10/15/2026
Want to host one of these signs? they are available at both the Exeter Pappas office and the Portsmouth Dems office. Get yours today!
On November 3rd, Brentwood voters will do more than just elect our representatives to federal, state, and county offices (including the District 6 seat which I am hoping to continue serving in!). Perhaps the most important item on the ballot is also the most confusing – Question 2 regarding the adoption of a cap on our school’s ability to raise revenue. So why the confusion?
First, why is this question even on the ballot? Every district has long had the ability to put this type of question before voters (RSA 32:5-c). Only 6 have ever proposed this, and all 6 lost by large margins (a 60% super-majority vote would be required to pass it). Seeing that this measure was proving unpopular locally, the Republican majority in Concord passed HB 1300 to override local control of our schools and force every town to place a specifically worded question on the general election ballot (not even the normal school district ballot in March).
Second, the required language of the question is ill-defined, and combines multiple policy changes into a single ballot question. Most notably, it limits “growth for Brentwood School District (SAU #16) and Exeter Region Cooperative School District (SAU #16)” – those are two different entities. So, if Brentwood passes this question, but the SAU overall does not, we have a “split decision”, with the cap applying only to the Swasey elementary school district, but not to the larger costs of the Coop district. This is not an unlikely outcome given Brentwood’s voting history vs the SAU overall. Swasey school drives Brentwood’s property values. Swasey consistently has below-average costs and some of the best outcomes in the SAU and the state, but that could change quickly under such a scenario – along with the value of your largest asset, your home.
Third, the question also combines an overall revenue cap with a separate cap on “SAU central office spending” but defines this as a percentage of “school district appropriations”, leaving it unclear how shared administration is calculated. The underlying bill defines administrative costs very differently from a typical SAU budget.
Last, the question states, “These caps apply only to administrative operations of the SAU central office and do not affect classroom instruction [or] school-based services…” but that isn’t something that can be guaranteed. The cap applies to all revenue needs, and the district would need to determine how to address any shortfall, which may not come solely from administration.
We elect the school board members that build these budgets, and they pay the same taxes as everyone. We also vote on the budgets, so why is a cap needed? Our state contributes less to education costs than any other nationally. Yes, property taxes are rising too fast, but instead of addressing the structural issue of state underfunding of school costs, as mandated by the courts for decades, this question just makes it harder for districts to cover those costs.
Vote NO on Question 2. See you at the polls.
