Ware deliberative session backs ordinance to cap open enrollment while state bills move
Loading...
Summary
Voters at the Ware School District deliberative session debated Article 2, which would designate the district as open-enrollment with 1% incoming and 0% outgoing to protect local budgets; the Ware Finance Committee recommended the article 10–0 and residents exchanged legal and fiscal concerns before debate closed.
The Ware School District’s deliberative session on Feb. 4 focused on Article 2, a warrant article that would designate the district for open enrollment while setting the incoming rate at 1% and the outgoing (sending) rate at 0%.
Board member Katie (presenting the article) told voters the proposal is intended to “keep control, protect our budget and taxpayers,” by letting the district set caps now while state legislation is unsettled. She explained that under current practice the sending district remains financially responsible for a large portion of the cost when a student leaves: "the sending district is responsible for paying 80% of the cost per pupil for that child," she said, using the district’s working per-pupil figure to illustrate the fiscal exposure.
The board’s presentation emphasized legal and financial uncertainty. Presenter Katie reviewed two bills then moving through the legislature — referred to during the session as Senate Bill 101 and HB751 — that could mandate universal open enrollment statewide and make local caps moot. "If these bills pass," she said, "this article no longer has any bearing," because state law would set the terms and the sending district could be required to pay between 80% and 100% of the cost-per-pupil.
The Ware Finance Committee, represented by chair Tom Flaherty, recommended the article unanimously (10–0), arguing it protects the district from unknown budget risks and helps preserve local control. Flaherty said the committee does not oppose open enrollment as a concept but supports the article’s limits to shield taxpayers.
Members of the public spoke both for and against the article. Janice Matthews said she opposed the measure and warned it could result in legal challenges and additional legal fees, noting recent New Hampshire Supreme Court rulings on open enrollment. In response, school attorney Barbara Loffman clarified the court’s ruling in the Pittsfield matter, saying that when a district adopts the open-enrollment statute it may impose limits on the number of students who can leave or enter: "If you have adopted the statute, you can impose the limit," she said, and noted that Prospect Mountain designated 0 for outgoing students and that designation had not been successfully challenged.
Speakers raised budget scenarios: the board’s slides estimated that a 1% receiving cap could bring in revenue in some cases but that higher sending caps could create material liability (examples cited included roughly $131,360 liability for a 1% sending rate and up to several hundred thousand dollars at higher rates, depending on the number of students and their cost-per-pupil). The board also noted that special education costs generally remain the sending district’s responsibility and can be unpredictable.
The session did not record a final ballot vote on Article 2; the deliberative body debated and closed discussion according to the moderator’s rules so the article will appear on the official ballot for voters on March 10, 2026.
What happens next: the article will appear on the official ballot on March 10, and the board encouraged residents to monitor the state legislature for SB101/HB751 developments that could supersede local action.
