Ovide Lamontagne, former chairman of the state board of education and a 1996 Gubernatorial candidate testified at trial that he was the primary author of the state's definition of adequacy and that the definition was developed solely for purposes of the Claremont litigation.

He stated that he believed he conferred with Governor Merrill's legal counsel, the Attorney General's office and a few personal from the state Department of Education when drafting the definition. There was no evidence the Governor was consulted.

The definition of educational adequacy that was adopted by the state board of education had the force and effect of an administrative rule, but it was not properly promulgated pursuant to the NH Administrative Procedure Act. In drafting and adopting the definition, Chairman Lamontagne testified he did not seek any input from members of the legislature, educators, school board members, parents or the public. Contrary to normal board procedure, no public hearing were held.

Given that the state's definition of educational adequacy was mostly written by lawyers, not educators, it is not surprising that more than half of the text of the definition was dedicated to the purpose of relieving the state of its responsibility to New Hampshire's school children.

The definition stated, "The appropriate means to provide an adequate education is through an integrated educational system of shared responsibility between state and local government." (emphasis added)

The state's definition created a bifurcated system of constitutional responsibility. It would allow the state to avoid responsibility for constitutional deficiencies in the education received by educable children by claiming that the deficiencies were caused by actions of the local school districts for which the state is not responsible.

The definition did not require the state to provide any appropriations to fund the cost of education, but merely required the state to establish a framework for the school districts to raise funds without state assistance despite the Supreme Court's Claremont I holding that the state must "guarantee adequate funding."

The state's definition of educational adequacy was not a substantive educational document. It was not developed to further the best interests of New Hampshire's school children, but rather to solely further the state's position in the litigation.

By contrast, the school districts, definition of educational adequacy was prepared by one of their education experts, Robert Fried, PhD. The definition establishes four cornerstones of Educational Adequacy.

1. The state must provide sufficient resources.

2. The state must recognize the specific conditions that children posses when they arrive at school, whether they are gifted or at risk.

3. The state must ensure that schools are managed efficiently.

4. Requires that students achieve reasonable educational goals.

Unlike the state's definition, the school districts' definition of adequacy did not divest the state of its ultimate responsibility to provide a constitutionally adequate education.