn from Utah. 

Sacred Heart School: Is it All About the Kids or All About the Cash?

 

Last night, the Budget Committee of the town of Hampton voted 4-3 to recommend the warrant article granting public funds to a religious school, Sacred Heart School.

The "recommendation" appears in bold letters at the bottom of the warrant article on the ballot. 

For those who are unfamiliar with town voting on warrant articles, in New Hampshire townspeople no longer go to town hall meetings--Hampton has 20,000 people--so they go to the high school one day in March and they are given a thick packet of warrant articles and a black pen and they work through the 20 pages of material and vote on the two articles they are actually interested in and then on all the others, just to feel like engaged citizens. 

But they know very little about the other articles and generally vote "yes" if the various town committees have recommended "yes."

In the case of the warrant article granting $50,000 to Sacred Heart School two separate bodies recommend for or against: The School Board and the Budget Committee.

The usual understanding is an article is "recommended" if a majority of the Board votes to recommend, but this year of 5 School Board members only 2 voted to recommend, and the rest abstained. Someone in power decided that was good enough and the warrant article will get its coveted "recommended by the School Board."

One of the favorite arguments for those in favor of the SHS article is, "It's all about the kids." That one particularly rankles the opposition, because it suggests that it's not about anything but the kids, that is is ONLY about the kids, and the opposition keeps saying, sure, it's about the kids--but it's not ONLY about the kids; the real issue is separation of church and state.

To hear the advocates for the SHS article keep repeating this insults the opposition because it implies if you're not for the article then you do not care about the kids.  

This insistence on the  "All About the Kids" clearly means the SHS crowd is simply not hearing, not listening to the objections. 

"Just show me the money"  seems to be the response.

No member of the School Board, other than Wendy Rega has actually ever said the words, "separation of church and state." It is as if the Chairperson, the Shepards, Frank DeLuca have never heard the opposition say those words. DeLuca actually asked why the member of the public opposed the article, as if the member had not just spent 3 minutes talking about separation of church and state. Willful deafness.

August Maake

Other deflated arguments have been that it saves the town money to send kids to SHS, which is cheaper than paying to educate them in the public schools, but with public schools having open seats and enrollment declining, with all that excess capacity, it saves no money to not keep those seats filled--the teachers, the facilities are already paid for; paying for SHS is now an add on.

Another favorite, which one of the Committee members used to explain his vote is, "We've always done it this way."

But, of course, that was the same argument used to argue for segregated schools in the South. The Constitution tells you what you cannot vote on and you cannot simply vote locally to ignore the basic law of the land.

"Local nullification" has been pretty well defunded since the Civil War.

Of course, with the current Supreme Court of the United States, it looks as if separation of church and state is now unconstitutional, but as far as New Hampshire goes, the state constitution is as explicit as it can be that funding religious schools with taxpayer money is not allowed. Chris Muns read the parts o the NH constitution and that much was clear. A lady who identifies herself as "Attorney" keeps raising the NH law 189.49 which seems to allow public funds for religious schools-- but it doesn't take 3 years of law school to know that the state constitution trumps any state law which violates it.

The problem with the constitutionality argument, of course, is what is deemed to be constitutional, no matter what the words of the constitution say, is nowadays only a matter of what any Supreme Court, state or federal says is constitutional. But that, of course, can change as the courts change in composition.

Then there is the argument that this warrant article simply reflects the will of the voters, an effort to show good will toward Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal church. This argument is put forth by people as if the Board and Committee recommendations never happen.

Of course, this "well, the voters like this" argument  has been said repeatedly at both the School Board meeting and the Budget Committee meeting; But if you really wanted to let the voters decide you would not recommend for or against but simply say nothing. But in saying you recommend it, obviously--Well, duh!--you are putting your thumb (or as one speaker said, an elephant) on the scale.

Obadiah Youngblood

And as Matthew Saunders, a member of the Committee said last night, "We, as the Budget Committee are not in the business of using taxpayer funds to express good will."

Below is an unedited video--the speakers are at the beginning and then you have to scroll to the end to hear the vote of the Committee.

https://reflect-hamptonnh.cablecast.tv/CablecastPublicSite/show/1617?site=1

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.