Committee Summary for House Executive Departments and Administration (02/19/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB702 00:10:59.839 - 8:10:20 AM	General Working Session	relative to defining extra duty pay hours for a retired part-time police officer's hour limit for yearly calculations.	Doucette, Fred(R)[A-]2024
HB702 00:36:14.119 - 8:35:35 AM	Executive Session	relative to defining extra duty pay hours for a retired part-time police officer's hour limit for yearly calculations.	Doucette, Fred(R)[A-]2024
HB581 00:36:59.960 - 8:36:20 AM	General Working Session	establishing a state retirement plan group for new state employee members of the retirement system.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A+]2024
HB694 01:02:44.279 - 9:02:05 AM	Public Hearing	requiring leases of land, buildings, or space by state agencies to be at fair market value.	Aron, Judy(R)[A]2024
HB780 01:38:36.239 - 9:37:57 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the director of the division of archives and records management of the department of state.	Gilmore, Gary(D)
HB156 0421H 01:43:36.119 - 9:42:57 AM	Executive Session	establishing a committee to review state procurement policies and make recommendations to encourage local food production and conservation.	Bixby, Peter(D)[CT]2024
HB525 02:01:47.159 - 10:01:08 AM	Public Hearing	transferring administration of the program for the deaf and hard of hearing and the board of licensure of interpreters for the deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing to the office of professional licensure and certification.	McGuire, Carol(R)[A+]2024
HB536 05:17:57.240 - 1:17:18 PM	Executive Session	relative to a cost of living adjustment in the state retirement system.	Grote, Jaci(D)[CT]2024
HB780 0496 05:25:35.440 - 1:24:56 PM	Executive Session	relative to the director of the division of archives and records management of the department of state.	Gilmore, Gary(D)
HB438 05:31:27.320 - 1:30:48 PM	Executive Session	relative to immigration detention facilities.	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[CT]2024
HB570 0190h 05:35:33.920 - 1:34:54 PM	Executive Session	relative to membership of the prescription drug affordability board and the definition of public payor for purposes of board administration.	Edwards, Jess(R)[B+]2024
HB702 05:39:59.400 - 1:39:20 PM	Executive Session	relative to defining extra duty pay hours for a retired part-time police officer's hour limit for yearly calculations.	Doucette, Fred(R)[A-]2024
HB702 05:40:33.798 - 1:39:54 PM	Executive Session	relative to defining extra duty pay hours for a retired part-time police officer's hour limit for yearly calculations.	Doucette, Fred(R)[A-]2024
HB581 2025-0502 05:49:52.360 - 1:49:13 PM	Executive Session	establishing a state retirement plan group for new state employee members of the retirement system.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A+]2024
HB210 06:05:38.680 - 2:04:59 PM	Executive Session	establishing a commission to study the state flag and its history.	Cormen, Thomas(D)[CT]2024
HB227 06:13:42.000 - 2:13:03 PM	Executive Session	relative to licensure for psychotherapy activities or services.	Layon, Erica(R)[A]2024
HB278 06:22:29.840 - 2:21:50 PM	Executive Session	relative to proxy carbon pricing in state procurement.	Germana, Nicholas(D)[CT]2024
HB271 0495H 06:38:43.920 - 2:38:04 PM	General Working Session	relative to initial license requirements for licensed social work associates.	Schmidt, Peter(D)[CT]2024
HB145 06:44:34.718 - 2:43:55 PM	General Working Session	relative to background checks for licensed dietitians and adopting the dietitian licensure compact.	Grote, Jaci(D)[CT]2024
HB82 06:57:41.680 - 2:57:02 PM	General Working Session	relative to the regulation of various occupations.	McGuire, Carol(R)[A+]2024

HB702: Chair Information Only00:10:59.839 - 8:10:20 AM; The Chair opened the session by discussing House Bill 702, which deals with extra or special duty pay. They explained the different groups of employees affected by changes in the retirement system, particularly those hired before and after July 1st, 2011. The Chair noted that the bill would allow extra and special duty pay to be included in part-time work for retirees, raising concerns about fairness and potential 'double dipping' for those who could work more post-retirement without contributing to the retirement system.
HB702: Representative De Information Only00:14:03.399 - 8:13:24 AM; Representative De sought clarification on the bill's impact on employees hired after July 1st, 2011, confirming that their special duty pay did not count towards retirement before they retired. They were trying to understand how the bill would affect these employees.
HB702: Chair Information Only00:14:32.959 - 8:13:53 AM; The Chair responded to a question about the 2011 change in the retirement system, explaining that it was an attempt to address the underfunded retirement system and reduce contributions that were increasing property taxes. They highlighted the system's unfunded liability and its impact on taxes.
HB702: Representative De Information Only00:15:20.639 - 8:14:41 AM; Representative De asked for clarification on the maximum hours a retired police officer could work under the current system, and how the bill would affect this. They expressed confusion about why special duty pay should count towards the maximum hours, especially since it does not cost the state or municipalities extra and could help alleviate police shortages.
HB702: Chair Information Only00:17:37.760 - 8:16:58 AM; The Chair explained that the hours worked under special duty pay were considered earnable time, contributing to the maximum amount for retirement. They emphasized the need for fairness in treating the same type of compensation consistently for earning retirement and working during retirement.
HB702: Representative To Information Only00:18:24.880 - 8:17:45 AM; Representative To questioned the rationale behind limiting the hours a retired police officer can work, especially since it does not affect the state's pension system contributions. They argued that allowing retirees to work more would benefit communities and relieve current police officers from additional duties.
HB702: Chair Information Only00:19:10.880 - 8:18:31 AM; The Chair reiterated the policy issue of treating the same hours differently for earning compensation versus working during retirement, explaining how this could impact the retirement system's unfunded liabilities.
HB702: Representative SLA Information Only00:19:33.919 - 8:18:54 AM; Representative SLA sought clarification on whether the bill would prevent retired employees from working special duty or just not count those hours towards retirement. They confirmed that the bill would allow retired employees to work more hours without counting those hours towards their retirement.
HB702: Representative Sellers Information Only00:20:19.280 - 8:19:40 AM; Representative Sellers discussed the bill's impact on retired police officers, noting that it would allow them to work more without affecting their retirement status. They questioned the policy rationale behind limiting these hours.
HB702: Representative Re Information Only00:21:51.799 - 8:21:12 AM; Representative Re emphasized that the bill would benefit communities by allowing retired police officers to work revenue-generating shifts without increasing costs to the state. They argued that the bill would support community needs and current police officers.
HB702: Chair Information Only00:23:05.120 - 8:22:26 AM; The Chair questioned whether the bill could be seen as policing for profit, focusing on the financial benefits for municipalities when retirees perform special duty work instead of active duty officers.
HB702: Representative Information Only00:23:45.679 - 8:23:06 AM; The Representative clarified that the bill does not change the existing system of charging businesses for police details but would allow retirees to perform this work instead of active duty officers, who contribute to the retirement system. They noted that there would be no cost to the state.
HB702: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:24:55.799 - 8:24:16 AM; The speaker responded to a question about the impact of allowing retirees to perform special duty work. They expressed doubt that having retirees perform this work would affect the fees charged by municipalities, using an example of tree removal and the associated costs for special duty police work. They questioned whether having a larger supply of people to perform such duties would incentivize a 2-hour minimum charge for traffic duty, citing a specific example from their town where a high fee was charged for a short duration of traffic control.
HB702: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:26:22.200 - 8:25:43 AM; The speaker found the rate for special duty work shocking but did not believe that allowing retirees to perform such work was driving the high rates. They acknowledged the impact of supply and demand on pricing, but emphasized that retiree involvement in special duty work was not the cause of the high rates charged.
HB702: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:33:23.480 - 8:32:44 AM; The speaker moved to recommend HB702 as inexpedient to legislate, explaining that the bill would allow state retirees to work more hours in special and extra duty without triggering a return to active employment status. They highlighted the inconsistency in treating special and extra duty pay differently for retirement calculations depending on the hire date of employees, and argued that it was premature to change the rules for employees hired after July 1st, 2011, as they were still years away from retirement.
HB702: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:34:40.560 - 8:34:01 AM; The speaker mentioned opposition to HB702 from the New Hampshire State Permanent Firefighters Retirement Association, noting a small number of online comments with more opposition than support. They highlighted mixed opinions from the New Hampshire Police Association, with Detective Mike Guya speaking in favor of the bill. The speaker questioned whether increasing the supply of retirees for special duty would lower costs, suggesting it might not align with supply and demand principles, and noted the different treatment of police and firefighters in the bill.
HB702: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:36:14.119 - 8:35:35 AM; The speaker called for a vote on HB702, which resulted in a 3-2 decision to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate. They then transitioned to discuss House Bill 581.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:36:59.960 - 8:36:20 AM; The speaker proposed delaying the effective date of HB581 by six months to allow more time for implementation, suggesting an amendment to change the effective date from June 30th, 2025, to December 31st, 2025, for the group to be established before the employees start on January 1st, 2026. They also mentioned an amendment by Representative Dan Maguire to include group three in health insurance and medical and surgical benefits discussions, calling it a housekeeping amendment.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:38:34.160 - 8:37:55 AM; The speaker discussed the impact of Michigan's shift from a defined benefit to a defined contribution retirement plan, citing studies that showed significant savings in unfunded liabilities. They explained that Michigan's defined benefit plan had issues with high assumed rates of return and insufficient contributions, similar to New Hampshire's situation. The speaker argued that moving to defined contribution in Michigan was successful and provided a spreadsheet comparing the outcomes of defined benefit versus defined contribution plans over 40 years, highlighting the potential for higher returns with defined contribution.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:42:25.119 - 8:41:46 AM; The speaker discussed the proposed amendment to HB581, which included immediate vesting of contributions but added a two-year vesting period for the employer's 5% contribution. They explained that this aligns with private employer plans and ensures that the state's contribution is not immediately taken by short-term employees. They also mentioned the possibility of addressing rules for returning employees to pick up where they left off in terms of vesting, suggesting it could benefit public service.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Oppose00:44:23.160 - 8:43:44 AM; The speaker opposed HB581, expressing concern that a defined contribution plan does not guarantee a specific payout upon retirement, unlike a defined benefit plan. They worried that this could affect the state's ability to recruit public employees, as the predictability of retirement benefits is crucial. They also believed that the bill would increase the state's unfunded liability, as it would not contribute to paying down existing liabilities.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:45:54.960 - 8:45:15 AM; The speaker clarified that HB581 would still require the state to contribute to the unfunded liability, ensuring that the plan to pay off the liability by 2039 remains on track. They emphasized the importance of addressing the unfunded liability in all new retirement plans.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Oppose00:46:44.960 - 8:46:05 AM; The speaker opposed HB581, citing testimony from the SEIU about the impact of a defined contribution plan on employee recruitment and retention. They argued that the portability of defined contribution plans could incentivize employees to leave before reaching the 10-year mark, which is currently a goal for many public servants. They also expressed concern that the assumptions for paying off the unfunded liability were based on the absence of a defined contribution plan.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Support00:48:16.640 - 8:47:37 AM; The speaker supported HB581, emphasizing the importance of attracting and retaining young families in New Hampshire by ensuring an affordable lifestyle. They argued that while government roles are important, they should not overshadow the contributions of private industry, which are crucial for a dynamic workforce and economic affordability in the state.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:49:09.359 - 8:48:30 AM; The speaker emphasized the alignment of the proposed changes with modern corporate practices, particularly focusing on the shift from pensions to 401K plans. They highlighted the importance of portability for young employees, suggesting that the ability to take their benefits with them when changing jobs is crucial. This approach, they argued, is more in line with current employment trends where employees are more likely to move between jobs.
HB581: Representative Howard Oppose00:49:58.280 - 8:49:19 AM; Representative Howard argued for maintaining the current defined benefits plan, emphasizing its role in retaining experienced public servants like detectives and firefighters. They expressed concern about the loss of institutional knowledge if such employees were to leave for other opportunities. They also mentioned the importance of keeping educators in the state, noting the challenges in recruiting qualified teachers due to retirement and lack of incentives.
HB581: Representative Pearson Information Only00:50:44.799 - 8:50:05 AM; Representative Pearson discussed the importance of retaining specialized professionals like those with degrees in firefighter engineering. They highlighted the need for competitive benefits to keep such talent in the state, particularly in education, where half of the teachers in Strafford are still working on their credentials. They expressed concern about the bill not addressing firefighters, teachers, or employees of political subdivisions, indicating it only affects state employees.
HB581: Representative Sla Support00:52:07.200 - 8:51:28 AM; Representative Sla supported the shift to a defined contribution plan, arguing it would be more attractive to employees by providing them with more control over their retirement funds. They expressed concerns about the current system's political dependency for cost-of-living adjustments and the state's ability to dip into pension funds, creating uncertainty. They suggested that a defined contribution plan would shift the responsibility to the individual, reducing state interference.
HB581: Representative Howard Oppose00:55:14.359 - 8:54:35 AM; Representative Howard raised concerns about the potential negative impact on retirees if the state limits funds to pay down unfunded liabilities. They argued that changing the retirement system could jeopardize the state's ability to meet current obligations to retirees, who had planned their futures based on the existing system.
HB581: Representative Sers Information Only00:56:47.240 - 8:56:08 AM; Representative Sers clarified that the proposed changes would only affect new state employees hired after July 1st, not firefighters or teachers, who remain under the current retirement plan. They sought to understand the scope of the bill's impact on different employee groups.
HB581: Representative De Oppose00:57:36.599 - 8:56:57 AM; Representative De argued that the proposed change to a defined contribution plan would increase costs for the state, even with a two-year vesting period. They noted that employees can already take their contributions if they leave, but the state's contributions are meant to retain employees. They referenced previous legislative attempts to change the system that were deemed inexpedient, suggesting the state should not create a new system at a time of financial constraint.
HB581: Madam Chair Information Only00:59:09.839 - 8:58:30 AM; The Madam Chair moved to amend the bill to change the start date for new employees to January 1st, 2026, and to include a two-year vesting period. They also proposed an amendment by Representative Dan Maguire and called for a vote on the amended bill, which passed with a vote of 3 to 2.
HB694: Representative Judy Aaron, Sullivan County District 4 (towns of Alstead, Goshen, Lempster, Langdon, and Washington) Support01:02:44.279 - 9:02:05 AM; Representative Judy Aaron introduced HB694, which requires state agencies to lease properties at fair market value during renewals. She highlighted the issue of the state imposing below-market lease rates on renewals, which shifts costs to local taxpayers. She used the example of a courthouse lease in Sullivan County to illustrate this problem. The bill aims to ensure that lease renewals are negotiated based on current market conditions, addressing potential issues like inflation. She noted that the bill does not cover additional lease elements like utilities, and mentioned that Sullivan County Manager Derek Furland was present to answer specific questions.
HB694: Derek Furland, Sullivan County Manager Support01:07:22.799 - 9:06:43 AM; Derek Furland, Sullivan County Manager, expressed support for HB694, highlighting his extensive experience with lease negotiations with the state for court spaces. He noted the lack of overarching guidance in state law for lease negotiations, which often results in a 'take it or leave it' approach from the state. Furland suggested that an objective process based on fair market value could lead to more efficient and fair negotiations, benefiting both the state and counties. He discussed the specifics of Sullivan County's lease with the state, including the complexities of utility and custodial costs, and the potential impacts of not offering space or facing eminent domain. Furland also addressed questions about the state's use of eminent domain and the historical context of lease arrangements with the state.
HB694: Representative Pearson Information Only01:17:52.000 - 9:17:13 AM; Representative Pearson raised concerns about a chart provided by the Department of Administrative Services, which listed Salem as both a town and a city. He questioned the clarity of the chart and its implications for understanding the leases, particularly noting instances where it appeared that a city was leasing from itself. This led to a clarification from others about the chart's purpose, indicating that it listed agencies leasing properties and the owners of those properties.
HB694: Representative Howard Information Only01:24:29.920 - 9:23:50 AM; Representative Howard discussed the complexities of lease negotiations with the state, using the example of the Strafford County Courthouse. He raised questions about what alternative uses could be made of court spaces if they were vacated by the state, suggesting potential uses like municipal offices or housing.
HB694: Kate Horgan, New Hampshire Association of Counties Support01:31:46.239 - 9:31:07 AM; Kate Horgan, representing the New Hampshire Association of Counties and pinch-hitting for Strafford County Administrator Bower, expressed support for HB694. She emphasized the bill's potential to provide a tool for counties to negotiate leases more effectively, reducing the burden on county taxpayers. Horgan noted that all five counties that lease space to the state for court services face similar negotiation challenges and would benefit from clearer parameters set by the bill.
HB694: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:33:47.960 - 9:33:08 AM; The speaker acknowledged the complexity of determining fair market values for specialized locations and requested suggestions on how to determine these values. They mentioned a prior meeting with Commissioner Arlinghouse in October or November without a resolution and planned to discuss the issue at the upcoming county administrators meeting on Friday.
HB694: Representative Pearson Information Only01:35:18.719 - 9:34:39 AM; Representative Pearson provided an example from Rockingham County where the county courts lease a building from the state, which is in poor condition due to mold. They mentioned that the lease is ending due to the construction of a new county structure.
HB694: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:36:05.440 - 9:35:26 AM; The speaker suggested considering the designation of fair market value for both the state as lessor and lessee to balance the approach. They agreed to bring this suggestion back to the counties for feedback.
HB694: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:36:52.600 - 9:36:13 AM; The speaker responded to a query about the state using eminent domain against counties, stating that while it may have happened historically, there have been no recent instances discussed.
HB694: Derek Furland, Sullivan County Information Only01:37:03.440 - 9:36:24 AM; Derek Furland pointed out a drafting error in the bill under RSA 21-g:5, where section three should be section four regarding state agencies. He also noted a similar error in RSA 439b and suggested fixing both.
HB780: Representative Gilmore Support01:38:36.239 - 9:37:57 AM; Representative Gilmore introduced House Bill 780, aimed at updating the language regarding the position of archivist to be gender neutral. He mentioned that the bill originated from discussions with the current archivist, Ashley, who was the first woman appointed to the position. He noted the support of the Secretary of State's office, although they could not attend due to other commitments. Gilmore also shared his personal history with the legislature and his motivation to address the gender-specific language in the law.
HB780: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:41:16.880 - 9:40:37 AM; The speaker proposed changes to the language of HB780 to make it more gender neutral, suggesting replacing 'his or her' with 'the agency's' in various sections. Representative Gilmore agreed to these changes and expressed willingness to offer an amendment if necessary.
HB156 0421H: Unidentified Speaker Support01:43:36.119 - 9:42:57 AM; The speaker introduced Amendment 0421H to HB156, which replaces the current advisory committee on state procurement with a new one focused on food, as requested by Representative Bixby. The amendment also plans to repeal the new committee by November 1, 2025. The speaker emphasized the importance of updating committees that no longer serve their purpose.
HB156 0421H: Representative Lamb Support01:44:42.719 - 9:44:03 AM; Representative Lamb supported the amendment, highlighting the need to update and streamline commissions that no longer serve their original purpose. They appreciated the dual benefit of meeting Representative Bixby's needs and reducing legislative and public confusion.
HB156 0421H: Representative Groda Support01:45:28.520 - 9:44:49 AM; Representative Groda clarified the amendment's intent to change the scope of the existing statutory committee to focus on food and then repeal it, expressing support for the move.
HB156 0421H: Representative Pearson Support01:46:04.119 - 9:45:25 AM; Representative Pearson, having served on the state procurement commission, supported the amendment, stating that the usefulness of the commission was questionable. They believed the amendment would solve two problems at once.
HB156 0421H: Unidentified Speaker Support01:46:59.440 - 9:46:20 AM; The speaker announced the vote on Amendment 0421H for HB156, which was unanimously adopted by the committee members present.
HB156 0421H: Unidentified Speaker Support01:47:49.400 - 9:47:10 AM; The speaker moved to pass HB156 with Amendment 0421H, which was seconded and unanimously approved by the committee members present. The bill was set to be included on the consent calendar.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:01:47.159 - 10:01:08 AM; The speaker is ensuring that everyone is ready to start the hearing, indicating a transition to the next part of the session.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:02:46.239 - 10:02:07 AM; The speaker briefly mentions something about work not being retained in the summer, but the context is unclear from the snippet provided.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:03:41.400 - 10:03:02 AM; The speaker opens the hearing on House Bill 525 and introduces Representative Dan Maguire.
HB525: Dan McGuire, Epsom Support02:03:50.159 - 10:03:11 AM; Representative Dan Maguire, from Epsom, discusses his role as the chair of the Joint Committee on dedicated funds, which reviews dedicated funds on a five-year cycle. He explains that they reviewed the Interpreters Certification Fund, which falls under RSA 200-C:20-a. The fund collects licensing fees from interpreters for the deaf and hard of hearing, managed by the Department of Education. He notes a discrepancy where the fund's revenue exceeds its expenses, suggesting that the board does not receive adequate attention from the Department of Education. Maguire proposes moving the board and its accounting unit to the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) for better professional attention and management, which would help align the revenues and expenses more effectively. He addresses a question from Representative Groda about the necessity of the move, explaining that it would allow for more professional management and potentially lower fees, as well as better utilization of funds for training or other purposes.
HB525: Carol Maguire, District 27 Support02:07:41.480 - 10:07:02 AM; Representative Carol Maguire introduced HB525, explaining that it was proposed at the request of a constituent following a need identified by another representative to relocate a professional licensing board. The intent of the bill is to transfer the board to the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) without changing its responsibilities or duties. She emphasized the importance of ensuring all cross-references are correct and that the board's dedicated funds continue to be used appropriately. She recommended retaining the bill for further review in a subcommittee to ensure the transition is handled correctly and mentioned a fiscal note indicating potential additional staffing needs at OPLC.
HB525: Representative Schmidt Information Only02:09:58.599 - 10:09:19 AM; Representative Schmidt asked a technical question about the definition of the board, confirming that it includes both the deaf and blind as per the existing statutory definition. He stressed the importance of clarifying the implications of retaining the bill to those present and those unable to attend, acknowledging the bill's complexity and the need for further review in a subcommittee.
HB525: Representative Pearson Oppose02:11:34.599 - 10:10:55 AM; Representative Pearson expressed concerns about transferring the board to OPLC, highlighting the board's specialized nature and self-contained operations. He worried about the potential need for OPLC to hire additional staff, which he sees as unnecessary and potentially harmful to the board's current effective administration. He questioned the purpose of retaining the bill, suggesting it might be to force the board into OPLC despite opposition from its current administrators.
HB525: Representative Pearson Information Only02:13:14.320 - 10:12:35 AM; Representative Pearson sought clarification on the intent of the bill, ensuring that the move to OPLC would not affect the board's authority or power, only its administrative operations. He noted that OPLC could offer benefits such as rule updates, which the Department of Education has been less effective at providing.
HB525: Representative Schmidt Information Only02:14:21.840 - 10:13:42 AM; Representative Schmidt questioned the management of the board's funds, noting that they seem to be accumulating more than necessary. He suggested that the board might consider lowering licensing fees or enhancing their operations to balance their finances better. He also asked if the presence of board members and beneficiaries at the hearing could be utilized to gain further insights into the board's needs and operations.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:17:41.120 - 10:17:02 AM; The speaker inquires about potential changes in administrative costs due to the bill. They mention that there might be startup costs such as new business cards and updating administrative rules, but the general cost should remain unchanged unless the board decides to hire a dedicated investigator due to unresolved complaints.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:18:33.240 - 10:17:54 AM; The speaker refers to a fiscal note indicating a cost of over $227,000, related to the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) taking on new responsibilities. They clarify that the OPLC's fiscal note suggests an indeterminable overall impact, and some administrative costs might be covered by the Department of Education, specifically mentioning the need for an interpreter as a legitimate expense.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:19:51.399 - 10:19:12 AM; The speaker questions the changes proposed in the bill, particularly the transformation of the board into an Advisory Board and the implications for its independence and administrative support. They seek clarification on how complaints about interpretation services would be handled, with the response indicating that the OPLC would conduct investigations with experts, while the board would decide the outcome.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:21:23.160 - 10:20:44 AM; The speaker confirms that if the board is moved to the OPLC, it would still be populated by members of the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing community, maintaining the same composition as currently exists. They suggest hearing from the OPLC before further questions to establish a clear understanding of the bill's implications.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:22:10.040 - 10:21:31 AM; The speaker suggests hearing from the community before the OPLC to understand the situation better, emphasizing the importance of setting the context for the bill's impact. They mention that the OPLC will provide detailed support to the subcommittee and that the chair would be temporarily handed over to Representative Bailey.
HB525: Grace Warick, New Hampshire Interpreters Licensing Board Oppose02:23:58.600 - 10:23:19 AM; Grace Warick, representing the New Hampshire Interpreters Licensing Board, opposes the bill. She explains that interpreting is unique and not comparable to other professions due to its non-standardized nature. She argues that moving the board under the OPLC could harm the community's ability to regulate interpreting standards effectively. Warick highlights the board's recent enhancements to the grievance process and the importance of utilizing new funds to support this process. She expresses concern that under the OPLC, the board might lose the opportunity to continue its specialized work effectively.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:28:50.160 - 10:28:11 AM; The speaker questions Grace Warick about the number of complaints the board receives annually, to which Warick responds that the number varies, with one to five complaints historically, and three so far this year.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:29:04.800 - 10:28:25 AM; The speaker questions Grace Warick about the implication that the board has been taking in more money than needed. Warick clarifies that the increased funds since 2020 due to an influx of virtual interpreters are relatively new, and the board has recently decided how to utilize these funds effectively, particularly for enhancing the grievance process.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:31:11.120 - 10:30:32 AM; The speaker asks Grace Warick if the excess funds held by the board would be used if the necessary structure were in place. Warick confirms that the funds would be used, specifically mentioning a current complaint for which they are hiring an investigator as part of the new grievance process.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:31:56.319 - 10:31:17 AM; The speaker inquires about labor shortages in the interpreting profession. Grace Warick acknowledges the shortage and emphasizes the board's focus on resolving grievances through dialogue and training rather than standardized punishment, to retain and enhance the skills of interpreters to serve the community effectively.
HB525: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:33:28.359 - 10:32:49 AM; The speaker asks Grace Warick about the number of licensed interpreters in New Hampshire. Warick estimates around 100 local interpreters serving the state, highlighting the importance of live interpreters despite the availability of remote services.
HB525: Representative Howard Information Only02:34:30.040 - 10:33:51 AM; Representative Howard inquired about examples of complaints against interpreters and was informed by the unidentified speaker that the New Hampshire follows a strict code of professional conduct for interpreters. The speaker explained that complaints could arise from any perceived violation of professional standards, including issues related to confidentiality, consumer respect, professionalism, and fee charges. The speaker emphasized the importance of quality interpreters and the process for filing complaints if services were deemed inadequate.
HB525: Representative De Information Only02:36:48.399 - 10:36:09 AM; Representative De asked about the potential cultural harms to the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing community if the program were to be moved from the Department of Education to the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC). The unidentified speaker responded that this aspect would be addressed by other speakers and highlighted that the bill includes moving the program under the board's purview, adding complexity to the legislation.
HB525: Representative Zitech Information Only02:38:21.399 - 10:37:42 AM; Representative Zitech asked about out-of-state interpreters providing services in New Hampshire. The unidentified speaker clarified that out-of-state interpreters must apply for a New Hampshire license to provide virtual services and that the fee structure varies based on certification and experience.
HB525: Representative Schmidt Information Only02:40:13.120 - 10:39:34 AM; Representative Schmidt inquired about the population of deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing individuals in New Hampshire. The unidentified speaker did not have the exact number but suggested that someone in the audience might provide it. Lori Schaffer then provided an estimate based on national statistics.
HB525: Dr. Lori Schaffer, University of New Hampshire Oppose02:41:44.560 - 10:41:05 AM; Dr. Lori Schaffer, speaking in opposition to HB 525, provided detailed testimony on the distinctions between the New Hampshire Licensure Board for Interpreters and the Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services. She argued that the responsibilities of the licensure board, such as suspending or revoking licenses, are better handled by those with expertise in interpreting rather than the OPLC. She also emphasized the importance of the Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services in training and assisting both employees and employers, warning that moving it under the OPLC could be detrimental and illogical.
HB525: Representative Gr Information Only02:51:06.319 - 10:50:27 AM; Representative Gr thanked Dr. Schaffer for her testimony, noting that it clarified the significant role of the Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services within the vocational rehab office and its importance to the overall program.
HB525: Representative Howard Information Only02:52:06.600 - 10:51:27 AM; Representative Howard asked Dr. Schaffer if American Sign Language (ASL) is a one-to-one translation of English. Dr. Schaffer clarified that no language is a verbatim translation and explained that ASL's roots are in French Sign Language, hence its syntactical and linguistic differences from English.
HB525: Representative Sellers Information Only02:53:48.560 - 10:53:09 AM; Representative Sellers questioned Dr. Schaffer about the potential liability of the OPLC due to lack of expertise and the appeal process for those certified by the board. Dr. Schaffer confirmed that there is an appeal process within the grievance process and highlighted the reduced likelihood of liability with the board's expertise.
HB525: Representative Dev Information Only02:54:46.720 - 10:54:07 AM; Representative Dev sought clarification from Dr. Schaffer on the challenges of moving the Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services under the OPLC. Dr. Schaffer reiterated the issues with moving both the licensure board and the office under the OPLC, emphasizing the duplication of efforts and the lack of relevant expertise at the OPLC.
HB525: D Clanton, deaf community Oppose03:00:44.600 - 11:00:05 AM; D Clanton, a deaf individual and former Statewide Coordinator for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, opposed HB525. He explained the historical context and the importance of the current licensure system for interpreters, which involves certification through the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) and licensure in New Hampshire. He highlighted the inadequacy of untrained interpreters and the effectiveness of the current system in addressing issues. Clanton expressed concerns about the bill potentially being a major setback, particularly in terms of funding and oversight, which has been managed well by the existing board. He also discussed the impact of video remote interpreting (VRI) and its increasing usage, suggesting that the surplus in licensing fees might not be a problem but rather a resource to address new demands.
HB525: Representative Jackie Groa Information Only03:08:35.399 - 11:07:56 AM; Representative Groa asked D Clanton about the relationship between the Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and the Vocational Rehabilitation Office within the Department of Education. She sought clarification on how the program for the deaf and hard of hearing functions differently from the licensing of interpreters, emphasizing the community promotion aspect.
HB525: D Clanton, deaf community Information Only03:09:24.880 - 11:08:45 AM; In response to Representative Groa, D Clanton described the role of Vocational Rehabilitation in providing employment services to the deaf and hard of hearing community since the early 1980s. He emphasized the importance of the licensure board in supporting and monitoring interpreters, and the need for careful handling of grievances within the community due to its small size and potential conflicts.
HB525: Representative Erica Leon Information Only03:14:49.279 - 11:14:10 AM; Representative Leon questioned D Clanton about the potential impact of high licensing fees on the number of interpreters, especially in light of the increased use of video remote interpreting (VRI) post-COVID. Clanton discussed the stability of interpreter numbers and the influence of VRI, suggesting that while the number of interpreters may not have decreased, the surplus in funding might be necessary to meet new demands.
HB525: Christie Stellato, President of the New Hampshire Association of the Deaf, Hillsboro Oppose03:21:47.120 - 11:21:08 AM; Christie Stellato, a deaf individual and president of the New Hampshire Association of the Deaf, opposed HB525. She provided historical context about the establishment of the program for the deaf and hard of hearing and the New Hampshire Interpreter Licensure Board. Stellato argued against moving these entities to the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC), emphasizing the importance of cultural competency and specialized knowledge within the current system under Vocational Rehabilitation.
HB525: Michelle McC, Executive Director for Northeast Deaf and Hard of Hearing Oppose03:30:09.080 - 11:29:30 AM; Michelle McC, representing Northeast Deaf and Hard of Hearing, strongly opposed HB525. She highlighted the misconceptions about communication methods for the deaf and hard of hearing, such as lip-reading, and stressed the importance of shared communication responsibility. McC argued that the specialized knowledge and institutional experience within the current system under Vocational Rehabilitation are crucial and that moving to OPLC could disrupt these services. She emphasized the need for understanding and trust within the community.
HB525: Djar, Executive Director of OPLC Information Only03:35:36.239 - 11:34:57 AM; Djar, from the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC), stated that OPLC is prepared to implement the legislation if passed. She acknowledged the concerns about cultural competency and mentioned that OPLC could hire dedicated staff to support the deaf community. Djar also noted the possibility of bifurcating the program and licensing aspects, drawing from existing precedents, and expressed willingness to work with stakeholders to address any concerns.
HB525: Representative De Information Only03:37:09.279 - 11:36:30 AM; Representative De inquired about the existing cultural competencies within OPLC, specifically regarding members of the deaf, blind, or hard of hearing community. Djar responded by stating that while there may not be current staff members from these communities, OPLC is prepared to hire dedicated support and work with existing board members to maintain services.
HB525: Valerie Ortiz, representing Lori Meyer Oppose03:41:01.680 - 11:40:22 AM; Valerie Ortiz read a statement from Lori Meyer, an ASL interpreter with 49 years of experience. Meyer opposed HB525, emphasizing the importance of the current licensure system, which includes a grievance process designed to uplift rather than sanction interpreters. She highlighted the cultural and linguistic competence required by the licensure board members and expressed concerns about the potential loss of institutional knowledge and sensitivity if the board were moved to OPLC.
HB525: Unnamed Speaker Oppose03:46:04.279 - 11:45:25 AM; The speaker, a former Vocational Rehabilitation client, opposes HB 525. They have always had an SL interpreter for appointments and trust the office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing to address the community's needs. They believe the New Hampshire Lure Board provides them with peace of mind and protection.
HB525: Katie Nev, New Hampshire chapter of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Oppose03:47:53.399 - 11:47:14 AM; Katie Nev, representing the New Hampshire chapter of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, opposes HB 525. She argues that moving the Lure Board under the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) would remove cultural and linguistic awareness and expert knowledge from the process. She emphasizes that the current law allows for community feedback and growth, which would be lost under the OPLC. She also highlights the specific needs of the deaf community and the intimate nature of interpreting, which requires the involvement of deaf individuals in oversight and regulation.
HB525: Joan Marco, Manchester Oppose03:54:07.239 - 11:53:28 AM; Joan Marco from Manchester opposes HB 525. She has been hard of hearing all her life and worked as a vocational rehabilitation counselor, advocating for keeping the agency within the Department of Education. She believes moving it to another agency without cultural knowledge of the deaf and hard of hearing population would be a disservice. She also shares her experiences with technology and accommodations that help maintain employment for this community.
HB525: Cara Crumrine, Derry Oppose04:01:38.520 - 12:00:59 PM; Cara Crumrine from Derry, a practicing ASL-English interpreter, opposes HB 525. She stresses the distinct differences between the entities considered for administrative transfer and argues that moving the New Hampshire Interpreter Licensure Board to OPLC could risk inferior successes and productivity. She emphasizes the importance of a proficient, informed, and well-versed licensing board led by deaf individuals to safeguard professional standards and mitigate injustices.
HB525: Tom Doers Oppose04:07:53.399 - 12:07:14 PM; Tom Doers, who has been hard of hearing all his life and a social worker for 40 years, opposes HB 525. He agrees with previous speakers' points and clearly states his opposition to the bill.
HB525: Valerie Hughes, Vermont Oppose04:08:49.479 - 12:08:10 PM; Valerie Hughes, originally from New Hampshire but now a resident of Vermont, opposes HB 525. She shares her experience of moving to Vermont for better access to education for deaf individuals and expresses concern that similar service reductions could occur in New Hampshire. She also discusses the challenges of remote interpreting and the importance of understanding the deaf community's needs.
HB525: Susan Wolf-Downers Oppose04:14:18.439 - 12:13:39 PM; Susan Wolf-Downers, a deaf individual and former executive director of Northeast Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, opposes HB 525. She shares personal experiences, including her first day on the job without an interpreter and the importance of interpreters in understanding complex information. She criticizes the use of Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) and emphasizes the need for in-person interpreters and the role of the Lure Board in maintaining professional standards.
HB525: Andrea, Exeter Oppose04:26:59.119 - 12:26:20 PM; Andrea from Exeter opposes HB 525. She has lifelong hearing loss and works with hearing assistive technology. She is a member of the New Hampshire Interpreter Licensure Board and the chair of an advisory committee. She argues against moving the program under OPLC, citing potential discrimination and the importance of expert insights. She also discusses the shortage of interpreters and the lack of services for the deaf and hard of hearing in New Hampshire.
HB536: Representative Lon Information Only05:17:57.240 - 1:17:18 PM; Representative Lon moved to find HB 536 inexpedient to legislate. He explained that the bill proposes a perpetual cost of living adjustment for state pensioners retired before July 2, 2020. He highlighted the financial implications, including an annual cost of $1.57 million to the state, $6.62 million to political subdivisions, and a $100 million increase in accrued liability. He argued that this would ultimately increase property taxes, creating a cycle where retirees would need further adjustments. He emphasized the need for fiscal prudence and opposed the bill.
HB536: Unnamed Second Speaker Information Only05:18:43.440 - 1:18:04 PM; The second speaker supported the motion to find HB 536 inexpedient to legislate. They argued that cost of living increases should be given when the state has the money to do so, not by mandating increases paid for by property taxpayers. They noted that most of the retirement system's beneficiaries are from political subdivisions and opposed the bill on the grounds that it unfairly burdens property taxpayers.
HB536: Unnamed First Speaker Information Only05:20:20.638 - 1:19:41 PM; The speaker expressed their intention to vote against the ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) motion on a policy basis, emphasizing that the committee should focus on policy rather than financial considerations.
HB536: Unnamed Second Speaker Information Only05:20:44.958 - 1:20:05 PM; The speaker inquired if the bill could be classified as an unfunded mandate. The response was that it would not be classified as such but rather as a cost increase in an existing payment for education, specifically referencing that actions related to the current retirement system are not subject to 28a.
HB536: Unnamed Third Speaker Information Only05:21:31.320 - 1:20:52 PM; The speaker mentioned the replacement of Representative Shen due to her assignment to two committees, one of which was meeting concurrently. This replacement was noted as an explicit exemption in the committee replacement policy.
HB536: Unnamed Fourth Speaker Information Only05:22:17.600 - 1:21:38 PM; The speaker announced the result of the vote on the ITL motion for HB536, which failed with a vote of seven to eight. An alternate motion to pass the bill was then made and seconded by Representative Howard.
HB536: Unnamed Fifth Speaker Information Only05:23:06.160 - 1:22:27 PM; The speaker apologized for their lack of training as a clerk and mentioned upcoming training sessions for clerks. The motion to pass HB536 was then put to a vote, which passed with a vote of eight to seven, and it was noted that a Minority Report would be written by Representative Grota, with Representative Land doing the Minority Report.
HB780 0496: Representative De Re Support05:25:35.440 - 1:24:56 PM; Representative De Re moved to pass HB780 with Amendment 0496, which was intended to make the language of the bill completely gender neutral, removing references to 'he', 'she', 'his', and 'her'. The amendment was considered relatively unobjectionable.
HB780 0496: Unnamed Sixth Speaker Information Only05:27:10.000 - 1:26:31 PM; The speaker noted a minor issue with the original bill in section seven, line three, but apologized for the confusion, stating it was fine.
HB780 0496: Unnamed Seventh Speaker Information Only05:27:58.080 - 1:27:19 PM; The speaker mentioned that the amendment might be somewhat unnecessary but nice. The amendment was put to a vote and passed with a vote of 15 to 1.
HB780 0496: Representative De Re Support05:28:50.680 - 1:28:11 PM; Representative De Re moved to pass HB780 as amended, which passed with a vote of 15 to 1. The bill was placed on consent.
HB438: Unnamed Eighth Speaker Support05:31:27.320 - 1:30:48 PM; The speaker moved for inexpedient to legislate on HB438, stating that the bill aimed to regulate an immigration detention facility that New Hampshire does not have and does not expect to have. They expressed hope that New Hampshire would not set up such facilities and noted that immigrants held in New Hampshire are typically charged with crimes.
HB438: Unnamed Ninth Speaker Support05:32:15.440 - 1:31:36 PM; The speaker agreed with the motion, noting that New Hampshire does not have specific facilities for detaining immigrants and expressed a personal desire not to have any.
HB438: Representative Sers Support05:32:43.878 - 1:32:04 PM; Representative Sers supported the motion, stating that immigration is a nationwide issue and should be left to the federal government.
HB438: Representative Long Information Only05:33:31.718 - 1:32:52 PM; Representative Long noted that the Strafford County Jail is used for immigration detention, which may include individuals not charged with crimes but removable based on immigration status or subsequent criminal record.
HB438: Unnamed Tenth Speaker Information Only05:34:19.200 - 1:33:40 PM; The speaker announced the result of the vote on the ITL motion for HB438, which passed unanimously with a vote of 16 to 0. The bill was placed on consent.
HB570 0190h: Representative L Support05:35:33.920 - 1:34:54 PM; Representative L moved to adopt Amendment 0190h on HB570, which would repeal the prescription drug affordability board. They acknowledged the potential for cost savings but expressed concern that the board's efforts might duplicate those of the Department of Insurance and other market solutions. They also worried about the board potentially becoming a state-run pharmacy benefits manager, leading to inherent risks. They felt that ending the board was a prudent policy decision given the current situation.
HB570 0190h: Representative Bailey Support05:36:22.680 - 1:35:43 PM; Representative Bailey seconded the motion to adopt the amendment.
HB570 0190h: Representative Groda Oppose05:37:20.120 - 1:36:41 PM; Representative Groda opposed the amendment, stating that the bill had been before the committee in various forms for years. They questioned the claim of duplicated efforts by the board, noting that no evidence had been presented to support this claim. They argued that the decision was financial rather than policy-based and would vote against the amendment.
HB570 0190h: Unnamed Eleventh Speaker Information Only05:38:12.840 - 1:37:33 PM; The speaker announced the result of the vote on the amendment, which passed with a vote of 9 to 7. A motion to pass HB570 as amended was then made and seconded by Representative Sers, and it passed with a vote of 9 to 7. A Minority Report was to be written.
HB702: Representative Lon Support05:39:59.400 - 1:39:20 PM; Representative Lon moved for inexpedient to legislate on HB702, which was seconded by Representative Sers. They were about to speak to their motion when the transcript ended.
HB702: Representative Lon Information Only05:40:33.798 - 1:39:54 PM; Representative Lon expressed concerns about the policy of treating extra and special duty hours differently for state retirees based on their hire date. He highlighted the potential negative implications of allowing more hours to be added to retirement for those hired after July 1st, 2011, and the potential for retirees to face significant financial trouble if they exceed the maximum allowed hours, leading to their pensions stopping.
HB702: Representative Pearson Information Only05:42:51.360 - 1:42:12 PM; Representative Pearson supported the need for a holistic review of how retirees are allowed to work in New Hampshire, beyond the scope of HB702. They mentioned the challenges retirees face in tracking their hours across multiple agencies and the risk of exceeding the maximum hours, leading to unintended consequences such as the cessation of pensions.
HB702: Representative Sers Information Only05:43:42.840 - 1:43:03 PM; Representative Sers agreed with Representative Pearson on the need for a comprehensive review of retiree work hours, rather than making piecemeal changes. They expressed concern about the potential for retirees to replace full-time positions, thus not contributing to the retirement system.
HB702: Representative Schmidt Information Only05:45:13.600 - 1:44:34 PM; Representative Schmidt suggested a radical approach where retirees who wish to return to work should start over as new employees, similar to starting anew in a private company. They recommended this be considered in future discussions by the desial commission.
HB702: Representative Deers Support05:46:01.558 - 1:45:22 PM; Representative Deers supported removing the cap on hours for retirees, arguing that it would benefit municipalities struggling to find police officers. They emphasized the potential cost savings and revenue generation for communities, though they acknowledged the need for a broader review in the future.
HB702: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:47:42.760 - 1:47:03 PM; An unnamed speaker corrected a previous statement made during a subcommittee meeting about the rates for some police details, noting that the figures provided were not in line with department policies. They also suggested communication between the leadership of Hampton and Derry to address these issues.
HB702: Committee Information Only05:48:29.600 - 1:47:50 PM; The committee voted on House Bill 702, resulting in a motion to find it inexpedient to legislate, which passed with a vote of 14-2. No minority report was planned, and the bill was placed on consent without objection.
HB581 2025-0502: Representative L Information Only05:49:52.360 - 1:49:13 PM; Representative L introduced and moved for the adoption of amendment 2025-0502 to House Bill 581. The amendment changes the implementation date for the new group three employee group from July 1st, 2025, to January 1st, 2026, and includes other adjustments like vesting rules and the inclusion of group three in medical and surgical benefits.
HB581 2025-0502: Representative Seller Information Only05:50:11.280 - 1:49:32 PM; Representative Seller seconded the motion to adopt amendment 2025-0502 to House Bill 581.
HB581 2025-0502: Representative Smith Information Only05:51:43.958 - 1:51:04 PM; Representative Smith confirmed the distribution of the amendment and emphasized its importance for clarifying certain aspects of the bill. They noted that voting on the amendment does not necessarily dictate the vote on the final bill.
HB581 2025-0502: Committee Information Only05:52:30.000 - 1:51:51 PM; The committee voted to adopt amendment 2025-0502 to House Bill 581, resulting in a vote of 9-7 in favor. Following this, Representative Lon moved for the bill to pass as amended, highlighting its alignment with corporate America practices and its benefits for state employees.
HB581 2025-0502: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:54:41.400 - 1:54:02 PM; The speaker expressed concerns about the proposed shift from a defined benefits to a defined contribution plan for state employees under HB581. They argued that this shift would increase the unfunded liability as new employees would not be vested and thus not contributing to the unfunded liability in the same way as current employees. They highlighted the potential negative impact on New Hampshire's competitiveness in terms of wages and benefits, suggesting that this could lead to talent loss to neighboring states.
HB581 2025-0502: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:56:02.400 - 1:55:23 PM; The speaker criticized the alignment of state employee benefits with private sector practices, questioning the feasibility of implementing elements like stock options or performance bonuses. They expressed support for addressing unfunded liabilities but pointed out practical challenges due to the retirement system's inability to track data necessary for implementing the proposed changes. They highlighted the potential fiscal impact on state and local subdivisions and opposed the proposed 5% contribution rate, calling it a tax increase.
HB581 2025-0502: Unknown Speaker Support05:59:21.920 - 1:58:42 PM; The speaker shared personal experience of losing their job due to their former employer's financial mismanagement, expressing concerns about the concentration of risk in the state retirement system. They supported the move to a defined contribution system, arguing it would de-risk the retirement system and help attract young families to New Hampshire. They highlighted the potential for higher retirement balances and the benefits of investment growth over time.
HB581 2025-0502: Representative Bayer Support06:03:12.440 - 2:02:33 PM; Representative Bayer argued that the current retirement system resembles a Ponzi scheme, where new employees fund the pensions of retirees. They supported the bill as an opportunity to move away from this model and expressed regret that the opportunity might be missed, indicating they would vote in favor of the bill.
HB210: Representative Bailey Oppose06:05:38.680 - 2:04:59 PM; Representative Bailey moved to find House Bill 210 inexpedient to legislate, expressing skepticism about the need for a commission to study the state flag. They found the recent attempt to change the state flag charming but felt there was little to study about its current design.
HB210: Representative Sellers Support06:07:17.080 - 2:06:38 PM; Representative Sellers supported the establishment of a commission to study the state flag, arguing that it would be a way to address ongoing flag bills and potentially avoid future legislative discussions on the topic. They believed that having a commission could lead to a definitive improvement in the flag design.
HB210: Representative Schmidt Support06:08:04.958 - 2:07:25 PM; Representative Schmidt noted that they missed the initial discussion on the bill but supported studying the flag due to inaccuracies and inappropriateness on the current state seal. They expressed reservations about the proposed flag design but felt a study could lead to a widely approved and improved design.
HB210: Representative Pearson Oppose06:10:28.080 - 2:09:49 PM; Representative Pearson opposed the bill, arguing that fighting over it on the floor would be a waste of time. They expressed concern about the commission's role but were open to changing their mind if it meant avoiding a contentious vote on the floor.
HB210: Representative Howard Support06:11:32.680 - 2:10:53 PM; Representative Howard supported the ought to pass motion for HB210, suggesting that it could be amended later. They mentioned a potential amendment to limit the commission's ability to design a flag, though it was not prepared yet.
HB227: Unnamed Representative Support06:13:42.000 - 2:13:03 PM; The speaker moved to pass House Bill 227, which aims to remove the exemption allowing unlicensed practice of psychotherapy, particularly in schools and government settings. They highlighted that school psychologists are currently licensed by the Department of Education, and the board of psychology is yet to approve licenses. The speaker argued that removing the exemption before the board's approval would be premature and stressed the importance of ensuring that services provided to vulnerable populations are performed by properly trained and licensed professionals. They noted the lack of opposition to the bill and discussed the possibility of expanding the bill's scope, but deemed it too early to do so.
HB227: Representative Lam Support06:16:01.798 - 2:15:22 PM; Representative Lam supported the bill, emphasizing that the exemption from licensing for government employees undermines the purpose of psychotherapy licensing, which is to ensure public safety. They pointed out that the same standards should apply to practitioners in prisons and other government settings as those in private practice.
HB227: Representative Dev Support06:16:50.760 - 2:16:11 PM; Representative Dev added that the exemption could potentially allow any government employee, such as a town clerk, to provide psychological advice without a license, further supporting the bill's intent to repeal such exemptions for public safety reasons.
HB227: Representative L Information Only06:16:56.680 - 2:16:17 PM; Representative L clarified that the Department of Education would be willing to make changes to the bill, but since the licensing board falls under the purview of Edna (presumably the Executive Department), the bill remains within their jurisdiction. They also addressed a question regarding the definition of 'duly chartered educational institution,' stating that such language would be removed upon passing the bill, thus resolving any ambiguity about public schools' status under the law.
HB278: Representative Sashi Oppose06:22:29.840 - 2:21:50 PM; Representative Sashi moved to recommend HB278 as inexpedient to legislate (ITL), arguing that the proxy carbon pricing proposed in the bill is speculative and not mandatory for the state to follow. They expressed concern over the lack of certainty and mandate associated with these guidelines.
HB278: Representative Unnamed Oppose06:23:21.040 - 2:22:42 PM; The speaker opposed the bill, having initially thought proxy carbon pricing was a market-based approach. Upon learning it was a one-way increasing cost mechanism, they argued against it, stating it could disproportionately affect those struggling with basic needs and criticized the lack of control over global standards.
HB278: Representative Freeze Support06:24:58.958 - 2:24:19 PM; Representative Freeze supported the bill, believing it does not impose additional costs but rather encourages state agencies to consider the carbon cost in procurement decisions, like choosing between HVAC systems based on efficiency and carbon emissions.
HB278: Representative SL Oppose06:25:44.760 - 2:25:05 PM; Representative SL argued that the bill would force the state to factor in additional, potentially imaginary costs, leading to more expensive purchasing decisions. They expressed concern about delegating legislative authority to external entities.
HB278: Representative BRK Support06:27:16.958 - 2:26:37 PM; Representative BRK supported the ITL motion, clarifying that the bill does not mandate purchases but rather tracks the state's procurement in relation to carbon pricing. They noted that the Department of Administrative Services already considers such factors.
HB278: Unnamed Representative Oppose06:28:04.558 - 2:27:25 PM; The speaker opposed the bill, arguing that it imposes a specific proxy price that might not align with actual energy and carbon price forecasts. They mentioned that procurement departments already consider these factors and should not be restricted to one formula.
HB278: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:28:04.558 - 2:27:25 PM; The speaker acknowledged the current efforts to align with market prices for carbon pricing and expressed appreciation for Representative Jere's clarification that the carbon proxy pricing is not based on market conditions. They emphasized the importance of considering energy costs, suggesting that while the concept of carbon pricing could be debated, the current approach is not market-based.
HB278: Representative Ree Information Only06:29:17.400 - 2:28:38 PM; Representative Ree clarified their earlier statement and expressed uncertainty about whether they had conveyed the message accurately. They stressed the importance of considering the implications before voting on the bill.
HB278: Unnamed Representative Oppose06:30:05.280 - 2:29:26 PM; The speaker opposed the motion to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL), arguing that state agencies should consider carbon pricing in procurement decisions to avoid choosing more expensive, higher carbon-emitting options. They highlighted the risk of making suboptimal purchasing decisions if federal policies change, and emphasized that the bill merely asks state agencies to take carbon pricing into account without making it the sole factor in decisions.
HB278: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:30:52.600 - 2:30:13 PM; The speaker announced the outcome of the vote on House Bill 278, which passed with a motion of inexpedient to legislate (ITL) by a vote of 11 to 5. They mentioned that Representative Schmidt would be writing a minority report.
HB278: Representative Schmidt Oppose06:31:56.878 - 2:31:17 PM; Representative Schmidt expressed their opposition to the unanimous vote, emphasizing the controversial nature of the issue. They noted the changing weather patterns and acknowledged that private businesses are factoring in carbon costs, suggesting that the issue is not clear-cut and warranted opposition.
HB271 0495H: Representative Grotto Information Only06:38:43.920 - 2:38:04 PM; Representative Grotto introduced Amendment 0495H to HB271, which modifies the requirement for licensed social worker assistants. The amendment changes the exam requirement from a national proctored exam to a uniform competence assessment examination approved by the New Hampshire Board of Mental Health Practice. This change aims to better align the examination with the job requirements and interests of all parties involved.
HB271 0495H: Director of OPLC Information Only06:41:20.280 - 2:40:41 PM; The Director of OPLC confirmed that the agency could implement the proposed amendment to HB271, which would allow the board to choose or design an appropriate examination for licensed social worker assistants.
HB271 0495H: Subcommittee Members Support06:43:01.798 - 2:42:22 PM; The subcommittee members supported the adoption of Amendment 0495H to HB271, believing it addressed the issue of the exam not matching the job requirements and provided a compromise without repealing the exam process. They voted to recommend this amendment to the full committee.
HB145: Representative Grotto Information Only06:44:34.718 - 2:43:55 PM; Representative Grotto discussed the need to amend HB145 to address the criminal history record check requirements. They proposed language changes to clarify the roles involved in processing these checks and to ensure compliance with FBI requirements, emphasizing the importance of not delaying the adoption of the compact due to these issues.
HB145: Vic Muzzy, Justice Information Bureau Information Only06:49:11.840 - 2:48:32 PM; Vic Muzzy explained the implications of the effective date for the criminal background check portion of HB145, suggesting a split effective date to allow for the adoption of the compact without delay, while waiting for FBI approval for the background check process.
HB145: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:50:44.878 - 2:50:05 PM; The representative argued against setting a secondary effective date for the background check, suggesting that a 60-day effective date post-passage is sufficient. They emphasized that this approach allows for flexibility in processing without unnecessarily delaying the implementation.
HB145: Christine Shay, Criminal Records Unit Information Only06:51:30.120 - 2:50:51 PM; Christine Shay supported the proposed language changes, stating that the new language would likely meet FBI requirements. She noted that recent denials of similar language have been due to its broadness, and the proposed changes are modeled after successful language from another bill.
HB145: Subcommittee Members Support06:56:08.398 - 2:55:29 PM; The subcommittee members adopted the proposed amendments to HB145 to address the criminal history record check language, ensuring compliance with enforcement requirements. They agreed to move forward with these changes pending the receipt of an amendment number from OLS.
HB82: Representative Grotto Information Only06:57:41.680 - 2:57:02 PM; Representative Grotto discussed proposed amendments to HB82, which addressed various boards under OPLC and their criminal background check requirements. They highlighted changes to the language to ensure compliance with OPLC regulations and to address concerns raised by different stakeholders, including the need for a unified license type for certain professionals.
HB82: Michelle Heaton, Director of Life and Health at the New Hampshire Insurance Department Information Only07:07:07.440 - 3:06:28 PM; Michelle Heaton proposed changes to sections 15 and 26 of HB82 to clarify references to mental health practitioners and psychologists. She suggested removing specific RSA citations to avoid implying unintended restrictions on credentialing by insurance companies, emphasizing that the focus should be on practitioners being licensed in New Hampshire.
HB82: John DeJoy, National Association of Social Workers and New Hampshire Psychological Association Oppose07:12:05.080 - 3:11:26 PM; John DeJoy opposed the proposed changes to HB82, arguing that the specific RSA references are crucial for ensuring Behavioral Health Providers are credentialed by insurance companies. He referenced historical issues with credentialing delays and expressed concern that removing these references could revert to past problems.
HB82: Subcommittee Members Information Only07:41:10.280 - 3:40:31 PM; The subcommittee discussed the proposed amendments to HB82, considering the implications of removing RSA references on the credentialing process. They decided not to include changes to sections 15 and 26 in the amendment, opting to leave the statute as is to avoid misinterpretation and to focus on other aspects of the bill that were resolved, such as background checks and dietitian licensing.

McGuire, Carol(Chairman)(R)[A+]2024	Sytek, John(Clerk)(R)[B]2024	Layon, Erica(V Chairman)(R)[A]2024
Schmidt, Peter(D)[CT]2024	Thibault, James(R)	Howard, Heath(D)[F]2024
Sellers, John(R)[A-]2024	Sheehan, Vanessa(R)[A]2024	de Vries, Erica(D)
Dargie, Paul(D)	Davis, Fred(D)[F]2024	Bailey, Glenn(R)[A+]2024
Pearson, Stephen(R)[B]2024	Grote, Jaci(D)[CT]2024	Long, Patrick(D)
Slottje, Jeremy(R)