Wednesday, February 22, 2012

#HB1342 bill text attached--motion that each section to be voted individually #nhhouse

HB 1342-FN – AS INTRODUCED

2012 SESSION

12-2097

10/01

HOUSE BILL 1342-FN

AN ACT prohibiting state and local governments from using funds to employ a lobbyist.

SPONSORS: Rep. Vaillancourt, Hills 15; Rep. Hoell, Merr 13

COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits state departments, towns, and, cities from expending funds for the purpose of employing a person as a lobbyist.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

12-2097

10/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

AN ACT prohibiting state and local governments from using funds to employ a lobbyist.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Budget and Appropriations; Departments; Lobbying Prohibited. Amend RSA 9 by inserting after section 28 the following new section:

9:29 Lobbying Prohibited. A department, as defined in RSA 9:1, may not use state funds to employ, as a regular full-time or part-time or contract employee, a person who is required to register as a lobbyist under RSA 15. A department may not use state funds to pay, on behalf of the department or an officer or employee of the department, membership dues to an organization that pays part or all of the salary of a person who is required to register as a lobbyist under RSA 15.

2 Powers of Towns; Lobbying Prohibited. Amend RSA 31:9 to read as follows:

31:9 Legislative Counsel; Lobbying Prohibited.

I. Towns may at any legal meeting authorize the employment by the selectmen of counsel in legislative matters in which the town is directly or indirectly interested, or may ratify the previous employment by the selectmen of such counsel and may grant and vote money therefor.

II. Towns shall not appropriate or authorize the expenditure of any tax revenues to employ, as a regular full-time or part-time or contract employee, a person who is required to register as a lobbyist under RSA 15, or to pay, on behalf of the town or an officer or employee of the town, membership dues to an organization that pays part or all of the salary of a person who is required to register as a lobbyist under RSA 15.

3 New Section; Powers of Cites; Lobbying Prohibited. Amend RSA 47 by inserting after section 1-c the following new section:

47:1-d Lobbying Prohibited. A city shall not appropriate or authorize the expenditure of any tax revenues to employ, as a regular full-time or part-time or contract employee, a person who is required to register as a lobbyist under RSA 15, or to pay, on behalf of the city or an officer or employee of the city, membership dues to an organization that pays part or all of the salary of a person who is required to register as a lobbyist under RSA 15.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

LBAO

12-2097

11/09/11

HB 1342-FN - FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT prohibiting state and local governments from using funds to employ a lobbyist.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The New Hampshire Municipal Association states this bill will have an indeterminable impact on local expenditures in FY 2012 and each year thereafter. There will be no impact on state, county, and local revenues, or state and county expenditures.

METHODOLOGY:

The New Hampshire Municipal Association states this bill prohibits cities and towns from expending tax revenue to employ a lobbyist or pay membership dues to an organization that pays part, or all, of the salary of a lobbyist. The Association states all municipalities currently pay compensation, in one form or another, to one or more lobbyists or organizations that employ lobbyists and depending on the interpretation of this bill, some of those arrangements may be prohibited. The Association states this bill may lead to an indeterminable decrease in local expenditures in the short-term, but is uncertain as to the long-term fiscal impact this bill may have on municipalities.

The Department of Administrative Services states this bill will have no impact on state revenues or expenditures.

#HB1342 Motion to divide into 3. #nhhouse

HB 1342-FN, prohibiting state and local governments from using funds to employ a lobbyist. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Betsey L Patten for the Majority of Municipal and County Government: The General Court receives its information in many ways. The unbiased and non-partisan information is received from our legislative research staff – either through legislative services or from our research assistants. All other information we receive comes from lobbyists or individuals with a specific cause and agenda. Both the House and Senate members file legislation each year on many issues – for example, exemptions or credits for disabled persons and veterans, mosquito control, trees and roadside growth, charter changes for local governments, SB2 issues, town clerk duties and responsibilities, tax collection, assessment of property, fire and police issues, manufactured housing parks, merger of lots or parcels, private property rights, public cemeteries, municipal and state budget processes, county corrections, water rights, libraries, licensing and permit requirement. These issues and many more touch each one of our citizens and all the officials of the state, towns and cities. In order for us, the members of the House, to get information stating each viewpoint would we now expect our officials and employees to travel to Concord to testify on each issue or are we advocating that the state and municipal voices be no longer heard? The committee voted to allow public money to be used so that all voices will be heard. Vote 12-2.

Rep. John A Burt for the Minority of Municipal and County Government: The minority believes that lobbying is an honorable profession and lobbyists supply much useful information. That is entirely proper when lobbyists are paid by private businesses which have something to gain (or lose) with the legislation in question. However, the minority is convinced that taxpayer money should not be used for lobbying purposes, especially since such monies often go against the wishes of those paying the taxes. It's kind of like public funding of campaigns when your money is taken to support candidates who could be diametrically opposed to your views. This bill would prevent taxpayer money from going to those who lobby either us or any others in decision making positions. While some would try to complicate this bill by claiming it's a denial of free speech, it's really a simply bill. Exercise all the free speech you want, just don't ask taxpayers to pay for your "free" speech.

#HB1279 voting rights of certain budget committee members KILLED 227 to 84 #nhhouse

HB 1279-L, relative to voting rights of certain budget committee members. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. James E Coffey for the Majority of Municipal and County Government: This bill significantly alters the character of the budget committees in municipal budget act towns by changing the representatives to the committee from the governing body, a school district wholly within the town and a village district wholly within the town from voting to non-voting members. This proposed change seems to assume that the members associated with the other boards would form a voting block that would work against the goals of the budget committee. In many towns only the selectmen have a voting representative. The members of the three boards, that could furnish a representative, often have diverse interests from each other and do not always represent a “stacking” of the board. What they can bring to a budget committee is better understanding of their boards needs and goals which should be used to produce a constructive consensus. Having a board member toil on a committee assigned to accomplish a difficult task of assembling a good budget without a voting voice in the outcome would be detrimental to budgeting process. It is the opinion of a bi-partisan majority of the committee that problems with local budget committees should be resolved at the local level and not by a global fix that would have negative unintended consequences in the many communities where the present process works well. Vote 11-3.

Rep. John A Burt for the Minority of Municipal and County Government: This bill is intended to unify the provisions of RSA 32 and RSA 669:7 which read in part; “No selectman, town manager, school board member, full-time town, village district, school district or other associated agency employee or village district commissioner shall at the same time serve as a budget committee member-at-large under RSA 32.” At-large members are elected to serve in their positions. However, some members are appointed from the town selectmen and school board membership and have full voting rights on the budget committee; a position they were not, and cannot be elected to. This bill would make those positions advisory only and not allow them to continue to exercise two votes on town matters; one each in two incompatible positions.

#HB1662 relative to preparation of fiscal notes--PASSES by voice vote #nhhouse

HB 1662-FN, relative to preparation of fiscal notes. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. J. Michael Ball for the Majority of Legislative Administration: This bill will add an additional requirement to describe the costs and benefits of state spending on our citizens and their businesses. This extra layer of explanation to our taxpayers will serve to reaffirm the state’s responsibility to act as a good steward of our financial resources. Each and every expenditure should be properly explained to those who foot the bill. The taxpayers deserve to know that their hard earned dollars are spent in a thoughtful manner on programs and departments that serve the public. Vote 7-4.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner for the Minority of Legislative Administration: The bill requires that departments when preparing fiscal notes include information on the cost and benefits to citizens and businesses. Fiscal notes are already complex and time consuming to prepare, this bill will require an enormous amount of additional work for the departments. Determining the cost and benefits to businesses and citizens will take much additional time and expertise. The bill will greatly increase the workload on our departments and slow down the fiscal note process. The benefits of a bill are the sponsors responsibility to prove.

#HB1422 applicability of foreign law in cases before NH courts PASSES by voice vote #nhhouse

HB 1422, relative to the applicability of foreign law in cases before New Hampshire courts. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Gregory M. Sorg for the Majority of Judiciary: This bill, as amended, is a preventative measure. It anticipates and is intended to protect against future attempts to apply foreign or international law in the determination of any case or controversy before any tribunal of the state of New Hampshire where such application would supersede or take precedence over the constitution, laws, and public policy of New Hampshire. It provides an exception from this prohibition in cases where the parties before the tribunal have previously agreed in writing to be governed by foreign or international law. Vote 7-3.

Rep. Lucy M. Weber for the Minority of Judiciary: Proponents of this bill argue it is necessary to prevent the courts in the state of New Hampshire applying the law of a foreign country in such a way as to deprive citizens of New Hampshire their rights under the constitutions of New Hampshire and the United States. Members of the minority are bemused by this argument, because the New Hampshire and United States constitutions, and under them, the statutes enacted by this legislature, are already the controlling law in this state. No one has furnished an instance in which a New Hampshire court has applied foreign law in defiance of either constitution. Vague references were made to the problem having occurred elsewhere in the country, but no actual cites were ever presented. The majority argues it is good to have this law on the books on the off-chance that such a case may arise in the future. The minority believes this is a true case of a solution in search of a problem, and would urge that we not clutter the statute books with unneeded legislation.

Motion for reconsideration on #HB1197. It fails which ensures it does not come back to the #nhhouse

#HB1368 Motion to Table: PASSES 270 to 36 #nhhouse

HB 1368, relative to real property held as a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.

Rep. Kathleen F. Souza for Judiciary: This bill addresses a glitch in state title law. The committee heard testimony from intended heirs who did not indeed inherit property under current joint tenancy law. This bill ensures that if one joint tenant with right of survivorship decides to sever the joint tenancy, then the other joint tenant(s) must be informed. The committee amendment strengthens the protection of all parties by insisting that all parties not only be informed of proposed changes, as called for in the original bill, but that there is a record of their consent to the action. Vote 16-1.

Press Release: House Democrats Condemn Passage of Resolution that Discriminates Against Women’s Health Care Needs #nhhouse

House Democrats Condemn Passage of Resolution that Discriminates

Against Women’s Health Care Needs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Eileen Kelly

February 22, 2012 603-271-2136

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE – Representative Terie Norelli, House Democratic Leader, and Representative Sandra Keans, a co-sponsor on legislation from 1999 that enacted a policy in New Hampshire requiring insurance companies that cover prescriptions to also provide coverage for contraception, issued the following statements regarding the passage of HR 29.

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does not violate any citizen’s basic right to religious freedom. Churches are exempt and insurance companies, not the organization affiliated with a church, will be required to pay for birth control costs. No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception,” stated Representative Terie Norelli.

“The reality is that in the United States, birth control use is widely accepted and contraceptive drugs are commonly prescribed for other health reasons. Do not let anyone fool you! This is about birth control and nothing else. It is about allowing women to make the decisions that are right for themselves and their families.”

“This Resolution, while it is couched in constitutional clothes, is nothing less than an attack on basic health care - not just women’s health care - but also an attack on family health care,” said Representative Sandra Keans. “It suggests we as politicians can make better health decisions for individuals and families than they can themselves with their doctors.”

“The story is the same today as it was in 1999 when I co-sponsored legislation to provide this same coverage. It was the right thing to provide for family care then; it is the right thing to do today. It was not a partisan issue then. It should not be a partisan issue today,” stated Keans.

X X X

Great #DurhamNH site for sustainability info. Check out: http://www.sustainable-durham.info/

#HB1196 requiring HHS commissioner to apply for a state plan waiver. KILLED 180 to 160

HB 1197-FN, requiring the commissioner of the department of health and human services to apply for a state plan waiver. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Laurie Harding for the Majority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs: The slim bipartisan majority of the Health and Human Service Committee who voted ITL on HB 1197-FN did so because they wanted to avoid placing additional tax burden on the property taxpayers or private payers in nursing homes. The Medicaid Quality Incentive Program (MQIP) was created by the legislature in 2003 and 2004 at the urging of the Republican leadership to bring in additional federal money for nursing home Medicaid reimbursement. This additional federal money was and remains indispensable to the nursing homes, given shrinking state budgets. Funds raised through the MQIP are matched with federal funds and returned to nursing homes. HB 1197 requires that DHHS apply to the federal government to exempt Continuing Care Residential Communities (CCRCs) from the MQIP tax base because the residents of CCRCs generally do not end up on Medicaid and therefore do not benefit from the MQIP tax. However, the inclusion of the CCRCs was thoroughly vetted by the legislature in 2004. Moreover, if CCRCs are now removed from the MQIP, this would reduce the federal funds which are derived from the MQIP, which would bring about two types of tax increases. First, county nursing homes would see reduced MQIP revenues, county property taxes would have to be increased to fill the hole. Second, this would lead to an increase in the so-called “hidden tax” on private payers in county and private nursing homes. These are people who, like the residents of CCRCs, are not on Medicaid. They have saved so that they can pay for their own care. But since nursing homes are receiving less and less funding from the state to cover just a portion of the costs of the state’s Medicaid residents in nursing homes, the private pay residents in nursing homes end up paying a rate that is higher ($238/day) than the costs of care ($180/day), in order to subsidize the costs of the Medicaid residents ($140/day). Furthermore, last spring, the state budget diverted 25 percent of MQIP funds away from nursing homes to the general fund. This was in addition to the loss of millions of dollars in MQIP ARRA funding. Vote 8-7.

Rep. Frank R Kotowski for the Minority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs: The minority vote supports the contention that residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities have been, and continue to be taxed unfairly. Discriminatory taxation for choosing to spare their family and the state of New Hampshire the expense for their elder care needs is inexcusable. Residents of these C.C.R.C. facilities who have the means, and who prudently planned to fund their own future care by entering into a contract for such care to the end of their lives deserve to have the legislature intervene on their behalf. The minority position requests that this legislature vote down the majority report and vote OTP. Doing so would direct the Department of H.H.S. & E.A. to request a federal waiver of the state plan which, upon approval, would relieve those residents from taxation in the future.

Parents in Seacoast NH: Discussion of Special Education In Your District/School

“Strategies for Increasing the Response Rate to

the NH Department of Education’s

Parent Involvement Survey in Special Education

In Your District/School”

Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 3:30 – 5:30 pm

Hosted by Seabrook School District

This discussion will provide you with an opportunity to learn new information about the annual statewide Parent Involvement Survey and how the results matter to family-school partnerships in special education. Come to connect with others, share perspectives, and generate new ideas. Leave with concrete ideas that make a difference for your school!

To learn more about how NH Connections can support you in strengthening family-school partnerships in special education, please check out the website, www.nhconnections.org, or contact:

Pam Miller Sallet

Seacoast Region Facilitator

(603-772-7848) or pms88@comcast.net.

Join us for this important conversation and bring a friend!

To register, please call 224-7005 or email frontdesk@picnh.org.

If you require special accommodations, please let us know.

Durham's newest apartments are designated workforce housing. Check it out: www.durhamworkforcehousing.com #durhamNH

Check this out #Durham residents: Button Up! Durham NH: Weatherization Workshop 101 and 201

Button Up! Durham NH: Weatherization Workshop 101 and 201

Posted on January 27, 2012 by admin

Please join us for an evening of sound energy advice, hands on experience, with refreshments as we all learn the fundamentals of “buttoning up” our homes and making our region more sustainable and resilient.

Refreshments provided by Breaking New Grounds (Durham) and The Bagelry. We are grateful for their generosity and commitment to sustainability.

Workshop Date

Thursday, February 23rd*, 2012
* Snow Date: Tuesday, March 6^th.

Location

Multipurpose Room, Oyster River High School, Coe Drive Durham NH 03824
(Google Maps: http://bit.ly/zTdWFn)

Preregistration

To help us plan refreshments and seating, please pre-register. Pre-registered guests will be entered in a drawing for weatherization related door prizes!

buttonupdurham.eventbrite.com

Overview

The evening will start with Button Up 101 workshop covering more basic concepts. Then we will break for 30 minutes of light refreshments, mingling, and information displays. Local energy experts, renewable energy installers, and residents with energy efficiency experience will have nametags and be available for questions and discussion. Residents interested in the 201 workshop’s more advanced topics will then reassemble (with new audience members just arriving for the more advanced part) and enjoy a more in depth and hands on look at weatherization techniques.

#HB1503 relative to motorcycle rider education. "If it an't broke..." KILLED 230 to 117

HB 1503-FN, relative to motorcycle rider education. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Sherman A Packard for Transportation: The state motorcycle education program has been in existence since 1990. It was started by the motorcycling community for the new motorcycle riders who had no place to go to learn the proper and safe way to operate a motorcycle. To fund this program, a dollar was added to the registration fee of motorcycles only, and five dollars was added to the renewal of a motorcycle license. To start the program, New Hampshire Motorcyclists Rights Organization contributed about $30,000 to the state for instructor training and other expenses until money started coming in from registration and licensing fees. Over the years the state program has trained over 44,000 people. This training has proven to save lives and prevent accidents. Because of the enormous start up costs involved in rider education, no private entity did so until the early 2000’s. The motorcycling community pushed to have these alternative entities available. Currently the cost to a student in the state program is $110.00. The cost of the non-state program runs between $220.00 and $349.00. If the state program were to be discontinued, many people would have difficulty with the added expense and probably not take the course. This would no doubt cause an increase of inexperienced riders on the road, causing an increase in accidents and fatalities. This program is a voluntary program and no motorcyclist voiced a concern about paying an extra two dollars a year to help keep the riders safe. This program is completely self-funded by motorcyclists only. The committee asks that you listen to the vast majority of over 100,000 licensed motorcyclists in New Hampshire and support ITL. Vote 14-0.

#HB1693, relative to motor vehicle inspections KILLED 238 to 110 #nhhouse

HB 1693-FN, relative to motor vehicle inspections. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Lisa E Scontsas for Transportation: The committee has once again exhaustively reviewed the issue of changing New Hampshire’s vehicle safety inspection program. HB 1693 is dangerous public policy for New Hampshire. It would increase the risks of accidents and injuries and decrease the safety of our public roadways. Vehicles in our state fail their annual safety inspection at a rate of 20% or greater. All of our neighboring states (Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New York) conduct annual vehicle safety inspections. Due to our climate and road conditions, annual inspections are right for NH as well. The most recent state study (PA) on the issue concluded that “nationally, vehicle safety inspection programs appear to be a significant factor in lowering fatal crashes.” The committee heard testimony that the bill will double sticker costs, raise inspection costs, and undoubtedly raise vehicle repair costs. We are all aware that preventative maintenance such as an annual inspection or a doctor’s physical save on long term costs. We heard testimony that the bill could put NH in a status of non-compliance with our Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan and put at risk an estimated $300 million of federal highway funds. There is very little public backlash against the current system. The committee heard from no one in favor of the bill other than the prime sponsor, but a great deal of vocal opposition. The NH inspection program is a free-market based system that works and benefits our citizens and public safety. A majority of the committee, by a vote of 12-1, recommends to ITL this bill that will have a negative impact on public safety and our constituents. Vote 12-1.

#HB1442, relative to motorcycle noise emission regulation PASSES 261 to 80 #nhhouse

HB 1442, relative to motorcycle noise emission regulation. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.

Rep. Sherman A Packard for Transportation: Realizing from both inside and outside of the motorcycling community that some motorcyclists believe excessive noise is alright, they are wrong. It is time to change our motorcycle statute to provide relief from excessive exhaust noise. After working for many months with the department of safety, state police, police chiefs from N. Hampton and Rye, NH, motorcyclists rights organization, NH auto dealers association, motorcycle dealers, American motorcycle association the group decided that the bill as written would not solve the problem. Instead, all agreed that the state should adopt a new roadside testing procedure that was recently developed by SAE International. This standard is J2825 (measurement of exhaust sound pressure levels of stationary on-highway motorcycles.) Our current testing procedure that was implemented in 1993 was originally developed for off road motorcycles, but this was the only test available. The bill as originally written would require police to test a motorcycle the way a manufacturer does the test. At 50 feet, a motorcycle would drive by at 35 mph numerous times to establish the decibel level. The new J2825 test would allow a police officer to test a motorcycle while it is idling, with either the rider sitting on the bike or the bike on the kickstand. The amendment replaces the original bill with the J2825 testing procedure. Unlike the original bill J2825 allows police to ticket out of state motorcycles who violate our noise laws. The amendment has almost universal supported by the parties involved and all previously mentioned groups. This amendment is business, motorcycle and law enforcement friendly and gets to the heart of the problem. This amendment identifies the small number of motorcyclists who have no respect for other people’s rights. Support the committee 14-1 vote to pass HB 1442 as amended. Vote 14-1.

#HR29 contraceptives fight-ROLLCALL PASSES 227 to 121. I voted NO for so many reasons #nhhouse

#HR29 contraceptives fight-insurace pays, not church #duh #nhhouse

Public health over private profit--contraception fight is a #redherring

Where are the jobs #NHGOP? Why are we wasting time on a resolution that is not binding and attacks women's health? #disingenious #hypocracy

#HR29 asking FED to rescind rule requiring health plans to provide sterilizations/contraceptives #nhhouse

HR 29, urging the United States Department of Health and Human Services to rescind its rule requiring health plans to provide sterilizations and contraceptives. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Steven L Cunningham for the Majority of State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs: The committee agrees with the resolution’s sponsors that the Affordable Care Act of 2010’s policies force religious groups to not-so-indirectly pay for medical procedures that these groups find TO BE AN anathema. The committee also agrees that our federal government thus negates basic religious tenets and that this negation is disturbing, abhorrent and unconstitutional. Although HR 29 is merely a resolution, it does allow the New Hampshire House of Representatives to speak out against an overt attack on basic religious freedoms. Testimony assured us that reproductive services are readily available to all women, often at little or no cost, through various not-for-profit organizations. Vote 13-5.

Rep. Dale S Spainhower for the Minority of State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs: The minority of the committee believes that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) does not violate any citizen’s basic right to religious freedom. The federal policy requires that employees of religion-affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, have access to birth control coverage. Churches are exempt from the requirement. Insurance companies, not the organization affiliated with a church, will be required to pay for birth control costs. No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception. New Hampshire law, as in 28 other states, currently requires insurance companies that cover prescriptions in health care plans to also provide coverage for contraceptives. In the United States, birth control use is widely accepted, including among Catholic women. An April 2011 Guttmacher survey found that 99 percent of all women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, who are sexually active, have used birth control. Drugs that cause abortions are not covered by the policy. Contraceptive drugs are commonly prescribed for other health reasons including: hormonal imbalance, helping to reduce some types of cancer, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, uterine fibroid tumors, abnormal bleeding, and serious infections. Religious freedom also includes employee freedom to choose their own religious values without interference from their employers. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is following a sound public health policy, one that makes contraceptives more affordable and reflects the requirements of the majority of American women and their families, regardless of their religious affiliation.

#nh1339 KILLED #nhhouse

#HB1339 prohibiting agreements to limit or reserve access to hunting, fishing, and trapping on private land #nhhouse

HB 1339, prohibiting agreements to limit or reserve access to hunting, fishing, and trapping on private land. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Joe Duarte for the Majority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources: Public Trust Doctrine is principle of common law that establishes who owns and manages wildlife including game animals it is the core principle of the north American Model of Wildlife Management. The Public Trust Doctrine is based on three principles. State holds wildlife in trust for all the people. The state has affirmative duty to fulfill the responsibilities created by this trust. The state has no power to abrogate its trust over wildlife by transferring ownership or management of wildlife to private concern of individuals. This bill would prevent giving exclusive right to hunt for payment and excludes others who have the right to hunt while protecting property rights by placing the penalty on the licensee. Vote 8-4.

Rep. Norman A Tregenza for the Minority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources: The minority is sympathetic to the bills intent of prohibiting transactions for game, which belong to the citizens of New Hampshire even if they run onto private property. There is, however, a concern by the minority of infringement upon private property rights. The right to control access to one’s land is a fundamental right of property ownership. We believe it is unwise to permit government to intrude itself into private contract.

#HB1332 authority of fish & game officers to do field checks (1935 law) ROLLCALL to PASS PASSES 181 to 165 #nhhouse #badnews

#HB1332 authority of fish & game officers to do field checks (1935 law) ROLLCALL FAILS 174 to 171 #nhhouse #unfortunate

#HB1332, relative to law enforcement authority of fish & game officers

HB 1332, relative to the law enforcement authority of fish and game conservation officers. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Lyle E Bulis for the Majority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources: This bill changes the law enforcement authority of conservation officers under RSA 206:26 by changing “reasonable cause” for stopping and searching. Existing law permits a conservation officer to stop and search, with reasonable cause, without a warrant for wildlife, or any illegal apparatus subject to forfeiture which may be concealed. It also changes the wording for such searches for marine species. The fish and game department, law enforcement, and members of the public argued that this change would make enforcement of fish and game laws all but impossible. Opponents argued that “probable cause” is the constitutional standard, but “reasonable cause” is also a constitutional standard, as demonstrated in case law, and in Black’s Law Dictionary. Moreover, reasonable cause is the standard for fish and game law enforcement in several other states. Law enforcement testified that officers scrupulously follow procedures to attain warrants when deemed necessary and to protect citizen’s rights. It is in the state’s interest in protecting and preserving the wildlife of this state for the benefit of current and future generations. Rules on the number, size and species of fish and game that may be taken would be impossible to enforce if a conservation officer could not stop and inspect all fish and game that have been caught by only those anglers and hunters who the officer has reasonable cause to believe may have violated fish and game laws. Searches and stops can only be conducted briefly and are strictly limited in scope. A search into locked containers, homes, curtilidge areas or other areas where people have a greater expectation of privacy must only be conducted after probable cause has been developed and a search warrant issued. This statute has been in effect since 1935 without challenge on constitutional grounds. Vote 10-4.

Rep. Marc D Tremblay for the Minority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources: The minority strongly believes that this is a fourth amendment issue. During executive session testimony was brought forth that the definition of probable cause from Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged sixth edition is the same as reasonable cause. If this is so, why would we not for consistency, change the word reasonable cause to probable cause and vote OTP.

#HB1219, definition of wildlife ROLLCALL PASSES 241 to 100 #nhhouse

#HB1219, definition of wildlife for purposes of regulation by fish & game #nhhouse

HB 1219, relative to the definition of wildlife for purposes of regulation by the fish and game department. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. David H Watters for the Majority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources: This bill would remove the term wildlife from the regulation of certain livestock in agricultural operations. It would have the effect of removing regulatory authority of the fish and game department over such animals as elk and red deer. The department and the fish and game commission believe this is a first step towards legalizing the taking of game in propagation facilities which could promote importation of TB and chronic waste disease and negatively effect public perception regarding fair chase. The bill also would repeal licensing requirements for venison wholesalers and repeal recordkeeping and documentation of venison sale. For these reasons the committee opposed the bill. Vote 12-2.

Rep. Richard Okerman for the Minority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources: The minority of the committee felt that this proposal should pass. The “problems” that were stated as objections we could already have as one of the largest game preserve in the US is located in New Hampshire Corburn Park and is a “private” facility that has been here since the late 1800’s. This bill does not create any new laws only recognizes definition of wildlife between fish and game agency and New Hampshire department of agriculture as well as the endangered species act. This proposal could help credit some jobs in agriculture as well as generate some income on the farm.

#HB1572 KILLED-establishing a commission to study the labeling of genetically modified foods #nhhouse

HB 1572, establishing a commission to study the labeling of genetically modified foods. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Stephen J Palmer for the Majority of Environment and Agriculture: Discussion concluded that labeling of product containing GMO’s would be impractical. At what level of product would we not have to label. The committee decided that more information and study is required to make an accurate decision. Vote 12-1.

Rep. Suzanne J Smith for the Minority of Environment and Agriculture: The minority believes that there are many unanswered questions pertaining to genetic engineering or modification (GE/GM) of food crops. An Environment and Agriculture Committee study two years ago, focused on the labeling of seeds – not food products. At the public hearing we learned that over 90 percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn grown come from genetically engineered or genetically modified (GE/GM) seeds. Twelve percent of zucchini grown in this country is GE/GM. One of our major trading partners, China, grows and distributes GE/GM sweet peppers. Consumers in New Hampshire deserve to know whether produce and food products they are buying come from GE/GM sources. Nearly 50 countries including the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea require mandatory labeling of products containing genetically engineered ingredients. GE plants are genetically modified using recombinant DNA methods of breeding. This leads to many unanswered questions. The FDA approves voluntary labeling, but is this enough? Therefore, the minority believes that a study committee is the first step towards better, more accurate labeling of our food products made here in New Hampshire.

#HB1164 KILLED-requiring documentation of qualifications for presidential candidates #nhhouse

HB 1164, requiring documentation of qualifications for presidential candidates. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. William B Smith for Election Law: Although the goal of this bill is worthy, the timing of its introduction would be better suited to be outside the presidential election cycle, so the policy consideration at issue could be considered apart from any connection to the question of President Obama’s qualification for office. Vote 14-3.

#HB1301 relative to challenging votes--rollcall passes 212 to 129 #nhhouse

#HB1301 relative to challenging votes--Republicans are split #nhhouse

HB 1301, relative to challenges to voters. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Dino A Scala for the Majority of Election Law: The majority feel that HB 1301 removes an unnecessary step to the process of challenging a voter. Although we all believe the right to vote is and will continue to be held to the highest standard of fairness, a right to challenge a voter should remain valid and to a degree unencumbering to the

challenger. The majority feels removing the paperwork of a challenge voter affidavit will not increase the amount of unwanted challenges because the moderator has the final authority in all challenges. The system of challenges has worked for many years with the affidavit. The majority feels it is time to remove this unnecessary requirement. Vote 10-6.

Rep. Kathleen M Hoelzel for the Minority of Election Law: This bill would eliminate the explicit requirements that a challenger to a voter must state a reason for the charge that a voter should not be allowed to vote, that the challenger must have evidence to back up his allegation. Instead, it requires the voter to disprove the allegation, and that challenge be in writing. This turns the law on it head. The minority believes that someone who wishes to take away someone else’s most fundamental right to vote should be held to the highest standard, not the lowest. The minority felt strongly that eliminating the written challenge requirement leaves town moderators at real risk of legal action because the moderator cannot require documentation of the challenge. Without a written record of the challenge, the moderator would have no means to defend him or herself against a claim that he or she had done something wrong. But, most importantly, the deputy secretary of state testified that the bill creates an opportunity for mass, indiscriminate challenges that could have the effect of disenfranchising our fellow citizens’ fundamental right to vote. This legislature is duty-bound to protect the right to vote, not create opportunities for taking it away.

#nhhouse started early this morning-9am

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

#HB1689 tax of Pease development authority property #NHhouse #NHpolitics

HB 1689-FN, relative to taxation of Pease development authority property. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. John A Burt for the Majority of Municipal and County Government: The intent of this bill was to cancel a section of HB 2 which reiterated that the hangars at the Skyhaven Airport in Rochester NH were exempt from property taxes by the City of Rochester. The aforementioned section was not the only law that protected these properties from taxation but was a belt-and-suspenders assurance because of attempts by the city to assess taxes. The City of Rochester has been offered the airport for over twenty years by the state. The city kept holding out for the state to make greater investments so that the revenue from hangar rents and fuel sales would pay for the operation of the airport. It has always been a close thing whether the revenue would support the operation. The city knew this and that was why it kept stalling on the take-over. The state finally gave up on the city ever taking the airport over, and it was assigned to the Pease Development Authority with the hope that if the revenues did not support the costs, the PDA could afford the costs. It appears that the city now feels that if there is a new group that can cover the costs, that they can now take advantage of that, and tax the airport without fear of losing this valuable community asset. This is short sighted and hostile to the state maintaining its network of airports. The city could have owned the airport for nothing but did not want the risk. The city's reluctance to take on the responsibility should not now be rewarded by removing the tax exemption that has been in effect since the hangars were built. Vote 7-6.

Rep. Kris E Roberts for the Minority of Municipal and County Government: This bill is an attempt to repeal an earmark that was inserted in HB 2, Chapter 224, Laws of 2011 which resulted in very few people having the opportunity to vote up or down based on its merits. As a result of the passage of HB 2 the Pease Development Authority was granted a special tax exemption which gave it an unfair advantage over other publicly own airports in the state. The Keene airport, which is located in Swanzey, owns aircraft hangers which were built with public funds and leased out to private aircraft owners which pay their lease payment to the City ofKeene and property tax to the town of Swanzey. Since the cost of hanger rent is a major factor where pilots base their aircraft, HB 1689-FN would provide the Pease Development Authority a two-fold unfair economic advantage over other airports required by law to charge property tax while ensuring that Pease Development Authority would have greater access to the local share of the aircraft registration fees. Furthermore the earmark granting Pease Development Authority the authority to not charge property tax on public property or land leased to non-government agencies or private individuals creates a separate class of citizens in New Hampshire which could result in numerous court challenges. The committee was told that the financial viability of the airport is totally dependent on its ability to lease out the hangers with the agreement that the renters would be exempt from local property taxes. If the financial future of the airport is based on a small number of privately owned aircraft, is that really a risk that the state of New Hampshire willing to take?

#HB1294 relative to applications for abatement of property taxes PASSES by voice vote #NHhouse #NHpolitics

HB 1294, relative to applications for abatement of property taxes. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.

Rep. John A Burt for Municipal and County Government: This bill makes some simple changes to make the process easier for taxpayers to apply for a property tax abatement, either themselves or through a representative. The amendment allows a guardian or heir to apply for an abatement if the property owner of record is incapacitated or recently deceased. Vote 15-2.

#HB1271 governing hawkers and peddlers KILLED 191 to 128 #NHhouse #NHpolitics

Rep Burt: I makes lots of money riding around grinding stumps. #HB1271 #hysterical

#HB1227 division vote: PASSES 229 to 85 #NHhouse #NHpolitics #hypocrisy

#HB1227: You cannot work for a political party or lobby if you are a Rep #nhhouse. IRONY: Chair of Manchester Republican committee adds an amendment to allow him to do both.

#HB1227 up next: disqualification of certain members of the general #NHhouse #NHpolitics

HB 1227, relative to disqualification of certain members of the general court. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. J. Michael Ball for the Majority of Legislative Administration: The New Hampshire General Court is a true citizen legislature, comprised of members who work in a wide variety of professions while simultaneously performing their legislative duties. Our state benefits from the expertise our members bring to the state house by virtue of their respective work experiences. Unfortunately, there are some professions that are incompatible with service as a legislator. This bill clarifies that no member of the general court can hold their seat while simultaneously in the employment of a political party, a committee of a political party or a lobbyist. This bill harkens back to the earliest days of the general court when issues arose about legislators serving while being paid advocates for a cause. It is one thing for a legislator to be employed in their civilian career and another thing entirely for a legislator to be employed as an advocate for causes before the general court. This bill will enable our citizens to be secure in the knowledge that their representatives have a primary allegiance to the public and are not beholden to the directives of a particular party or special interest by virtue of their employment. Vote 10-2.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner for the Minority of Legislative Administration: The bill carves out one group of people who are excluded from serving in the New Hampshire legislature. The bill appears in conflict with our constitution. The voter knows when they are voting if the person who is running has a conflict. The voters will make their decision.

#HB1183 Rep Horrigan from Durham--ensuring public gallery remains open at all times--division vote--KILLED #NHhouse #NHpolitics

#HB1396--HOMESTEAD RIGHTS--KILLED #NHHOUSE

Next up: #HB1396--homestead rights

HB 1396, restoring and reinforcing the exemptions from levy, sale on execution, and liability to be encumbered or taken for the payment of debts of the homestead right. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Robert H Rowe for the Majority of Judiciary: This House bill was killed by the Senate in 2011; the sponsor resubmitted the bill in 2012. The bill relates to citizens’ residential homestead right and the result of one decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Homestead is a right each homeowner has in his/her owned real estate. The right goes back hundreds of years and without any controversy until the attorney for one party lost the appeal as a result fraud perpetrated on the mortgaging bank. Homestead is the legislated dollar amount that creditors cannot take from property owners by suit or bankruptcy. The facts in the subject case that motivated this bill are as follows. A man and woman in a relationship mortgaged their homestead to a bank, and, as normal, waved their homestead rights. The owners separated. One party took out a new mortgage and had a friend come to the closing and forge the signature of the other owner. Criminal fraud was committed against the bank. The bank foreclosed on the second mortgage and did not allow the remaining owner the homestead interest. The sponsor, who was the remaining owner’s attorney argued that since she did not sign the new mortgage and wave her homestead interest that she should retain her homestead interest. The court saw that she had waved her right in the first mortgage and sided with the mortgaging bank. A total change in this historic right is unnecessary based on one court case alone, where fraud on the bank was an issue. The committee believes that the passage of this bill might have a negative impact on future lending practices that would result in all citizens suffering. Vote 9-6.

Rep. Gregory M. Sorg for the Minority of Judiciary: This is the exact same bill that last year, as HB 305, was approved by the Judiciary Committee 16-0 and passed by the full House on the consent calendar, but which ultimately died in the Senate. It would amend the homestead law, RSA Chapter 480, in order to change a rule established in the 2007 case of Chase v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 155 N.H. 19. Until Chase, it had been widely understood that a person’s statutory homestead interest (currently $100,000) was exempt both from levy or sale on execution and from liability to be encumbered or taken for the payment of debts, unless encumbered in strict compliance with one of the four specific exceptions of RSA 480:4. In Chase, however, the Supreme Court used the doctrine of equitable subrogation, to the extent of the amount of the new mortgage-secured loan that was used to pay off the old one, it recognized an equitable lien on Mrs. Chase’s statutory $100,000 homestead exemption in favor of the foreclosing mortgage lender, even though her signature on the mortgage being foreclosed had been forged. This bill would clarify that the homestead law excepts homesteads from applicability of the common law doctrines of equitable subrogation and unjust enrichment; that the right of creditors to be secured is subordinated to the broader social benefit of preventing destitution and homelessness of mothers and children; and that the purpose of the homestead exemption is to safeguard to debtors and their families the shelter of the homestead roof.

#CACR28, #HB1135, #HB1298 all go through per committee recommendation (see attached) #nhhouse #nhpolitics

CACR 28, relating to the allocation of authority between the legislative and judicial branches. Providing that the supreme court shall determine the constitutionality of judicial acts and the legislature shall determine the constitutionality of legislative acts. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Barry J Palmer for the Majority of Judiciary: This constitutional amendment would overturn the system of checks and balances between the legislative and judicial branches of government as they have existed in New Hampshire for two hundred years. Part I, Article 37 of the New Hampshire constitution has provided for the separation of powers between the three branches of government since 1784. Merrell v. Sherburne,the case articulating the power of the state supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of legislative acts, has stood the test of time since the early 1800s. The judiciary rules on the constitutionality of legislative acts under the federal constitution and in all 49 other states. Under this amendment, the legislature could pass a bill that was clearly unconstitutional, and citizens aggrieved by the unconstitutional statute would have no recourse other than that afforded by the next election. The majority understands the concerns raised about certain specific rulings by our supreme court, but believe this amendment goes too far in the attempt to address those few specific rulings. Under our system of checks and balances, the legislature can overrule a court ruling on a statute simply by enacting a new statute. A court ruling on a constitutional issue must be changed by the adoption of a constitutional amendment. To require less would be to hand too much power to the unfettered authority of the legislature, and would defeat the court’s role as the protector of the constitutional rights of minority interests against the tyranny of the majority. Vote 10-6.

Rep. Gregory M Sorg for the Minority of Judiciary: CACR 28 would bring the supreme court back to constitutional legitimacy by writing into the New Hampshire constitution the distinction between adjudicatory and legislative acts drawn by Justice Levi Woodbury in the 1818 case of Merrill v. Sherburne, the first case to come before the state’s highest court under the constitution’s separation of powers provision, Article 37 of Part 1. By so doing, it would restore the original understanding of the boundaries of the separation of powers, reflected in that case, whereby the judiciary was the final authority of the constitutionality of adjudicatory acts and the Legislature was the final authority on the constitutionality of legislative acts. It has only been in recent times, since its 1983 decision in State v. LaFrance, that the supreme court of New Hampshire has laid claim to final, unreviewable authority, binding on the legislative and executive branches, to refuse to enforce on constitutional grounds acts of a purely legislative character. By reason that the court has an inherent institutional bias in favor of resolving separation of powers issues to the benefit of judicial power at the expense of legislative, this sweeping, anti-historical assertion of authority has resulted in judicial intrusions into the legislature’s exclusively granted constitutional authority to establish state policy to such an extent that the court acts today as a virtual third chamber of the legislature, with veto power over the other two, exercisable by whichever three persons happen to comprise a majority of the court at any given time. One can only hope that the legislative branch will eventually tire of having its maturely considered and hard fought-for policy choices repeatedly subordinated to those imposed by the judicial branch, and will take the action called for in CACR 28 to restore the constitutional separation of powers and system of checks and balances among the three branches of our government.

HB 1135, establishing a civil action for certain disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the armed forces. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Lenette M. Peterson for the Majority of Judiciary: The current law already protects the right of all funerals and does not single out one funeral over another. Since current law was enacted in 2007, there have been no disruptions to any funeral; therefore no changes to the statute are necessary. Vote 10-7.

Rep. Barry J. Palmer for the Minority of Judiciary: There are few things neither more dignified nor poignant than a military funeral, with its honor guard, a trumpeter playing taps and presentation of the American flag to a surviving family member, and disruption of such a funeral by misguided protesters would compound a family’s grief. When a person is laid to final rest and goes to his or her maker, it’s a sacred moment. And because the person is an American hero who served this country, it is hallowed ground. This bill simply enhances the current funeral disruption law (a misdemeanor) by providing an opportunity for a civil action to mitigate their grief because of a disruption. This bill simply tells those who are considering such a sacrilegious disruption that in New Hampshire “Don’t even think about it!”

HB 1298, relative to the definition of "public use" under the eminent domain procedure act. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.

Rep. Robert H Rowe for Judiciary: When property is taken by eminent domain for public use, public use shall not include the public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise, including increased tax revenues and increased employment opportunities; nor shall “public use” include use by a for-profit, private, participant funded transmission line or facility or other uses not needed for system reliability. Vote 15-2.

HB 1395, revoking amendments to supreme court rules 50 and 50-A. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Gregory M Sorg for the Majority of Judiciary: The rulemaking authority of the supreme court under Part 2, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire constitution is limited to “rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts.” Notwithstanding this express limitation, the supreme court on December 29, 2010, ostensibly under authority of Article 73-a, issued a rule, to take effect on March 1, 2011, requiring attorneys to create or maintain a pooled interest-bearing trust account for clients’ funds nominal in amount or to be held for a short period of time, and to remit the interest earned to the New Hampshire Bar Foundation. The court was thus requiring attorneys to generate money to send to an organization founded by the court and administered by trustees appointed by the court, in order to support charitable activities approved by the court. The separation of powers enshrined in Part 2, Article 37 forbids the creation by the judicial branch of a parallel welfare state in which the supreme court is judiciary, legislature and executive all rolled into one, while the Thirteenth Amendment to the federal constitution forbids slavery or involuntary servitude, even of lawyers. Part 2, Article 73-a creates no exception to either proscription. Vote 13-4.

Rep. Lucy M Weber for the Minority of Judiciary: Attorneys maintain trust accounts to hold funds belonging to clients separate from funds belonging to the attorney or the law firm. When a significant sum belonging to one client is held for more than a few days, that client’s money is put into a separate bank account, and the interest on that bank account goes to the client when the account is closed, just as it would if the funds were held by a real estate agent or other agent. A trust account for pooled client funds is used only for small amounts of client money, or larger sums held for a very short period of time. Because the interest on this account does not belong to the attorney, lawyer’s trust funds accounts used to be put into non-interest bearing accounts. Obviously, the entity benefitting from the accrued interest on a non-interest bearing trust account is the bank. Some years ago, the supreme court created the IOLTA program—Interest On Lawyers’ Trust Accounts. Rather than being retained by the banks, the interest on IOLTA accounts is remitted by the bank holding the account to the Bar Association to be used for the provision of legal services to those in need, and for legal education programs.

Proponents of this bill argue that the accrued interest belongs to the client, and that the supreme court has no power to require the payment of the accrued interest to the Bar Foundation. The minority notes that this bill does not return this interest to any client. It would be impractical, in any case, to try to compute how much of each day’s interest has accrued to each client with funds in the lawyer’s trust account. Passage of HB 1395 simply reverts to the old standard of allowing the bank to keep any interest that would otherwise accrue on the lawyer’s trust account. The minority believes that the inherent power of the supreme court to regulate the practice of law includes the power to require attorneys to participate in the IOLTA program.

Thanks to Renee @safaritour for taking care of my sick baby today so I can represent my community today at the #NHhouse

#HB1666 motion to pass w/amend (wo "fussing" i.e. public input) PASSES 232 to 119-I voted against #nhhouse

#hb1666 motion to recommit FAILS #nhhouse #nhpolitics

Rep Weyler says we do not need a hearing bc "it will only fill the room w people who want to make a FUSS" #hb1666 #transparency?Nope

Rep Baroody speaks to "devils bill". #hb1666 Motion to recommit bc amend changed entire bill wo public hearing #nhhouse

Amendment to HB 1666-FN

(2012-0662h)

Proposed by the Majority of the Committee on Finance - R

Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:

AN ACT relative to legislative approval of collective bargaining agreements entered into by the state.

Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

1 New Section; Legislative Approval Required. Amend RSA 273-A by inserting after section 3 the following new section:

273-A:3-a Legislative Approval Required. Every collective bargaining agreement entered into by the state shall be approved by the legislature before it can take effect.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Button Up! Durham NH: Weatherization Workshop 101 and 201

Workshop Date

Location

Preregistration

Overview

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Total Pageviews

Followers