Here is information on Right-to-know Bills coming up in New Hampshire: 


How to express your opinion using the remote links.

RECORD YOUR OPPOSITION TO (Example) HB607:

1. Find the bill identifier (for example. HB607), and the DATE of the hearing, as well as the COMMITTEE

2. Go to the link

3. Select the DATE on the Calendar: (for example, Tuesday, February 9th)

4. Select the COMMITTEE (for example, Education)

5. Select the Bill: (for example, 1:30PM - HB607)

6. Select "I am a member of the public”

7. Select “I Support this Bill” “I Oppose this Bill” “I'm neutral on this Bill” (In the case of HB607, Democrats “Oppose”)

8. Hit Continue and then fill out your personal info.

9. Hit Continue and submit.

10. Email all Education Committee members opposing this bill: HouseEducationCommittee@leg.state.nh.us.

11. Share with other NH voters.

House Bills

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/remotetestimony/

 (Click again on the "Redirect Notice)

Senate Bills

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/remotecommittee/senate

 (Click again on the "Redirect Notice)

RTK Bills—Remote Meetings, Collective Bargaining, Sealed Minutes

On Friday, February 19, the House Judiciary Committee

 will hear testimony on four bills that would make significant changes to the Right-to-Know Law—some good and some not so good. 

  • HB 108
    scheduled for 9:00 a.m., would require a public body to keep a list of all its nonpublic sessions for which the minutes were deemed to be not subject to public disclosure. The list must include the date and time of the nonpublic session, the specific exemption that allowed the nonpublic session, the date of the decision to withhold the minutes, and the date of any subsequent decision to make the minutes available. The principal effect of this would be to create additional tedious work for public bodies and employees, with minimal benefit to the public. OPPOSE
  • HB 206
    scheduled for 9:30 a.m., would eliminate the exemption from the definition of “meeting” for collective bargaining negotiations, meaning those negotiations would have to be held in public; only “strategy” sessions would still be exempt. We’ve seen this bill before. The idea seems to be that requiring public negotiations will serve as a check on the demands of unions and thus lead to lower costs for taxpayers, but the exact opposite is likely. Anyone who has been to a few town or school district meetings knows that when public employee compensation is being debated, it is the employees who fill the room. This will reduce union negotiators’ incentive to compromise and potentially intimidate management. In addition, because these sessions typically involve a constant back-and-forth between actual negotiation and caucusing (e., “strategy”), the public body would need to adjourn and reconvene the public meeting repeatedly. This would be a mess. OPPOSE
  • HB 216
    scheduled for 10:00 a.m., would allow public bodies to conduct meetings remotely, as they have been permitted to do during the current state of emergency. SUPPORT
  • HB 630
    , scheduled for 11:00 a.m., also would allow public bodies to conduct meetings remotely, although the language is somewhat different from that of HB 216. SUPPORT - the two bills are similar; the same, really, just with different language.

No comments