Wednesday, June 27, 2012
#SB356 limiting authority of delegates & laws for religious societies-Gov veto message attached #nhhouse #nhpolitics
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding SB 356
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire
Constitution, on June 21, 2012, I vetoed SB 356, an act limiting the authority of delegates to Article
V conventions and recodifying the laws relative to religious societies.
SB 356 makes changes to New Hampshire laws regarding religious societies. I do not take
issue with that portion of the bill.
SB 356 limits the authority of state delegates who participate in a convention called by the
states for the purpose of considering amendments to the United States Constitution. This legislation
has been brought forward because proponents of a balanced budget amendment to the United States
Constitution see this as an important tool to limit the authority of delegates, were such a convention
ever to occur. The bill is similar to model legislation promoted by the Balanced Budget Amendment
Task Force, of New Smyrna Beach, Florida.
SB 356 requires every delegate from New Hampshire at an Article V convention to take an
oath, which in part states, “I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a
delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any
unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” Any delegate who
violates the oath is subject to recall and criminal penalties under the law.
Regardless of one’s viewpoint on a balanced budged amendment to the United States
Constitution, we can agree that a convention to consider amending the constitution through a call of
the states is not imminent. If we reach the point in our history when such a convention were to
occur, it seems that would be the appropriate time to consider process issues for delegates. And even
then, I would hope, New Hampshire would act with caution before applying potential criminal
penalties to duly appointed or elected delegates.
For these reasons, I am vetoing SB 356.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
#HB217-criminal charges for fetus death-Gov veto message attached VETO SUSTAINED 201 to 126 #nhhouse @NARALNH
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 217
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 18, 2012, I vetoed HB 217, an act including “fetus” in the definition of “another” for the purpose of certain criminal offenses.
HB 217 provides that a fetus “from the embryo stage which is the end of the eighth week after conception” until birth is to be included in the definition of “another” for the purpose of the state’s criminal laws governing first and second degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide and causing or aiding suicide. This legislation, in other words, would allow the State of New Hampshire to prosecute a pregnant woman or another individual for causing the death of a fetus that had not already been “born alive.”
Under current New Hampshire criminal laws, a person may be prosecuted for intentionally, negligently or recklessly causing the death of a fetus only if the fetus was first “born alive.”
I support legislation that would establish these criminal penalties for the death of a fetus, provided that criminal liability is triggered only if the fetus was deemed to be “viable” and that the legislation was based upon sound medical science. HB 217 fails to meet that standard. This bill would make it difficult for New Hampshire residents to obtain fertility treatments and unreasonably restricts a woman’s rights during pregnancy. For these reasons and because this bill fails to contain a “viability” standard, I am vetoing HB 217.
A viability standard is important for several reasons. Viability is a long-established and recognized medical timeframe. It is understood by physicians and has been recognized by the courts. Viability is the timeframe at which a fetus is capable of sustained life outside the womb.
Further, the definition of a fetus that is contained in HB 217 is ambiguous concerning whether or not the embryo stage is fully included or excluded. This ambiguity could affect the availability of reproductive medical treatments that are offered to women and men that assist in building families. HB 217 also does not provide sufficient protections when a woman is already pregnant. Because the medical treatment exemption is conditioned on the “request” of the pregnant woman or her legal guardian, it is not clear that an emergency room physician will be able to perform emergency treatment upon a pregnant woman brought in unconscious following a car accident or stroke, especially if there is no legally appointed guardian.
Medical experts believe that approximately one out of four pregnancies ends in miscarriage by the end of 8 weeks. I am concerned that HB 217 would allow for a murder prosecution relative to an 8-week old fetus when there is a one in four possibility that the pregnancy would not go to term. That is why I believe that any criminal liability for the death of the fetus should be based upon “viability” which is not rigidly tied to a certain number of weeks following conception.
For all of these reasons, I have vetoed HB 217.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Date: June 18, 2012
#HB1607 VETO OVERRIDDEN 226 to 112-education tax credit #nhhouse
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1607
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 21, 2012, I vetoed HB 1607, an act establishing an education credit against the business profits tax. I vetoed a nearly identical bill, SB 372, on June 18, 2012.
HB 1607 establishes an education tax credit against the state’s business profits tax for business organizations that contribute to non-profit “scholarship organizations,” which award scholarships to be used by students to defray the educational expenses of attending an independent school, as well as grants to defray the cost of home-schooling. Beginning in the first year of the program and for several years thereafter, a majority of the scholarships, which initially average $2,500 per student, must be awarded to students who are switching from public to private schools. For each contribution to a non-profit scholarship organization, a business is eligible for an 85 percent tax credit against the business profits tax.
This bill shifts limited state funds away from public school districts and downshifts the cost of reduced adequacy payments to local communities and property tax payers.
HB 1607 requires that for each student receiving a scholarship, the Department of Education reduce the per pupil adequacy payment (base per pupil aid, plus additional amounts for free and reduced lunch, special education, and English Language Learners) from the scholarship recipient’s school district’s grant for the upcoming school year. The recipient’s school district will lose between $3,450 and $8,381 per recipient. Importantly, this will occur after the school district budget is passed for the coming year, but before the tax rate is set. Therefore, the loss of state funds for scholarship recipients will most likely be downshifted to local property taxpayers to make up for state funds anticipated but not received from the state.
Proponents of this bill believe that school districts may save up to $500 per student in operating costs due to students switching to private schools. But the vast majority of costs incurred in operating schools are fixed costs that are incurred even if some students switch to private school. The loss of students from the public schools as a result of these scholarships will not meaningfully reduce school operating costs. Even accounting for the state stabilization grants that would be paid to schools that lose state adequacy grants and the reduction of some variable costs from the loss of scholarship students, the Department of Education has calculated that the bill will collectively cost school districts $3,687,861 in year one, $5,472,119 in year two and $6,330,646 in year three. Struggling school districts and local taxpayers cannot afford that loss.
Diverting public funds to private schools and downshifting costs to cities and towns is the wrong policy for our state and taxpayers, and is the main reason I have vetoed this bill and SB 372. But I have other concerns as well.
HB 1607, like SB 372, will also allow private, non-profit corporations to determine where public education dollars are spent. This bill does not identify those organizations beyond requiring that they be non-profits, register with the state’s Charitable Trust Division and comply with applicable state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The bill also fails to establish a system of accountability for these private entities. I believe that the executive and legislative branches should determine where public school money is spent, not a private corporation.
Finally, HB 1607 and SB 372 initially set aside about 30 percent of the scholarship funding for children whose families qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program. Although these bills do limit eligibility to students from families at 300 percent of the federal poverty level, the proportion of funding required to be dedicated to free and reduced lunch-eligible students diminishes to zero over the course of 15 years.
I strongly believe that any tax credit program enacted by the legislature must not weaken our public school system in New Hampshire or downshift additional costs onto local communities or taxpayers. Accordingly, I am vetoing HB 1607, and the nearly identical SB 372, because they do not meet that test.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Dated: June 21, 2012
#SB372-tax credits for private schools-VETO OVERRIDDEN 236 to 108 #nhhouse
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding SB 372
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire
Constitution, on June 18, 2012, I vetoed SB 372, an act establishing an education credit against the
business profits tax.
SB 372 establishes an education tax credit against the State’s business profits tax for
business organizations that contribute to non-profit “scholarship organizations”, which award
scholarships to be used by students to defray the educational expenses of attending an independent
school, as well as grants to defray the cost of home-schooling. Beginning in the first year of the
program and for several years thereafter, a majority of the scholarships, which initially average
$2,500 per student, must be awarded to students who are switching from public to private schools.
For each contribution to a non-profit scholarship organization, a business is eligible for an 85% tax
credit against the business profits tax.
This bill shifts limited state funds away from public school districts, it will downshift the cost
of reduced adequacy payments to local communities and property tax payers, it allows private
organizations to determine the use of public education funds, and does not fully target scholarship
funds to students most in need of help with tuition and other educational expenses. For all of these
reasons, I have decided to veto this legislation.
SB 372 requires that for each student receiving a scholarship, the Department of Education
reduce the per pupil adequacy payment (base per pupil aid, plus additional amounts for free and
reduced lunch, special education, and English Language Learners) from the scholarship recipient’s
school district’s grant for the upcoming school year. The recipient’s school district will lose between
$3,450 and $8,381 per recipient. Importantly, this will occur after the school district budget is
passed for the coming year, but before the tax rate is set. Therefore, the loss of state funds for
scholarship recipients will most likely be downshifted to local property taxpayers to make up for
state funds anticipated but not received from the state.
Proponents of this bill believe that school districts may save up to $500 per student in
operating costs due to students switching to private schools. But the vast majority of costs incurred
in operating schools are fixed costs that are incurred even if some students switch to private school.
The loss of students from the public schools as a result of these scholarships will not meaningfully
reduce school operating costs. Even accounting for the state stabilization grants that would be paid
to schools that lose state adequacy grants and the reduction of some variable costs from the loss of
scholarship students, the Department of Education has calculated that bill will collectively cost
school districts $3,687,861 in year one, $5,472,119 in year two and $6,330,646 in year three.
Struggling school districts and local taxpayers cannot afford that loss.
SB 372 will also allow private, non-profit corporations to determine where public education
dollars are spent. This bill does not identify those organizations beyond requiring that they be nonprofits,
register with the state’s Charitable Trust Division and comply with applicable state and
federal anti-discrimination laws. But I believe that the executive and legislative branches should
determine where public school money is spent, not a private corporation.
8
Lastly, while the intent of the bill, in part, is to provide financial assistance to less fortunate
students in helping them switch to a private school, a substantial portion of scholarships are
available with no income restrictions and to students already attending private school.
I believe that any tax credit program enacted by the legislature must not weaken our public
school system in New Hampshire, downshift additional costs on local communities or taxpayers, or
allow private companies to determine where public school money will be spent. I have vetoed SB 372
because the bill does not meet that test.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
#SB318 VETO OVERRIDDEN-voter registration/domicile-used to alienate college students #nhhouse #nhpolitics
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding SB 318
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire
Constitution, on June 20, 2012, I vetoed SB 318, an act relative to voter registration.
“We need to encourage all New Hampshire citizens to vote and to participate fully in our
democracy. We also need to ensure that our election laws do not unfairly burden those voters that
have recently established a domicile in New Hampshire and are qualified to vote in this state.” With
those words, I vetoed HB 1566 in 2006 because that legislation tied the constitutional right to vote to
the registration of a voter’s motor vehicle in New Hampshire and thereby disenfranchised New
Hampshire voters.
SB 318, as passed by the legislature and presented to me, is a different bill, but the end results
are the same. It will also disenfranchise eligible voters in New Hampshire and will only lead to
confusion concerning the meaning of “domicile” and “residency.” These are the primary reasons for
why I have vetoed this legislation.
SB 318 amends the voter registration form by requiring a person registering to vote to state: “In
declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire,
including the laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire
driver’s license within 60 days of becoming a resident.” Thus, in one short sentence, the legislature
has used the terms “domicile” and “resident” in a manner that suggests that they are
interchangeable, even though these terms have different, distinct meanings and legal implications.
The requirements to register a car and apply for a license, moreover, could be read to apply to a
person regardless of whether the person had a car in New Hampshire or even drove in New
Hampshire. For example, seniors who are residents of New Hampshire but maintain cars and
second homes in other states could be confused as to whether they must now register their out of
state cars here in order to continue to vote in New Hampshire. Persons who are 18 and older who
attend college in New Hampshire should be able to vote regardless of where they drive or have a
license. This provision is overly broad and will effectively require resident seniors, as well as
retirees and young persons coming from out of state, to register a car and apply for a New
Hampshire license in order to vote. There is no compelling state interest for this requirement.
The New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Association is strongly opposed to SB 318 and has
urged me to veto it. The legislation provides that a “supervisor of the checklist” is available to
address questions or concerns of a person registering to vote regarding motor vehicle registration
and licensing requirements. While the supervisors of the checklist are dedicated and hard working
persons who work a few days each year to ensure the smooth operation of our election process, they
neither are full-time employees nor are they trained in our motor vehicle laws.
Our election laws already establish that voters must be domiciled in New Hampshire in order to
vote in this state, and that all New Hampshire residents must comply with motor vehicle
registration and licensing requirements. This bill is unnecessary.
Any changes to our voting procedures must ensure a person’s constitutional right to vote is
protected. This bill does not meet that test.
For all of these reasons, I am vetoing SB 318.
5
John H. Lynch
Governor
Dated: June 20, 2012
veto message attached-#SB406-waive rights for medical injury #nhhouse
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding SB 406
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire
Constitution, on June 20, 2012, I vetoed SB 406, an act establishing an early offer alternative in
medical injury claims.
SB 406 would be the first statutory early offer program in the nation. This legislation
establishes a voluntary program to allow medical patients to waive their rights to certain remedies
for a medical injury and obtain a payment from the provider for their economic damages (medical
expenses and lost wages) plus an additional payment based on the level of harm. Injured patients
who accept an early offer waive their right to a judicial determination of their damages and do not
receive any compensation for lost earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium,
physical impairment, and pain and suffering among other damages.
SB 406 was the subject of substantial effort by its sponsors and by committee members in the
House and the Senate. It is intended to provide an alternative to the current system for resolving
medical malpractice claims, and I support efforts to improve our tort system. While this legislation
is well intentioned, I do not believe that it sufficiently and fairly balances the interests of the general
public with the interests of medical providers in expeditiously resolving medical injury claims. SB
406, as presented to me, lacks certain fundamental safeguards that are necessary to protect injured
patients. For that reason, I have decided to veto SB 406.
In order to participate in the early offer program, an injured patient must sign a waiver of
their rights and submit a notice of injury to the medical provider. When those documents are
submitted, the medical provider must then provide a “neutral advisor” to an injured patient who is
unrepresented. The neutral advisor is an attorney or retired judge, who is required to offer
assistance to the patient and encourage him or her to retain a private attorney.
After the first meeting with the neutral advisor, the patient then has only 5 business days to
decide whether or not proceed with the early offer process, or to withdraw the waiver of rights and
notice of injury in order to preserve all of their rights to a judicial determination. That is too short a
period of time for an unrepresented patient to adequately consult with the advisor concerning his or
her rights and merits of their case. It is particularly insufficient for patients who then choose to
identify, hire and consult with a different private attorney. The medical provider is afforded at least
9
90 days to evaluate a patient’s request for an early offer. Patients deserve more than five business
days to obtain legal advice and decide to waive important rights.
SB 406 also contains a so-called “loser pays” provision. Under the bill, an injured patient
who receives an early offer may reject that offer and seek damages in court. In that event, the
injured patient must first submit his or her case to the medical screening panel established under
RSA 519-B. SB 406 does not make any changes to current law for those injured patients who wish to
adjudicate their medical injury claims in court, and the screening panel remains a prerequisite to a
judicial determination of damages for medical injuries in New Hampshire. When an injured patient
who has rejected an early offer goes to court, he or she will be responsible to pay the medical
provider’s legal fees incurred in the early offer process unless the court awards the patient at least
125% of the early offer amount.
That standard is inappropriate for medical malpractice cases. For example, an injured
patient submitted a claim for $175,000 in economic damages. The medical provider disagrees on the
costs of treatment and offers $140,000. If a jury eventually agrees with the patient but awards only
$172,000 because there was a double billing error, the patient has won the case, but will still have to
pay the medical providers legal fees because the award was less than 125% of the early offer. That is
not the right result.
In addition, before the case proceeds in court, the injured patient who has rejected an early
offer must post “a bond or other suitable security for payment of the medical provider’s reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs before the case can proceed.” This requirement for the posting of a bond or
other security could have a chilling effect on a patient’s ability to challenge an early offer he or she
considered unfair.
I believe that the legislature’s efforts to fashion a balanced, reasonable early offer program
should continue. It needs more work in order to adequately protect the interests of injured patients.
For all of these reasons, I am vetoing SB 406.
John H. Lynch
Governor
Dated: June 20, 2012
#HB1549 prohibit fed gov from maintaining NH motor vehicle records for lawful public safety purposes #nhhouse
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1549
By the authority vested in me pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on May 23, 2012, I vetoed HB 1549.
HB 1549 when first introduced prohibited state participation in the E-Verify system for worker immigration status that has been implemented by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. This legislation, however, was entirely replaced and as now presented to me would prohibit the federal government from using or maintaining “in any federal identification database” information from New Hampshire motor vehicle records, including those available pursuant to a court order, or in response to a request from a state, the federal government, or a law enforcement agency. The bill, as passed, would prohibit the federal government from maintaining information from New Hampshire motor vehicle records for lawful public safety purposes.
Although this bill may have been well-intentioned, the New Hampshire Department of Safety believes it would have serious negative consequences for the apprehension of criminals, the recovery of stolen vehicles, and even for the prevention of terrorism and threats against the President and Vice-President of the United States. It could also impair the ability of New Hampshire’s criminal justice agencies to receive such information from federal officials because New Hampshire would not be sharing this data reciprocally with them. The Department of Safety has provided several examples of the problems this could create.
For example, if a New Hampshire citizen or visitor has their car stolen, the police will determine from the motor vehicle records the registration number, vehicle identification number and description of the vehicle and request that the State Police enter this information into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which is a federal identification database maintained by the FBI. A police officer anywhere in the country stopping that vehicle for any purpose will know that the vehicle is a stolen car, and if a motor vehicle department of another state is asked to title or register that vehicle, they will know that it is stolen. HB 1549 is so broadly written that it could prevent the sharing of this information.
If a minor disappears from his or her home in New Hampshire, and that minor has a driver license or non-driver identification card, the police will request that minor’s photo from the Division of Motor Vehicles and it will be entered into the database at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to assist in locating the minor. This is a federal identification database.
When a person is arrested for a crime committed in New Hampshire, that person is fingerprinted by the arresting agency and the prints are forwarded to the State Police Criminal Records Unit and entered into IAFIS, the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System maintained by the FBI. If the person is subsequently found innocent or the charges are dropped, the prints are destroyed. The fingerprints of convicted criminals are routinely matched up with latent fingerprints lifted at the scenes of crimes and used to convict the perpetrator of the crime. IAFIS is a federal identification database.
If New Hampshire law enforcement becomes aware of a credible threat against the President or Vice-President or any candidate for those offices who is eligible for Secret Service protection, this information along with a photo, physical description and information as to vehicles owned or driven by this individual is shared with the Secret Service and if they investigate and also deem the threat to be credible, it will go into their file on the case, which could be considered a federal identification database. The same applies to sharing information with the FBI on a credible terrorist threat originating in New Hampshire.
These are just some examples of the real concerns that Commissioner Barthelmes and the Department of Safety have brought to my attention concerning how HB 1549, as passed, could interfere or complicate valid law enforcement efforts and public safety.
New Hampshire has in place some carefully crafted restrictions on the collection or sharing of motor vehicle information, such as RSA 260:14, which governs access to motor vehicle records, and 2007 Laws Chapter 243, which prohibits New Hampshire’s participation in Real ID. Based on the concerns expressed by the Department of Safety, HB 1549 will have serious negative consequences for public safety, and would disrupt routine, time-honored law enforcement procedures.
For all of these reasons, I have vetoed HB 1549.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Date: May 23, 2012
#HB1679 relating to partial birth abortion VETO OVERRIDE 240 to 118 #shame @NARALNH #nhhouse #nhpolitics #WarOnWomen
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1679
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 15, 2012, I vetoed HB 1679, an act relating to partial birth abortion.
I am not a proponent of so-called partial birth abortion. The practice is exceedingly rare, and highly restricted by federal law. HB 1679 is unnecessary in light of the federal ban on partial birth abortion that was enacted by Congress in 2003. I am also concerned that HB 1679 could unnecessarily jeopardize the life of the mother in emergency circumstances.
HB 1679, like the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, would ban the practice of partial birth abortion by physicians and non-physicians except to save the life of the mother, whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
But unlike the federal ban, HB 1679 would first require that a qualified physician examine and determine whether a pregnant woman suffered from a life-threatening condition. Before that physician could perform the partial birth abortion, he or she would then have to identify a second physician at another hospital or practice that is “not legally or financially affiliated” with the physician and the second physician would also have to determine and document that the life of the mother is endangered before the abortion could be performed.
The added requirement for a documented referral from a second, non-affiliated physician could have serious consequences in emergency situations. Under HB 1679, a physician in a rural hospital that admitted a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition would be prohibited from proceeding with a procedure permitted by federal law, unless the physician identified another physician who was unaffiliated and who could determine and document her life-threatening condition. The lapse of time in finding that second physician and obtaining the needed referral could be significant and could result in the death of the pregnant woman.
I believe the federal law is appropriately more protective of the life of the pregnant woman.
For all of these reasons, I have vetoed HB 1679.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Date: June 15, 2012
#HB1666 is sustained 124 to 225 #nhhouse #nhpolitics Gov veto attached
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1666
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 20, 2012, I vetoed HB 1666, relative to legislative approval of collective bargaining agreements entered into by the state.
Under New Hampshire law, the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements between public employers and employees has historically been the purview of the executive, with legislative oversight and approval on cost items alone. At the state level, legislative approval of cost items has traditionally been accomplished through the budget process. While the executive negotiates the terms and conditions of employment, the legislature determines through the budget process how much money is to be spent on personnel, wages and benefits.
RSA 273-A:9 establishes the framework for collective bargaining as follows: “All terms and conditions of employment affecting state employees in the classified system generally shall be negotiated by the state, represented by the governor as chief executive.” By law, the governor may designate an official state negotiator and an advisory committee to assist in the negotiation process. RSA 273-A:3 obligates public employers and employees to negotiate in good faith, which involves “meeting at reasonable times and places in an effort to reach agreement on the terms of employment, and to cooperate in mediation and fact-finding required by this chapter.” RSA 273-A:3 II (b) states, “Only cost items shall be submitted to the legislative body of the public employer for approval at the next annual meeting of the legislative body.” These laws pertaining to collective bargaining have been in place for decades.
The Joint Committee on Employee Relations, until its repeal in 2010, was a committee of the legislature that would be briefed by the state negotiating team, hold hearings on all collective bargaining agreements and submit recommendations to the Senate and House. The committee’s role was advisory only.
HB 1666 would dramatically change the process of collective bargaining in New Hampshire by requiring the fiscal committee to approve all collective bargaining agreements. This runs counter to established law and procedure in New Hampshire, and would, in effect, turn the fiscal committee into its own state negotiating team, potentially requiring dozens of fiscal committee meetings.
At this time, there are three unions, eight master collective bargaining agreements and 27 sub-unit agreements, many of which contain dozens or hundreds of provisions, all of which are negotiated item by item over a period of many months and which are concluded at different times. Reaching a complete CBA is a painstaking, time-consuming, give and take process, conducted in accordance with the obligation to bargain in good faith.
HB 1666 creates a redundant and cumbersome process where each item, in each collective bargaining agreement, will now be subject to fiscal committee approval. The potential exists for reopening debate on hundreds of items, all of which inter-relate and comprise the entire agreement. Such a process creates a practical impediment to contract resolution, intrudes on the traditional role of the executive to negotiate contracts and risks putting the state at odds with the obligation to bargain in good faith.
We should be working to streamline government and make it run more efficiently, not adding additional layers, which is what HB 1666 will do.
The Legislature has a time tested and practical role to play in the collective bargaining process – approval of cost items through the state budget. This system has served our state well over the years, and major changes contemplated by HB 1666 will be a detriment to that system.
For these reasons, I am vetoing HB 1666.
#nhhouse calendar attached
HOUSE RECORD
Second Year of the 162nd General Court
Calendar and Journal of the 2012 Session
Vol. 34 Concord, N.H. Friday, June 22, 2012 No. 49
Contains: Governor’s Veto Messages on HB 217, HB 1594, HB 1607, HB 1666 and 1679, Meetings and Notices.
HOUSE CALENDAR
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE:
The House will meet in Session on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. We will take up veto messages received from the Governor. Please note that veto messages from vetoed Senate bills appear in the Senate calendar. Members should review that publication for information on that legislation.
Beginning Monday, June 25th, proofs of the photographs of the House taken in the Chamber on June 6th, along with ordering information, will be available for your review in the Speaker’s Reception area.
The Committee on Redress of Grievances continues to issue its reports and findings with regard to petitions submitted to the Committee. These reports will appear in the House Calendar for informational purposes and are intended to inform legislators and the public of complaints by citizens against state government, whether those complaints appear to be founded, and possible legislative remedies. The committee does not adjudicate individual disputes; therefore, these reports are limited to proposed legislative remedies.
Starting with the month of July and continuing through the end of this legislative term, legislative mileage will be limited to reimbursement for travel on one day a week to Concord for official legislative or constituent work in addition to those days that members are required to be in Concord for official committee or leadership work. Reimbursement for committee or leadership purposes is limited to attendance as policy, chaptered or statutory committee members or for Democrat of Republican caucus leadership or legislative leadership.
Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen will meet Tuesday, June 26, 2012 in LOB 305 – 307 at 9:00 a.m. Please make every effort to attend.
William L. O’Brien, Speaker
NOTICE
There will be a Republican Caucus on Wednesday, June 27 at 9:30 a.m. in Representatives Hall.
Peter L. Silva, Majority Leader
NOTICE
There will be a Democratic Caucus on Wednesday, June 27 at 9:00 a.m. in Rooms 305-307, LOB.
Terie Norelli, Democratic Leader
NOTICE
The House calendar closes at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesdays for scheduling and notices. Please be sure to do your scheduling in order to meet that deadline.
CLOSES NOON THURSDAY: AVAILABLE FRIDAY:
June 28 June 29
Karen O. Wadsworth, Clerk of the House
HOUSE DEADLINES FOR 2012 SESSION
Monday, September 17, 2012 First day for incumbent members running for reelection to file LSRs for 2013 session.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012 Last day for incumbent members running for reelection to file LSRs for 2013 session prior to the general election.
Friday, November 2, 2012 Last day to file Interim Study reports.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 First day for all members elected for the 2013 session to file LSRs for the 2013 session.
Friday, December 7, 2012 Last day for all members elected for the 2013 session to file LSRs for the 2013 session.
Last day for a member to declare sponsorship of an LSR filed by an unelected incumbent member.
Friday, January 11, 2013 Last day to sign off all House LSRs, other than petitions involving the election or qualifications of a member to serve in the House.
Friday, February 1, 2013 Last day to introduce House legislation including, but not limited to, House Bills and petitions
Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Last day to amend House Rules by majority vote.
All deadlines are subject to the close of business at 5:00 p.m. each day, except amending House Rules, which shall be the ending of the last House session day on or prior to February 13, 2013.
COMMITTEE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES REPORTS
The following reports are the result of committee hearings and deliberations on the petitions presented to it. They are printed here for informational purposes.
PETITION #13 grievance of Hope Nardone.
MAJORITY
Grievance Founded with Recommendations.
Committee Majority Findings:
After hearing the Petition of Hope Nardone and seeing the supporting documentation and the written testimony of witnesses and receiving no response from the Division for Children, Youth, and Families, the House Committee on Redress of Grievances finds that employees of DCYF: a) Did indeed make false statements to the Social Security Administration in order to receive mental illness financial benefits for a minor; b) Failed to disclose unsafe and aggressive behaviors including sexual assault by a child in their care to the court and the parent including ones in which the Derry Police were pressing charges, and omitted them from subsequent DCYF documentation when they might have been used as exculpatory evidence; c) Practiced medicine by allowing a nurse to override the orders of a child's physician; d) Violated the Health Insurance Patient Protection Act and slandered a parent by revealing a (non-existent) mental health condition of that parent to school staff; e) Failed to comply with court ordered family visits and persistently refused to make visiting arrangements that matched a parent's work schedule despite requests of same.
Recommendations
The Committee agrees with the Petitioner in recommending that the laws of the State of New Hampshire be so amended as to: a) Define more precisely the guidelines for all state agencies regarding "the best interests of the child" and "good faith reporting" to protect children and families from reporting bias and abuse; b) Include time frames in which exculpatory evidence must be presented by state agencies and departments, and support the re-introduction of HB 415 (introduced in 2012) making it more difficult for agencies to hold back exculpatory evidence; c) Remove state agency worker immunity regarding criminal penalties for failing to act in the best interests of the child, acting outside the scope of his or her practice to acquire a child into state custody, put up a child for adoption, put child into foster care, or for failing to follow court orders; d) Modify ex-parte hearings to protect a parent's or family's right to speak on a child's behalf as well as to defend themselves against allegations of abuse or neglect and to prevent psychological or other injury to the child; e) Create a standing governmental oversight committee of the House similar to that of the U. S. Congress to be available when instances such as these are uncovered; f) Make policies and procedures for adoption statutory guaranteeing that family members are given first priority unless there is overwhelming evidence that such placement is not in the best interests of the child; g) Make better use of independent family advocacy organizations and programs in child welfare issues. Vote 7-3.
Rep. Joseph Pitre for the Majority of the Committee
MINORITY
Grievance Unfounded.
Committee Minority Findings:
The Minority agrees that Ms. Nardone’s situation is tragic. She is the adoptive mother of two children from the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan. The younger child proved to have serious behavioral problems. The Division for Children Youth and Families’ efforts to help her son were not entirely successful, but the Minority sees no pattern of malfeasance: DCYF personnel acted in good faith. The Minority also finds that Ms. Nardone’s suggested remedies would make it more difficult for the DCYF to help families with problems like hers.
Rep. Timothy Horrigan for the Minority of the Committee.
PETITION #14 grievance of Jeanette Dionne.
MAJORITY
Grievance Founded With Recommendations.
Committee Majority Findings:
Having reviewed the testimony and documents, and having received no response from any of the involved officials or their representatives, despite invitations to so provide, the Committee concludes: a) that the Brentwood Family Division wrongfully considered and granted an ex parte motion premised purely on hearsay of the father concerning, not anything the Petitioner mother had done, but what she might do, a standard which if applied uniformly would justify jailing every citizen of the State of New Hampshire; b) that the Marital Master held a hearing without providing the statutory 10 day notice, and that the Court Clerk failed to provide statutory notice to the Petitioner of a hearing in which she was a material party; c) that the Guardian ad Litem did not promptly disclose and disqualify herself by reason of a conflict of interest based upon her prior representation of the live-in girlfriend of the father of Petitioner’s children, whose input could be expected to be and in fact was material to the parenting plan eventually adopted; d) that the Marital Master and supervising Judge failed in their responsibility to protect the public from conflicted attorneys by not removing the conflicted Guardian ad Litem from the case as soon as her conflict was finally disclosed; e) that the Marital Master and supervising Judge failed to hold the Guardian ad Litem accountable for evident perjury when she represented that she had been unaware of the conflict of interest; and f) that the Judicial Conduct Committee failed to sanction the Marital Master or supervising Judge for their failure to address the Guardian ad Litem’s conflict of interest issue with the order of disqualification it obviously required.
Recommendations
The troubling issues raised in this Petition should be included with others by which evidence is accumulating to show serious deficiencies in the administration, investigation and adjudication of Family Division cases. Vote 9-2.
Rep. Greg Sorg for the Majority of the Committee
MINORITY
Grievance Unfounded.
Committee Minority Findings:
The Minority is very aware of the stressful nature of divorce and the issues of child rearing that arise from those proceedings. Our recommendation to the Family Court Division is that the presiding judge allocate additional time for all parties to become familiar with the implications and consequences of the decisions in an effort to lessen misunderstanding and potential future conflict. We also recognize there are time and financial pressures on the entire system. However, the court must do its utmost to ensure that all timelines are adhered to so that each party has proper time to prepare for appearances.
Rep. Sandra B. Keans for the Minority of the Committee
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 217
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 18, 2012, I vetoed HB 217, an act including “fetus” in the definition of “another” for the purpose of certain criminal offenses.
HB 217 provides that a fetus “from the embryo stage which is the end of the eighth week after conception” until birth is to be included in the definition of “another” for the purpose of the state’s criminal laws governing first and second degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide and causing or aiding suicide. This legislation, in other words, would allow the State of New Hampshire to prosecute a pregnant woman or another individual for causing the death of a fetus that had not already been “born alive.”
Under current New Hampshire criminal laws, a person may be prosecuted for intentionally, negligently or recklessly causing the death of a fetus only if the fetus was first “born alive.”
I support legislation that would establish these criminal penalties for the death of a fetus, provided that criminal liability is triggered only if the fetus was deemed to be “viable” and that the legislation was based upon sound medical science. HB 217 fails to meet that standard. This bill would make it difficult for New Hampshire residents to obtain fertility treatments and unreasonably restricts a woman’s rights during pregnancy. For these reasons and because this bill fails to contain a “viability” standard, I am vetoing HB 217.
A viability standard is important for several reasons. Viability is a long-established and recognized medical timeframe. It is understood by physicians and has been recognized by the courts. Viability is the timeframe at which a fetus is capable of sustained life outside the womb.
Further, the definition of a fetus that is contained in HB 217 is ambiguous concerning whether or not the embryo stage is fully included or excluded. This ambiguity could affect the availability of reproductive medical treatments that are offered to women and men that assist in building families. HB 217 also does not provide sufficient protections when a woman is already pregnant. Because the medical treatment exemption is conditioned on the “request” of the pregnant woman or her legal guardian, it is not clear that an emergency room physician will be able to perform emergency treatment upon a pregnant woman brought in unconscious following a car accident or stroke, especially if there is no legally appointed guardian.
Medical experts believe that approximately one out of four pregnancies ends in miscarriage by the end of 8 weeks. I am concerned that HB 217 would allow for a murder prosecution relative to an 8-week old fetus when there is a one in four possibility that the pregnancy would not go to term. That is why I believe that any criminal liability for the death of the fetus should be based upon “viability” which is not rigidly tied to a certain number of weeks following conception.
For all of these reasons, I have vetoed HB 217.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Date: June 18, 2012
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1549
By the authority vested in me pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on May 23, 2012, I vetoed HB 1549.
HB 1549 when first introduced prohibited state participation in the E-Verify system for worker immigration status that has been implemented by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. This legislation, however, was entirely replaced and as now presented to me would prohibit the federal government from using or maintaining “in any federal identification database” information from New Hampshire motor vehicle records, including those available pursuant to a court order, or in response to a request from a state, the federal government, or a law enforcement agency. The bill, as passed, would prohibit the federal government from maintaining information from New Hampshire motor vehicle records for lawful public safety purposes.
Although this bill may have been well-intentioned, the New Hampshire Department of Safety believes it would have serious negative consequences for the apprehension of criminals, the recovery of stolen vehicles, and even for the prevention of terrorism and threats against the President and Vice-President of the United States. It could also impair the ability of New Hampshire’s criminal justice agencies to receive such information from federal officials because New Hampshire would not be sharing this data reciprocally with them. The Department of Safety has provided several examples of the problems this could create.
For example, if a New Hampshire citizen or visitor has their car stolen, the police will determine from the motor vehicle records the registration number, vehicle identification number and description of the vehicle and request that the State Police enter this information into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which is a federal identification database maintained by the FBI. A police officer anywhere in the country stopping that vehicle for any purpose will know that the vehicle is a stolen car, and if a motor vehicle department of another state is asked to title or register that vehicle, they will know that it is stolen. HB 1549 is so broadly written that it could prevent the sharing of this information.
If a minor disappears from his or her home in New Hampshire, and that minor has a driver license or non-driver identification card, the police will request that minor’s photo from the Division of Motor Vehicles and it will be entered into the database at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to assist in locating the minor. This is a federal identification database.
When a person is arrested for a crime committed in New Hampshire, that person is fingerprinted by the arresting agency and the prints are forwarded to the State Police Criminal Records Unit and entered into IAFIS, the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System maintained by the FBI. If the person is subsequently found innocent or the charges are dropped, the prints are destroyed. The fingerprints of convicted criminals are routinely matched up with latent fingerprints lifted at the scenes of crimes and used to convict the perpetrator of the crime. IAFIS is a federal identification database.
If New Hampshire law enforcement becomes aware of a credible threat against the President or Vice-President or any candidate for those offices who is eligible for Secret Service protection, this information along with a photo, physical description and information as to vehicles owned or driven by this individual is shared with the Secret Service and if they investigate and also deem the threat to be credible, it will go into their file on the case, which could be considered a federal identification database. The same applies to sharing information with the FBI on a credible terrorist threat originating in New Hampshire.
These are just some examples of the real concerns that Commissioner Barthelmes and the Department of Safety have brought to my attention concerning how HB 1549, as passed, could interfere or complicate valid law enforcement efforts and public safety.
New Hampshire has in place some carefully crafted restrictions on the collection or sharing of motor vehicle information, such as RSA 260:14, which governs access to motor vehicle records, and 2007 Laws Chapter 243, which prohibits New Hampshire’s participation in Real ID. Based on the concerns expressed by the Department of Safety, HB 1549 will have serious negative consequences for public safety, and would disrupt routine, time-honored law enforcement procedures.
For all of these reasons, I have vetoed HB 1549.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Date: May 23, 2012
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1607
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 21, 2012, I vetoed HB 1607, an act establishing an education credit against the business profits tax. I vetoed a nearly identical bill, SB 372, on June 18, 2012.
HB 1607 establishes an education tax credit against the state’s business profits tax for business organizations that contribute to non-profit “scholarship organizations,” which award scholarships to be used by students to defray the educational expenses of attending an independent school, as well as grants to defray the cost of home-schooling. Beginning in the first year of the program and for several years thereafter, a majority of the scholarships, which initially average $2,500 per student, must be awarded to students who are switching from public to private schools. For each contribution to a non-profit scholarship organization, a business is eligible for an 85 percent tax credit against the business profits tax.
This bill shifts limited state funds away from public school districts and downshifts the cost of reduced adequacy payments to local communities and property tax payers.
HB 1607 requires that for each student receiving a scholarship, the Department of Education reduce the per pupil adequacy payment (base per pupil aid, plus additional amounts for free and reduced lunch, special education, and English Language Learners) from the scholarship recipient’s school district’s grant for the upcoming school year. The recipient’s school district will lose between $3,450 and $8,381 per recipient. Importantly, this will occur after the school district budget is passed for the coming year, but before the tax rate is set. Therefore, the loss of state funds for scholarship recipients will most likely be downshifted to local property taxpayers to make up for state funds anticipated but not received from the state.
Proponents of this bill believe that school districts may save up to $500 per student in operating costs due to students switching to private schools. But the vast majority of costs incurred in operating schools are fixed costs that are incurred even if some students switch to private school. The loss of students from the public schools as a result of these scholarships will not meaningfully reduce school operating costs. Even accounting for the state stabilization grants that would be paid to schools that lose state adequacy grants and the reduction of some variable costs from the loss of scholarship students, the Department of Education has calculated that the bill will collectively cost school districts $3,687,861 in year one, $5,472,119 in year two and $6,330,646 in year three. Struggling school districts and local taxpayers cannot afford that loss.
Diverting public funds to private schools and downshifting costs to cities and towns is the wrong policy for our state and taxpayers, and is the main reason I have vetoed this bill and SB 372. But I have other concerns as well.
HB 1607, like SB 372, will also allow private, non-profit corporations to determine where public education dollars are spent. This bill does not identify those organizations beyond requiring that they be non-profits, register with the state’s Charitable Trust Division and comply with applicable state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The bill also fails to establish a system of accountability for these private entities. I believe that the executive and legislative branches should determine where public school money is spent, not a private corporation.
Finally, HB 1607 and SB 372 initially set aside about 30 percent of the scholarship funding for children whose families qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program. Although these bills do limit eligibility to students from families at 300 percent of the federal poverty level, the proportion of funding required to be dedicated to free and reduced lunch-eligible students diminishes to zero over the course of 15 years.
I strongly believe that any tax credit program enacted by the legislature must not weaken our public school system in New Hampshire or downshift additional costs onto local communities or taxpayers. Accordingly, I am vetoing HB 1607, and the nearly identical SB 372, because they do not meet that test.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Dated: June 21, 2012
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1666
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 20, 2012, I vetoed HB 1666, relative to legislative approval of collective bargaining agreements entered into by the state.
Under New Hampshire law, the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements between public employers and employees has historically been the purview of the executive, with legislative oversight and approval on cost items alone. At the state level, legislative approval of cost items has traditionally been accomplished through the budget process. While the executive negotiates the terms and conditions of employment, the legislature determines through the budget process how much money is to be spent on personnel, wages and benefits.
RSA 273-A:9 establishes the framework for collective bargaining as follows: “All terms and conditions of employment affecting state employees in the classified system generally shall be negotiated by the state, represented by the governor as chief executive.” By law, the governor may designate an official state negotiator and an advisory committee to assist in the negotiation process. RSA 273-A:3 obligates public employers and employees to negotiate in good faith, which involves “meeting at reasonable times and places in an effort to reach agreement on the terms of employment, and to cooperate in mediation and fact-finding required by this chapter.” RSA 273-A:3 II (b) states, “Only cost items shall be submitted to the legislative body of the public employer for approval at the next annual meeting of the legislative body.” These laws pertaining to collective bargaining have been in place for decades.
The Joint Committee on Employee Relations, until its repeal in 2010, was a committee of the legislature that would be briefed by the state negotiating team, hold hearings on all collective bargaining agreements and submit recommendations to the Senate and House. The committee’s role was advisory only.
HB 1666 would dramatically change the process of collective bargaining in New Hampshire by requiring the fiscal committee to approve all collective bargaining agreements. This runs counter to established law and procedure in New Hampshire, and would, in effect, turn the fiscal committee into its own state negotiating team, potentially requiring dozens of fiscal committee meetings.
At this time, there are three unions, eight master collective bargaining agreements and 27 sub-unit agreements, many of which contain dozens or hundreds of provisions, all of which are negotiated item by item over a period of many months and which are concluded at different times. Reaching a complete CBA is a painstaking, time-consuming, give and take process, conducted in accordance with the obligation to bargain in good faith.
HB 1666 creates a redundant and cumbersome process where each item, in each collective bargaining agreement, will now be subject to fiscal committee approval. The potential exists for reopening debate on hundreds of items, all of which inter-relate and comprise the entire agreement. Such a process creates a practical impediment to contract resolution, intrudes on the traditional role of the executive to negotiate contracts and risks putting the state at odds with the obligation to bargain in good faith.
We should be working to streamline government and make it run more efficiently, not adding additional layers, which is what HB 1666 will do.
The Legislature has a time tested and practical role to play in the collective bargaining process – approval of cost items through the state budget. This system has served our state well over the years, and major changes contemplated by HB 1666 will be a detriment to that system.
For these reasons, I am vetoing HB 1666.
John H. Lynch
Governor
Dated: June 20, 2012
Governor’s Veto Message Regarding HB 1679
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on June 15, 2012, I vetoed HB 1679, an act relating to partial birth abortion.
I am not a proponent of so-called partial birth abortion. The practice is exceedingly rare, and highly restricted by federal law. HB 1679 is unnecessary in light of the federal ban on partial birth abortion that was enacted by Congress in 2003. I am also concerned that HB 1679 could unnecessarily jeopardize the life of the mother in emergency circumstances.
HB 1679, like the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, would ban the practice of partial birth abortion by physicians and non-physicians except to save the life of the mother, whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
But unlike the federal ban, HB 1679 would first require that a qualified physician examine and determine whether a pregnant woman suffered from a life-threatening condition. Before that physician could perform the partial birth abortion, he or she would then have to identify a second physician at another hospital or practice that is “not legally or financially affiliated” with the physician and the second physician would also have to determine and document that the life of the mother is endangered before the abortion could be performed.
The added requirement for a documented referral from a second, non-affiliated physician could have serious consequences in emergency situations. Under HB 1679, a physician in a rural hospital that admitted a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition would be prohibited from proceeding with a procedure permitted by federal law, unless the physician identified another physician who was unaffiliated and who could determine and document her life-threatening condition. The lapse of time in finding that second physician and obtaining the needed referral could be significant and could result in the death of the pregnant woman.
I believe the federal law is appropriately more protective of the life of the pregnant woman.
For all of these reasons, I have vetoed HB 1679.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Lynch
Governor
Date: June 15, 2012
LAID ON TABLE
HB 162-FN, relative to capital murder for purposely causing the death of another. (Pending question: adoption of committee report of ought to pass.)
HB 448-FN, relative to spice incense products. (Pending question: adoption of committee report of inexpedient to legislate.)
HB 475-FN, relative to penalties under the consumer protection act. (Pending question: adoption of committee report of ought to pass.)
HB 494-FN, relative to tipped employees who deal card and table games at games of chance venues. (Pending question: adoption of majority committee report of ought to pass with amendment.)
HB 591, relative to the determination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child; relative to grounds for modification of an order regarding parental rights and responsibilities, and relative to grandparent and stepparent visitation rights. (Pending question: adoption of majority committee report of inexpedient to legislate.)
HB 1147, proclaiming March 31 of each year as a day to remember Terri Schiavo. (Pending question: adoption of the committee report of inexpedient to legislate.)
HB 1220, repealing the criminal history record and protective order check for the sale of firearms. (Pending question: adoption of the committee report of inexpedient to legislate.)
HB 1238, relative to divestiture of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) generation assets. (Pending question – adoption of the committee report of ought o pass with amendment.)
HB 1318, relative to carrying firearms. (Pending question – adoption of the committee report of inexpedient to legislate.)
HB 1368, relative to real property held as a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. (Pending question – adoption of the majority committee report of ought to pass with amendment.)
HB 1413-FN, directing New Hampshire to withdraw from the No Child Left Behind Act. (Pending question – adoption of the majority committee report of ought to pass.)
HB 1453, relative to requiring planning boards to require a deeded right-of-way to a public road as a condition for approval of plans for certain developments. (Pending question – adoption of the majority committee report of ought to pass.
HB 1517-FN-L, prohibiting the state and any political subdivision from entering any agreement implementing any provision of the No Child Left Behind Act without prior approval of the general court. (Pending question – adoption of the majority committee report of ought to pass.)
HB 1522-FN, reducing the penalty for violating a local vendor ordinance. (Pending question – adoption of the committee majority report if inexpedient to legislate.)
HB 1653-FN, relative to the rights of conscience for medical professionals. (Pending question – adoption of the majority committee report of ought to pass.)
HB 1685-FN-L, relative to collective bargaining under the public employee labor relations statutes. (Pending question: adoption of the majority committee amendment.)
HB 1709-FN, establishing a criminal offense for failure to report a missing or deceased child. (Pending question - adoption of the committee report of refer for interim study.)
HCO 1, relative to implementing an election pursuant to representative districts established in the order.
SB 168-FN, conforming the interest and dividends tax to federal tax definitions. (Pending question: adoption of the majority committee report of ought to pass with amendment.)
SB 260, relative to protection and preservation of significant archeological deposits.
SB 308, proclaiming January 24, 2013 as Granny D. Day.
SB 339, establishing Loon Appreciation Day.
SB 379, relative to insurance fraud. (Pending question: third reading.)
committee meetings
FRIDAY, JUNE 22
ASSESSING STANDARDS BOARD (RSA 21-J:14-a), Department of Revenue Administration, 109 Pleasant Street, Concord
9:30 a.m. Regular meeting.
Subcommittee meeting – Manual Update to follow the regular meeting.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION, Room 306, LOB
9:00 a.m. Interim study subcommittee work session on HB 1338, relative to failure to renew a professional or occupational license.
10:00 a.m. Interim study subcommittee work session on HB 1265, relative to criteria for the government regulation of occupations and professions.
GOVERNOR’S CAPITAL BUDGET HEARING SCHEDULE, Rooms 210-211, LOB
9:00 a.m. Department of Environmental Services
9:30 a.m. Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission
9:45 a.m. Department of Revenue Administration
10:15 a.m. NH Veterans Home
10:30 a.m. Department of Education
10:45 a.m. Community College System
11:15 a.m. Adjutant General
11:30 a.m. Department of Transportation
11:45 a.m. Department of Resources and Economic Development
12:15 p.m. Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food
12:30 p.m. Judicial Branch
GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION, INTERVENTION, AND TREATMENT (RSA 12-J), Rooms 301-303, LOB
9:30 a.m. Regular meeting.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (RSA 238-A:2), Room 201, LOB
10:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
MONDAY, JUNE 25
BOARD OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING (RSA 205-A:25), Room 201, LOB
1:00 p.m. Regular meeting.
OIL FUND DISBURSEMENT (RSA 146-D:4), Room 305, LOB
9:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
TUESDAY, JUNE 26
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION, Room 306, LOB
9:00 a.m. Interim study subcommittee work session on SB 177, relative to training of directors and officers of nonprofit corporations.
9:30 a.m. Interim study subcommittee work session on HB1609-FN, relative to licensure of polysomnographers by the board of respiratory care practitioners.
10:30 a.m. Interim study subcommittee work session on HB 1317, relative to certifying electricians as fire suppression equipment and alarm installers.
1:00 p.m. Interim study subcommittee work session on HB 1647-FN, requiring the department of health and human services to license supervised visitation centers.
HOUSE LEGISLATIVE FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE (RSA 17-E:2), Room 100, State House.
10:30 a.m. Or five minutes after JFLC meeting, regular meeting.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE FACILITIES (RSA 17-E:2), Room 100, State House
10:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
LONG-RANGE CAPITAL PLANNING AND UTILIZATION (RSA 17-M), Room 201, LOB
10:00 a.m. Regular business.
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Room 303, LOB
9:30 a.m. Full committee work session on PETITION 6, grievance of Candy Knightly, PETITION 34, grievance of Daniel Shepard.
Executive session may follow.
1:00 p.m. Executive session on PETITION 20, grievance of Carl E. Dow.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (RSA 281-A:62), Room 304, LOB
10:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27
CAPITAL BUDGET OVERVIEW COMMITTEE (RSA 17-J:2), Room 100, State House
9:45 a.m. Regular business.
EDUCATION, Room 207, LOB
1:00 p.m. Or immediately following the House session, Interim study subcommittee work session on HB 296, relative to procedures for juvenile delinquency petitions filed by a school district or school official.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (RSA 17-N:1), Room 212, LOB
One hour after the close of the House session, regular meeting.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FUNDING REFORM, Room 301, LOB
1:00 p.m. Or immediately following the House session, interim study full committee work sessions on HCR 26, declaring that the Claremont case's mandates that the legislative and executive branches define an adequate education, determine its cost, fund its entire cost with state taxes, and ensure its delivery through accountability, are not binding on the legislative and executive branches, CACR 7, relating to education funding. Providing that the general court shall distribute funds in the manner that it determines will best promote an equal opportunity for an adequate education, HB1473-FN-L, relative to the calculation and distribution of adequate education grants.
thursday, june 28
COMMISSION TO STUDY BUSINESS REGULATIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE (RSA 359-L:1), Room 303, LOB
3:00 p.m. Full committee meeting.
ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE, Room 303, LOB
10:00 a.m. Full committee work session to review RSA 437 and 437-A.
GUARDIANS AD LITEM BOARD (RSA 490-C:1), Room 101, LOB
10:00 a.m. Special meeting to work on proposed changes to our administrative rules.
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Room 307, LOB
9:30 a.m. Full committee work session on PETITION 26, grievance of Joshua Youssef, PETITION 33, grievance of Nicholas Haas.
Executive session may follow.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FUNDING REFORM, Room 301, LOB
10:00 a.m. Interim study full committee work sessions on HCR 26, declaring that the Claremont case's mandates that the legislative and executive branches define an adequate education, determine its cost, fund its entire cost with state taxes, and ensure its delivery through accountability, are not binding on the legislative and executive branches, CACR 7, relating to education funding. Providing that the general court shall distribute funds in the manner that it determines will best promote an equal opportunity for an adequate education, HB 1473-FN-L, relative to the calculation and distribution of adequate education grants.
MONDAY, JULY 9
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING EDUCATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (RSA 188-E:21), Room 100, State House
3:00 p.m. Regular meeting.
TUESDAY, JULY10
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Room 303, LOB
9:30 a.m. Full committee work session on PETITION 11, grievance of David D. Vandenberg, PETITION 30, grievance of Bethany Capen.
Executive session may follow.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11
ETHICS COMMITTEE (RSA 14-B:2), Room 104, LOB
10:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
10:30 a.m. Joint meeting with the Executive Branch Ethics Committee (RSA 21-G:29).
THURSDAY, JULY 12
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Room 303, LOB
9:30 a.m. Continued executive session on PETITION 5, grievance of David Johnson.
TUESDAY, JULY 17
FINANCE – (DIVISION I), Room 212, LOB
10:00 a.m. Interim study work session on HB 625-FN-A, relative to New Hampshire correctional industries.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18
COMMITTEE TO STUDY LAWS RELATING TO CONDO AND HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS (RSA 356-B:70), Room 305, LOB
11:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
THURSDAY, JULY 19
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (RSA 541-A:2), Rooms 305-307, LOB
9:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
COMMISSION TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF SERVICE-CONNECTED POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (RSA 115-D:1), Room 203, LOB
2:30 p.m. Regular meeting.
SHORELAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAKES SUBCOMMITTEE (RSA 483-B:21), Department of Environmental Services, Room 214, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord
9:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
FRIDAY, JULY 20
GUARDIANS AD LITEM BOARD (RSA 490-C:1), Room 101, LOB
1:00 p.m. Regular meeting.
MONDAY, JULY 23
FISCAL COMMITTEE (RSA 14:30-a), Rooms 210-211, LOB
10:00 a.m. Regular business.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25
JOINT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (RSA 420-N:3), Room 302, LOB
10:00 a.m. Regular meeting.
OFFICIAL NOTICES
County Delegation Notice
Belknap County Delegation will meet on June 25 at 5:00 p.m. at the County Complex with the County Commissioners for a discussion and public hearing on the commissioners request for a supplemental appropriation to the 2012 calendar year budget pursuant to RSA 24:14-(a). The subject of the discussion and hearing is the Belknap County jail planning.
Rep. Alida I. Millham, Chairman
Belknap County Delegation
County Delegation Notice
Rockingham County Executive Committee will meet for the second quarter budget review on Friday, July 20, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in the Hilton Auditorium at the Rockingham County Nursing Home in Brentwood.
Rep. David A. Welch, Clerk
Rockingham County Executive Committee
REVISED FISCAL NOTES
The following House Bills and Senate bills have a revised fiscal note: HBs 102, 110, 186, 222, 225, 228, 234, 242, 247, 263, 269, 325, 344, 351, 418, 420, 440, 445, 449, 494, 508, 518, 533, 602, 627, 652, 1155, 1185, 1204, 1221, 1230, 1251, 1274, 1297, 1302,1366, 1383, 1418, 1440, 1455, 1460, 1473, 1483, 1490, 1495, 1496, 1505, 1510, 1521, 1526, 1529, 1534, 1546, 1547, 1552, 1576, 1593, 1597, 1607, 1611, 1629, 1642, 1644, 1652, 1658, 1659, 1664, 1666, 1673, 1675, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1680, 1682, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1691, 1692, 1695, 1696, 1698, 1701, 1704, 1713, 1721. SBs 48, 83, 142, 153, 203, 217, 218, 225, 229, 239, 244, 247, 258, 266, 285, 302, 311, 313, 314, 321, 324, 330, 338, 343, 347, 348, 350, 358, 350, 366, 372, 392, 399, 401, 402, 404, 407.
Karen O. Wadsworth, Clerk of the House
******
When the House Clerk’s Office is aware of House Members who are hospitalized or homebound by serious illness, we will publish a list of names and addresses as requested.
Rep. Dan Carr, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Room 122, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, New Hampshire 03756.
Rep. Frank G. Case, 44 Beach Head Road, Nottingham, New Hampshire 03290-4921.
Rep. Susan Emerson, Bethesda Navy Lodge, 8901 Rockville Pike Building 52, Room 307, Bethesda, MD 20889
Rep. Jean L. Jeudy, 134 Calef Road, Manchester, New Hampshire 03103-6324
Rep. Chip L. Rice, 23 Wilson Avenue, Concord, New Hampshire 03301-2226.
Colleagues who so desire may send cards and greetings to the address listed above.
Karen O. Wadsworth, Clerk of the House
******
members’ notices
The following notices are published in the House record as a courtesy to the member(s) requesting publication. These are not official public notices and will be limited to legislative policy or legislative social activities and political meetings or events. Publication should not be construed as support for either the events listed or the views espoused by the individual or organization sponsoring the event.
******
The Vesta Roy Excellence in Public Service Series is currently accepting applications for Fellows for the 2012-2013 class. The Vesta Roy Excellence in Public Service Series is a political leadership training program for New Hampshire Republican women who have an interest in politics and public service. Each year the Vesta Roy Series awards up to 12 fellowships to women who pledge to seek a policy-making position in government or in the Republican Party within five years. Fellows are selected from a statewide field of applicants who have demonstrated leadership skills in their chosen fields of work or in service to their community. All must display a commitment to achieving full participation of women in politics and government and must be registered Republicans. For more information please go to: http://www.vestaroyseries.org/application
Rep. Joanne Ward
******
The House Republicans will be hosting a legislative summit on Thursday, June 28. The event will be held in the Finance room beginning at 9:00 a.m. ALL Republicans are encouraged to attend and participate as we look forward to the next session. Please RSVP with the Majority office if you plan on attending.
Reps. Paul Mirski, Pete Silva, Pamela Tucker
******
The Water Quality and Standards Advisory Committee will meet on July 12 at 1:30 p.m. at the Department of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord. At this meeting there will be a continued discussion of Class A criteria with presentations/updates on wetland water quality standards and water temperature in NH rivers and streams.
Rep. Andrew Renzullo
******
Smart Girl Politics NH invites legislators to join for a day of firearm safety, education and training at our First Annual SGP NH “Armed & Fabulous” Shoot, July 14 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Londonderry Fish and Game Club. For more information or to register, contact Susan Olsen at smartgirlpoliticsnh@hotmail.com.
Rep. Carol McGuire
******
The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, publisher of the Gold Standard, invites all members to attend our annual Liberty Dinner. The NHLA Legislator of the Year award will be announced and the annual Liberty Rating legislative report card will be distributed. Date/time: Sunday, July 15 at Chateau Restaurant, 201 Hanover St. in Manchester, 5:00 p.m. VIP reception, 6:00 p.m. dinner. Legislators receive a discounted price of only $25 which may be paid at the door. RSVP to info@nhliberty.org. More details at nhliberty.org.
Reps Seth Cohn, Carol McGuire & Dan McGuire
******
All members of the Republican caucus are invited to the House Republican Alliance's weekly meeting. The HRA will meet Tuesdays at 8:30 a.m. in Room 308, LOB.
Reps. Dan McGuire, Marilinda Garcia and Stephen Palmer
******
The Main Street Republicans will meet on Wednesdays prior to session, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 209, LOB. All Republican House members are welcome.
Reps. David H. Kidder and Rick M. Ladd
******
State House Visitation Schedule
As a convenience to the members of the NH General Court, the Visitors’ Center offers the following schedule of schools and other groups visiting the State House in 2012. These listings are to ensure all members be notified in a timely manner of visitors from their district. Our schedule is tightly booked for the school year and subject to changes.
Please contact the Visitor Center concerning school tour booking information. Legislators planning to meet with students should notify the Visitor Center. Thank you for your continued participation with your School Visitation Program.
Virginia J. Drew, Director
Deborah Rivers, Public Information Administrator
| DATE | TIME | GROUP | Group#/Grade | |
| June 25 | 2:00 | Young Rescuers - Manchester | 12 | |
| June 29 | 10:30 | Sugar Hill Retirement Community- Wolfeboro | 14 | |