Three questions for the Democratic hopefuls for governor

Compiled by BILL CHAISSON

[email protected]
1.What are your plans for addressing the opioid epidemic in New Hampshire?

MOLLY KELLY: The devastating opioid epidemic is the biggest challenge our state faces. We need to help people suffering from substance misuse disorders to recover and rebuild their lives today; support the first responders on the front lines of the epidemic, and do more to help people avoid this illness in the first place. As Governor, I will: 

Ensure long-term stable funding so that we can grow and sustain the network of providers we need to help people get treatment and recover resources;

Expand the number of primary care providers with incentives and training to integrate treatment into primary health care;

Advocate for expanding medication-assisted treatment, including advocating for the federal government to lift the cap on the number of patients that providers can treat with certain medications;

Continue to expand access to treatment, including medically assisted treatment, within the corrections system;

Provide greater support for recovery housing and ongoing recovery support – a critical tool for helping people get back on their feet and into the workplace; and

Provide support for children – and their caregivers – who have been impacted by the opioid crisis to help them avoid suffering from substance misuse disorders and other long-term effects.

STEPHEN MARCHAND: Of course, the most effective way to address misuse, abuse, and addiction is to address the pipeline at its source – lowering initial use of opiates, especially by minors. Recently, penalties were increased for dealing such opiates, which I support. I also support the continued decrease in prescription limits for various Schedule II opiates, decreasing the chances of such opiates being available inside the homes of New Hampshire residents – and their children – for non-prescribed usage.

However, the long-run solution for opiate abuse and addiction must focus on education – not unlike the successful commitment made many years ago relating to tobacco products. We know that children as young as 10 years old are being taught how to administer Narcan in some school districts – one of the most dramatic statements of the magnitude of the challenge we face. It is my commitment to work with experts across New Hampshire to put prevention into the culture of our children and their families. This has come up repeatedly in my statewide travels, and as the father of two school-aged daughters, this is as much as a personal commitment as it is a public policy commitment.

It is not enough to simply provide a 28-day program focused on addressing the direct physical consequences of substance abuse. Experts with whom I have spoken see this as a multi-year, multi-faceted commitment: Physical, chemical, mental, emotional, economic, and interpersonal. There are innovative programs in New Hampshire and across the country focused on peer-to-peer physical rehabilitation, family counseling, and educational and job-training opportunities with local colleges and universities.

We cannot, as a community, expect victims of addiction to be dropped back into the same environment from which they came, and not see high levels of relapse. We can save lives, strengthen communities, improve our workforce, and cherish our quality of life – if we treat this issue as the crisis it is.

2. A group of communities is now gearing up to once again sue the state over inadequate aid to finance public schools. Should the state make changes to the way it contributes monetarily to public schools?

MOLLY KELLY: Education is the smartest investment we can make as a state. As Governor, I will work to ensure that children in every community, whether property-rich or property-poor, have access to a quality public school education. Public education is a core tenet of our democracy. That’s why I will veto any plan that takes money from our public schools to create a voucher program for private or religious schools. A voucher program would weaken public education and raise property taxes.

STEPHEN MARCHAND: While Gov. Sununu’s plans would increase the pressure on local property taxpayers to pay for schools, he ignores the reality that New Hampshire relies more on local property taxes to fund education than almost any state in America. This is widening the opportunity gap between rich and poor communities, discouraging towns from developing housing for younger families and modest incomes, and ends with some of the highest property taxes in America. I am committed to increasing the amount of state education funding per pupil to a figure that more accurately reflects the real cost of quality public education, as part of a package of reforms designed to focus dollars on educational outcomes and increase equality in educational opportunity.

3.Would you have vetoed SB 365 (the biomass bill) and/or SB 446 (net metering of solar energy production)? If not, why? Is so, why?

MOLLY KELLY: Chris Sununu is carrying out the agenda of Eversource, from which he has taken $50,000 in contributions, while all of us face higher electric bills. Eversource supported vetoing these two renewable energy bills. But the Governor’s rationale for vetoing these bills doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Renewable energy benefits ratepayers because it helps to defray costs imposed by the ISO for transmission of imported energy into the state. I would have signed SB 446 and SB 365. 

As a state senator, I worked to pass New Hampshire’s first group net metering legislation into law, propelling solar and hydropower growth. We must build on this success by expanding the group net metering cap from 1 megawatt to 5 megawatts. SB 446 would have spurred further locally-generated, renewable energy growth in our state, created jobs, saved money for cities and towns and lowered property taxes for residents and reduced electric rates. 

Further, Sunuu’s veto of SB 365 jeopardizes the livelihoods of hundreds of Granite Staters. I know what it’s like to struggle, so I would do everything possible to help hardworking people in our state. 

STEPHEN MARCHAND: I would have signed SB 365 & 446. Only 15% of New Hampshire’s energy comes from renewable sources, highlighting the enormous opportunity for growth. On solar, Gov. Sununu’s veto of SB446, which would expand NH’s net metering program, is an example of old thinking: Solar makes up one-half one percent of New Hampshire’s electricity; in Massachusetts and Vermont, it is approaching 10%. We should eliminate the cap on net metering. On the off-shore wind, New Hampshire is the only state on the east coast that has not requested a task force from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to study off-shore wind viability. On biomass, Gov. Sununu vetoed SB365, which threatens most of NH’s biomass plants. Not only does this threaten hundreds of jobs in our state, but it will reduce our home-grown capacity, and slow down our weaning off of gas. Done as part of responsible long-term forest management, the use of low-grade wood for biomass can provide positive environmental impact. In all these cases, the future of entrepreneurship, innovation, and a broad base of local, diverse, and sustainable energy require proactive, forceful leadership.