We’re tracking an effort by New Hampshire lawmakers to get the Attorney General to join other states in challenging the constitutionality of last year’s federal health care reform law.

The proposals may or may not amount to anything more than political posturing and a lengthy court battle. But as they play out, they illustrate tension between the states and the federal government, plus a debate within New Hampshire about separation of powers.

the campaign

The next step comes Wednesday when the House meets in full session to vote on — and likely approve — Senate Bill 148, which Republican House leadership has heavily amended.

The Senate version says the attorney general “should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit” in federal courts. The House’s amendment orders the AG to do so, saying he “shall, no later than July 1, 2011,” move to join the suit.

The House would also order the executive branch to return more than $600,000 in federal grant money coming to New Hampshire under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The reason for returning those funds, as stated in the amendment itself, is “for the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, after full implementation of the law in 2014, it will save more than $1 trillion in federal spending during the following decade.

You can see the full amendment and original version below.

In his majority “ought to pass” recommendation report for the amended House version, Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry) said SB 148 sends “a clear message that New Hampshire will neither be a willing participant in this health care scheme that will rob consumers of freedom and drive up costs to state and federal taxpayers, nor will it waste federal taxpayer dollars on implementing a law that will likely be invalidated ultimately.”

The crux of the legal battle is the individual mandate provision, of which Manuse said, “No resident of the ‘Live Free or Die’ state should ever be forced to buy health insurance or face a penalty.”

the resistance

Gov. John Lynch will likely veto whichever version reaches his desk. Attorney General Michael Delaney has said any measure to require his office to join the multi-state legal battle (which is being pursued exclusively by Republican governors) is an unconstitutional breach of separation of powers that he will fight in state court.

In her minority report rebuttal, Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter) said consumers are already benefiting from the law’s provisions now in effect. Those provisions include small business tax credits for offering health care coverage, payments to seniors for Medicare drug prescription coverage, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance coverage to age 26, and a halt to pre-existing condition restrictions for children.

Beyond its symbolism, she said, “this bill does nothing to improve health care access or affordability for businesses and individuals in New Hampshire.”

the federal case

It’s too soon to know which constitutional, political and policy arguments will prevail. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request for an expedited hearing by Virginia’s attorney general. The legal fight will make its way through the federal courts in the coming months.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

>> Wednesday, May 4, full House vote on SB 148, Representative’s Hall at the State House, 10:00 a.m.

Here is the House’s amended version of SB 148:

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

AN ACT relative to health insurance coverage, requiring the attorney general to join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and requiring federal grant moneys received by the state for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be returned to the federal government.

Amend the bill by replacing all after section 1 with the following:

2  Statement of Findings.  The general court finds that:

I.  Several federal courts have ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and at least one federal court has ruled the act nonseverable.

II.  The New Hampshire insurance department has accepted federal moneys for implementation of a law which is likely to be ruled unconstitutional and therefore is likely to be invalidated.

III.  The general court is concerned with the spending of all tax dollars, whether at the state or federal level, when the federal government is running a massive structural deficit.

3  Lawsuit Challenging the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The attorney general shall, no later than July 1, 2011, move to join the state of New Hampshire as a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending in federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.

4  Funds From Grants Returned to Department of Health and Human Services.  The state treasurer shall return any grant funds received by the insurance department for purposes of implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to the federal Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit.

5  Effective Date.

I.  Section 1 of this act shall take effect July 1, 2011.

II.  The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

AMENDED ANALYSIS 
  This bill:

I.  Provides that a resident of New Hampshire shall not be required to obtain, or be assessed a fee or fine for failure to obtain, health insurance coverage.

II.  Requires the attorney general to join the state of New Hampshire as a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending in federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.

III.  Requires certain grant moneys received by the New Hampshire insurance department for the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be returned to the federal government.

Original version of SB 148:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to health insurance coverage and declaring that the attorney general should join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

1 New Section; Insurance Department; Health Insurance Coverage. Amend RSA 400-A by inserting after section 14 the following new section:

400-A:14-a Health Insurance Coverage. No resident of this state, regardless of whether he or she has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his or her employer, or a plan sponsored by the state or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage except as required by a court or the department of health and human services where an individual is named a party in a judicial or administrative proceeding. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this state liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his or her failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage. This section shall not apply to individuals voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act. This section shall not apply to students being required by an institution of higher education to obtain and maintain health insurance as a condition of enrollment. Nothing in this section shall impair the rights of persons to privately contract for health insurance for family members or former family members.

2 Lawsuit Challenging the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The attorney general should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit (State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.) challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

3 Effective Date.

I. Section 1 of this act shall take effect July 1, 2011.

II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

Democratic majorities in both the N.H. House and Senate have been replaced by Republican super-majorities, and the state’s budget crisis has deepened. The next two-year budget hasn’t even been crafted yet, and deficit estimates range from $400 million to the $1 billion figure claimed by Republican leaders.

Lynch told business leaders in Manchester last week that he will present a balanced budget, a “tough budget” without any new taxes or tax increases, according to the Union Leader. His budget proposal would also benefit the business community and keep education funding level.

When the current biennial budget (2010-2011) was written, Lynch and Democratic budget writers projected the state would bring in a little more than $4.5 billion in revenue. Republicans have already lowered that figure, projecting $4.4 billion in revenue over the next two years. It’s lower, in large part, because Republicans want to be asking for less.

In addition to bringing down the tobacco tax and rooms and meals tax, for example, the evolving Republican budget plan also targets recent tax and fee increases passed under Democratic control. They propose repealing the $30 car registration fee hike, eliminating the gambling winnings tax, and reducing fees for auto inspections, marriage licenses, vital records, builder applications, pet store licenses, and license renewals for restaurants and lodging facilities.

Republicans also challenge the very integrity of the process used by Democratic leaders when they crafted the current budget. “Revenue estimates contained within the Governor’s previous budget were artificially inflated,” said House Majority Leader D. J. Bettencourt (R-Salem).

It’s a charge the Lynch administration has disputed. In 2009, Lynch said projected revenues would remain flat — nearly the same as the previous biennium (2008-2009).

Lynch’s budget address from 2009 (which you can see here) also presented budget-cutting proposals that led to an estimated 300 state employees being laid off, and proposed closing one-quarter of the state’s district courts. That budget also suspended revenue sharing to cities and towns and cut the state’s contribution to public employee retirement plans to provide an additional $123 million in education adequacy aid for communities — and called for a one percent decrease in spending from the previous budget.

>> Tuesday, Feb. 15, Gov. John Lynch’s budget address to the Legislature, Representatives Hall at the State House, 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

Some 14 bills (so far) with a focus on taxes have been submitted by Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate (no Democratic lawmakers have yet signed on to any of these bills). Following is our snapshot of a few bills worthy of discussion at this early stage:

Tax Repeal Approach

Two separate bills would repeal all or some taxes and fees implemented in recent years. As noted yesterday, Rep. David Hess of Hooksett, a member of the House Ways & Means Committee, sponsored one bill to repeal all fees and taxes passed since 2007 — though he did also tell the Concord Monitor that his goal is to find the complete list of increases and consider each one on its own merit. Rep. Clifford Newton of Rochester has sponsored a bill “eliminating various taxes and fees and tax and fee increases enacted since 2006.”

Doesn’t Apply to Us

Rep. Michael Balboni of Nashua has sponsored a bill to negate the Supreme Court’s rulings on school funding from the Claremont case. This would include funding of education through state taxes, by making them “not binding on the legislative and executive branches.”

Business Focus

Four bills are aimed at business taxes, including one proposed by Rep. Christopher Ahlgren of Wolfeboro to give a tax credit “against the business enterprise tax for operators collecting meals and rooms taxes.” Sen. Jeb Bradley, also of Wolfeboro, proposes a job creation tax credit as part of business profits tax calculations.

State-centric

We’re not sure what the federal government will think of this proposal: Rep. Lucien Vita of Middleton supports legislations to establish “a depository in the state treasury for the receipt and distribution of all federal fuel taxes and federal income taxes paid in this state.”

Miscellaneous Tax Proposals

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt of Manchester proposes a bill to reduce the interest rate “on late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes.” Rep. Franklin Sterling of Jaffrey has sponsored legislation to allow semi-annual county tax collections from cities and towns. Sen. Bob Odell of Lempster wants to authorize the state Dept. of Revenue Administration to accept credit card payments to pay taxes.

More Where This Came From

The full text of the newly proposed laws is not yet available, but you can see the early-stage bill titles bills on the legislative web site here. Front Door Politics will keep our eyes on these and other tax-related bills as they make their way forward — or fall by the wayside — during the upcoming session, which starts Jan. 5.

>> Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at some of the 36 education-related bills filed so far.

Freshmen Rep. Laurie Sanborn is already a leader in the newly formed House Business Coalition.

“We want to provide a vehicle for Representatives highly interested in promoting employment opportunities through the strength of our business community and economy,” said Sanborn, a freshmen representative serving as chair and organizer of the NH-HBC. “Our vision is to make New Hampshire the best state in the nation in which to do business again.”

Sanborn’s husband Andy is also starting his first term at the State House this fall, in the Senate. The two are restaurant owners themselves, and they’re also active in automotive manufacturing, real estate and financial consulting.

The House Business Coalition says their group is the next step in delivering on their campaign promises of focusing on job creation and expanding New Hampshire’s economic base — and that to be pro-jobs means being pro-business.

“We believe that by supporting the business community with responsible legislation, we are also promoting job creation and an expansion of our economic base in New Hampshire,” Sanborn said in a press statement announcing the formation of the NH-HBC last week.

So far, the NH-HBC has a distinctive Republican feel. Other members who have signed up include: Kenneth Kreis, Sr. (R-Canterbury), Cameron DeJong (R-Manchester), Mark Lindsey (R-Henniker), Steve Winter (R-Newbury), Brian Murphy (R-Rye), Keith Murphy (R-Bedford), Beverly Rodeschin (R-Newport), Molly Smith (R-Hooksett), Daniel Tamburello (R-Londonderry), Kathy Lauer-Rago (R-Franklin), Glenn Ritter (R-Kensington) and Kevin Avard (R-Nashua).

The NH-HBC will likely be hearing from the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association, which released its policy priority list for the 2011 legislative session earlier this week. It’s a lengthy and detailed agenda that covers a wide range of issues pertaining to economic growth, education, energy, business taxes, and “ending further cost-shifting to the business community from the Medicaid program.”

“The focus is on jobs and the budget,” said Jim Roche, president of the BIA, which is the state’s largest and most powerful business advocacy organization. “Even though we’re technically out of recession, business is still sluggish and owners and managers are slow to hire. Add to that a looming state budget deficit and it is easy to see why business owners feel the focus needs to be on job creation, economic growth and passing a fiscally responsible budget that avoids putting additional pressure on business.”

To date, at least 24 business-related bills are on the docket for the next legislative session. At this time, only bill titles are available; the full text of all proposed legislation – expected to be about 1200 bills – will become available and be assigned to committees next month.

The NH-HBC intends to meet weekly and make recommendations on bills presented to the House on Session day. Members say they’ll support legislation that promotes job creation “through strong, responsible business growth and success, and the reestablishment of the New Hampshire Advantage.”

That advantage means somewhat different things to different people, but generally refers to a low tax base achieved through low state spending. Pease International offers a good summary of the general concept here.

“We believe that you cannot be pro-jobs unless you are pro-business. It’s time to determine where excessive rules and regulations are hurting our New Hampshire business community,” said vice-chair Keane.

At least 30 other House members reportedly have signed onto the NH-HBC so far.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

The 12-member commission will hold two public meetings in Concord in the next week — later today and then on Thursday, Oct. 28. The commission is looking at the current system of business taxation in the state with the business enterprise tax, the business profits tax and the interest and dividends tax. The commission, which was proposed by Gov. Lynch in May and formed as part of the Legislature’s final budget bill in June, will also look at how tax rates are allocated among all businesses.

Currently, the business profits tax is 8.5 percent, the business enterprise tax is .75 percent (which is based on a complicated compensation formula), and the interest and dividends tax is 5 percent. The business profits and enterprise taxes make up the largest portion of General Fund revenues in the state budget. For example, through Sept. 30, according to the N.H. Department of Administrative Services, $78 million of the $181 in revenues collected so far in the 2011 budget year comes from those two taxes.

The last-minute implementation at the end of the 2009 legislative session to expand the interest and dividends tax to cover after-tax distributions in LLC, or Limited Liability Company, forms of businesses led to a backlash among small business owners who didn’t understand the tax and called for more public input and legislative research into its impact, fairness and effectiveness.

“A periodic look at every state operation makes sense and that includes our business tax set up,“ said commission member Sen. Bob Odell (R-Lempster) in September. “Taxes should not be so burdensome that businessmen and women look for other states in which to conduct their business. Taxes need to be fair from the standpoint of who pays and how they are collected.”

New Hampshire is the latest state to study its tax system. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 37 states have set up one or more tax study commissions since 2000. The commission includes four members from the House, three from the Senate and five public members appointed by the Governor. The commission will also hold five meetings in November before issuing its interim report.

>> The Commission to Study Business Taxes will meet in Room 100 at the State House today, Oct. 22, at 1:30 p.m., and again on Thursday, Oct, 28 at the same time and location.

This Daily Update was written by Michael McCord.

They agreed, at least, to keep trying to agree on how to achieve about $300 million in savings and/or new money to balance the state budget by the middle of next year. They almost threw in the towel in defiance of one another, in which case Gov. John Lynch would likely have called them into special sessions this summer. Instead, they formed a Committee of Conference just in time to meet the deadline for doing so.

Actually, they formed two Committees of Conference—one each for Senate Bill 450 and House Bill 1128.

Those two bills have become the de facto budget bills in recent weeks, as a string of cost-cutting or revenue-producing amendments was added to each. But the Senate rejected the House’s amendments to SB 450, which included new taxes, and the House rejected the Senate’s amendments to HB 1128, which included expanded gambling.

House and Senate leadership overcame the resulting impasse with a private deal that technically created two Committees of Conference—one each for SB 450 and HB 1128. But the leaders also agreed to assign the same lawmakers to both committees and to select only one bill that would ultimately contain the compromise, although provisions from both bills are eligible for inclusion. So, in essence, the two Committees of Conference will function as one.

House Speaker Teri Norelli (D-Portsmouth) and Senate President Sylvia Larsen (D-Concord) held a coin toss—yes, literally—to determine who would get to select which bill they would work from. The House won, and HB 1128 it is.

Coin toss aside, the Committee of Conference is a compromise process used for any number of bills the House and Senate can’t agree on in a given session. No less than 65 Committees of Conference were formed last week, and they all have just one week to work, with reports due May 27. Lawmakers then get another week to mull over the reports before casting final votes on pending legislation on June 2.

If all goes well, they can meet the budget, break for summer recess and gear up for this fall’s state elections.

different approaches
Gambling is the most notable difference between the House and Senate proposals to balance the budget, but it’s hardly the only one.

The House plan would suspend catastrophic aid and medical education payments to hospitals and suspend the catastrophic illness and senior volunteer grant programs in the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Revenue from meals and rooms taxes normally shared with cities and towns would be reduced by more than $6 million, and the state’s contribution for benefits under the N.H. Retirement System would be reduced for the next fiscal year. Analysts predict either measure would create local property tax hikes.

Also, in fiscal year 2011, 12 furlough days would be required of all state employees.

Several tax changes would also come from the House. Electricity taxes would be paid by electricity generators rather than consumers. Insurance premium taxes would go up to 2 percent for all lines of insurance (up from 1, 1.25, 1.5, and 1.75 percent). And an 8 percent estate tax would be imposed on properties worth more than $2 million after allowable deductions. The estate tax is applied when real estate is transferred after a property owner’s death.

The Senate, on the other hand, would not only expand gambling, but also require the Judicial Branch to cut its budget by an additional $2 million. It would also send $2.7 million to the Department of Health and Human Services for child care services as part of a move back to a cost-sharing model based on costs per family rather than costs per child.

Finally, the Senate plan would create a new commission to study ways the state could make money by leasing or selling off some of its assets, enterprises or resources.

common ground
In spite of these differences, about 44 provisions are the same in both SB 450 and HB 1128. They include giving permission for cities and towns to impose their own local meals and rooms taxes.

This common ground will form the Committee of Conference’s starting point, but really, anything is on the table—whether it’s part of what the House or Senate has already approved this year or not.

That openness may prove tricky, as history shows in the very bills at hand. Both contain the repeal of last year’s application of the meals and rooms tax to campsites, along with clarification that limited liability companies can only be taxed for interest and dividends if the LLC has transferable shares.

Bills must pass the chamber in which they’re introduced before “crossing over” to the opposite chamber. Legislation that’s still alive after Crossover receives a second public hearing and potential floor debate before the second deadline in mid-May.

And some notable legislation is either still up for its first vote, or on its way to the other side.

Insurance

Senate Bill 408, sponsored by Sen. Kathleen Sgambati (D-Tilton), would lower health insurance costs for small businesses by allowing them to form “purchasing alliances.” Consolidated buying power and shared administrative responsibilities, say sponsors, would “increase the affordability, efficiency, and fairness of health insurance coverage for employers.”

New Hampshire HealthFirst is a different attempt to lower health insurance costs. It requires large insurance providers to offer a low-cost alternative for small businesses, and it’s getting a second look this year after low enrollment in the program, which came onto the market last fall.

Two HealthFirst bills have already passed their first floor votes: Senate Bill 455 (sponsored by Sgambati) and House Bill 1488 (Rep. Edward Butler, D-Harts Location). Nearly identical, they would introduce a second, “basic” plan that would be more affordable than the current “standard” plan turned out to be.

The Senate has yet to schedule (as of press time) a floor vote on Senate Bill 340 (Sen. Jacalyn Cilley, D-Barrington), which would eliminate credit ratings as a factor in setting insurance rates for auto and homeowner policies. A similar measure failed the the House last year, as did an attempt to eliminate education level as a rate-setting factor.

Budget

The state’s two-year budget cycle started on a rough note last June, and it hasn’t gotten any easier. So far, revenues are about $53 million below projections.

Additionally, the N.H. Supreme Court this winter denied the state’s right to claim $110 million in surplus funds from the Joint Underwriting Account. The JUA is a private medical malpractice insurance pool created with the help of the Insurance Department in 1978. It’s funded by premium payments from the doctors, hospitals and other health care providers it serves, and last year the state tried to tap into that money to balance the budget.

Policyholders sued and won. That means the money the state borrowed from the Rainy Day Fund to cover costs while the case was being heard will not be replaced anytime soon.

State revenues are down and resources limited for the same reason that demand is up for public aid and social services: recession. Many legislators are locking horns over how to respond, as evidenced by the debate over House Bill 1335, which is still up for a vote on the House floor.

Late Property Tax Payments

Cities and towns would be able to set their own interest rates for late property tax payments under HB 1335, sponsored by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester). Last year the Senate voted down a similar measure, House Bill 351, but the bill’s advocates think they’ve struck a viable compromise.

House Bill 1335 “allows the people to decide if they want their governing body to change these rates,” writes Rep. Eric Stohl (R+D, Colebrook). The rates are currently set by the state and are the same in every city and town: 12 percent on late payments as of the final tax bill’s due date, 90 days after which a lien is placed on the property and the rate increases to 18 percent.

Local governments could lower those to 6 and 9 percent on late payments and lien rates, respectively, under the proposed legislation. The House Local and Regulated Revenue Committee is closely split on the matter, the minority saying that it’ “well-intentioned but ill-conceived.”

“Instead of establishing a uniform and consistent rate across the state,” writes Rep. David Kidder (R-New London), “it will Balkanize that process, resulting in an irrational patchwork of different rates among our small political subdivisions.”

The minority fears a “race to the bottom” that could ensue from year to year if one town sets its rate lower than a neighboring community. They also caution that “large commercial and retail property owners will most likely benefit the most from low delinquent interest rates,” since homeowners already have other means of redress with their towns for late payments.

This conversation comes after 352 foreclosure deeds were recorded in January. That’s a record second only to October 2009 for the number of foreclosures in one month, according to the NH Housing Finance Authority. For comparison’s sake, 20 foreclosures were recorded in Janaury 2005.

Betting and Taxes

Last year’s uproar in the business community over the “LLC Tax” seems to have gained traction in the Senate, where some Democrats are now joining a largely Republican initiative to repeal it.

The LLC tax would have owners of Limited Liability Companies pay the same Interest & Dividends Tax on their earnings that investors make on their profits. Sen. Cilley released a joint statement with Sen. Deborah Reynolds (D-Plymouth) last week advocating its repeal.

“When this change to the LLC tax law was presented to us last year in the final days of the conference committee on the budget,” she said, “we were told that the change would simply close a loophole in the tax laws which treated some business entities more favorably than others. As we now know, the change did much more than that.”

Last year’s application of the meals and rooms tax on campsites is also up for repeal with House Bill 1445, which passed the House on March 11.

Lawmakers are also split over whether to expand legalized gaming in New Hampshire as an antidote to ongoing budget shortfalls. Advocates think that the more the recession is felt, the better chance expanded gambling has.

Few are stronger advocates of gaming than Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester), who has sponsored Senate Bill 489 to expand or create six gaming ventures across the state. Its first floor vote is still not scheduled as of press time. A report from the Governor’s Gaming Study Commission is due in May, but the Legislature is free to vote on gambling legislation before then.

© 2008-2010 Niles Media “Front Door Politics” all rights reserved.

consolidation

A last-minute amendment to a study bill has spiced up its public hearing in the House, scheduled for this Thursday.  Senate Bill 132, as originally worded, would have established a commission to study folding several state agencies into a newly created Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

But the day before Crossover and a week after it passed the Senate, an amendment to the bill’s title removed the “study” portion and redeployed the commission straight to the planning phase of this considerable consolidation.  The amended bill passed the Senate again, crossed over to the House and gets its second public hearing on Thursday, April 23, in the Executive Departments and Administration Committee.

Sen. Margaret Hassan (D-Exeter), who sponsored both the original bill and its amendment, could not be reached by press time, but the expressed goal of the legislation is to enhance efficiency and lower costs.

However, the N.H. Farm Bureau Federation, a private membership organization, is mobilizing its constituency in opposition to SB 132 based on concern that it would undermine agriculture and demoralize farmers, and “could be used to mask a cut in services.”   Some hunters are also concerned that their license fees, which are currently earmarked to fund the Dept. of Fish & Game, would no longer be appropriated for related spending but instead feed the general fund.

Under SB 132, the new Dept. of Natural and Cultural Resources would consist of what are now the departments of Agriculture, Markets & Food; Fish & Game; and Cultural Resources (made up of the Arts Council, Film & Television Office, Historical Resources and the State Library). The divisions of Forests & Lands and Parks & Recreation, which currently comprise half of the Dept. of Resources & Economic Development, would also go to the new agency.  The other half of DRED, as it’s known, is made of the divisions of Economic Development and Travel & Tourism, which would be folded into the current Dept. of Employment Security.  Fish & Game’s law enforcement functions would merge into the Dept. of Safety.

Heads of all affected agencies and the attorney general (or their designees) are included in the commission’s roster, as are two members at large, two members representing state employees, and two members each from the House and Senate.  The commission’s report would be due by Nov. 1, 2009.

layoffs

While some state agencies may be headed for consolidation, unemployment rates in the state and around the nation continue to rise.  Solving that problem is complicated, but one bill showing promise seeks to protect workers from plant closings and mass layoffs by at least requiring advance notice of the job losses.

Senate Bill 40, sponsored by Sen. Betsi DeVries (D-Manchester), would boost the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by creating somewhat parallel legislation at the state level.

“The legislature finds that advance notice … allows all levels of government to prepare to help a sudden large number of affected workers,” the bill states.  And with its own WARN program, New Hampshire could respond more quickly with administrative determinations and enforcement of violations.

But the proposed N.H. WARN doesn’t match up exactly with the federal act, which dates back to1988.  An amendment to SB 40 specifies that the new law would apply to employers with 75 or more workers, while the federal WARN targets companies with 100 or more employees.

“We wanted to mirror the federal and bring it up to 100,” explains Sen. John Barnes (R-Raymond), one of the bill’s sponsors.  He voted against the amendment and, when it passed, moved to lay the amended version on the table.

“I believe firmly that folks should get notice and I don’t think the little guy should get stiffed,” Barnes says, but he’d like to see more work done on the bill to satisfy a Nashua-based defense contractor supplying troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The contractor has a problem with the 75-person threshold, “and that gives me a problem,” he says.

Sen. Barnes’ motion to table the bill failed 8-10, almost on party lines, and the bill’s second public hearing will take place in the House Labor, Industrial & Rehabilitative Services Committee on Tuesday, April 28.

unemployed entrepreneurs

And for those unemployed folks with the gumption to start their own businesses, there may be a new option on the way.  Sponsored by Sen. Margaret Hassan (D-Exeter), Senate Bill 170 would create the Self-Employment Assistance Program, giving funds to eligible participants for activities such as entrepreneurial training, business counseling and technical assistance.

The Senate passed SB 170 with an amendment that program assistance only be offered in lieu of regular unemployment benefits, rather than in addition.  Its second public hearing, in the House Labor, Industrial & Rehabilitative Services Committee, is scheduled for Thursday, April 23.

Are agencies more or less efficient if they’re consolidated?
How many layoffs makes it a “mass” event?
Should entrepreneurial assistance be given to the unemployed?

Share your thoughts below, or email “h(at)nilesmedia.net” to ask your own questions.

And remember, our online learning center and a complete list of proposed laws for 2009 is available here at Front Door Politics: from the State House to your house.

If it were a perfect world, and you woke up tomorrow with the ultimate family life and ideal work conditions, what would it look like?

That was the question asked of more than 250 people at the first annual New Hampshire Summit on Work and Family last October. The event topped off a year of meetings and public forums put on by the N.H. Legislative Task Force on Work and Family. So many people showed up that they actually had to turn some away.

Those who stayed convinced some legislators that two benefits would help people balance work obligations and family demands: paid time off, and the right to ask for a flexible schedule.

Now, a triad of House bills sponsored by Rep. Mary Gile (D-Concord) would grant those wishes, and include employee protections against retaliation for pursuing these options.

Well, not so fast. All three bills, which have already had public hearings, are on hold until more is known about how some decisions in Washington could affect them. Gile asked for the bills to be “retained in committee,” which means the committee will hold onto them until next year, and may work on them in the meantime.

Retention is a chance to gather more information, and it gives opponents a chance to get their game on. Several groups have said that those benefits would not create a perfect world at all. Some employers, in particular, are concerned that they would raise the price of doing business.

The bills’ stated goals are to provide more opportunities for family bonding, improve the health and stability of the workforce, and reduce demands on state welfare programs by cutting back on unemployment due to illness.

By the way, if you’re single and childless, read on. The bills are referred to as family bills, but they apply to individuals, too. They also include same-sex civil unions as family relationships.

HB 661: family leave insurance
Rep. Mary Gile (D-Concord)

Family leave time is a legal right of U.S. workers, thanks to the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. Workers can get up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for childbirth or placement of an adopted child, to care for an immediate family member, or for the worker’s own medical needs.

That’s not enough, according to Gile and co-sponsors of House Bill 661, because many people cannot afford to take time off without a paycheck. HB 661 would create a family leave insurance program to compensate workers up to $250 per week for family leave time. Absence for an employee’s own illness would not be covered here, but would be considered under HB 662 (outlined below).

As with the Family and Medical Leave Act, HB 661 would be mandatory only for businesses with 50 or more workers.

Employers would not be asked to foot this bill. Instead, an infusion of federal money would jumpstart the program, which would then become a self-paying, opt-in system. Workers could have a certain amount (probably less than $20 per year) deducted from their paychecks and put into a pool from which approved family leave would be compensated.

Sponsors haven’t decided if those who don’t contribute to the fund would be compensated with money that other workers put in—a matter that could be worked out in retention. The committee will also determine how to proceed if federal money to start the plan doesn’t come through.

HB 662: paid sick leave
Rep. Mary Gile (D-Concord)

House Bill 662 would require all employers to grant workers 40 hours of paid sick leave each year.

Sick leave, in this case, is considered to be time off for mental or physical illness of the employee or a family member, or absences resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. The bill would cover time off for medical care, and also for victim services, counseling, relocating or legal action.

Workers would not have to reveal their medical histories in detail, and any general disclosures made to meet documentation requirements would be confidential.

Part of what spawned this bill was simply public health. Without paid sick leave, Gile says, workers hesitate to take time off. That may be unfortunate for officemates who could catch a coworker’s cold. And germs can spread far and fast if the sneezing employee is prepping dinner at a busy restaurant, for example.

The domestic violence provision arose from concern that victims of abuse should be able to take time off to get themselves and their families safe.

The bill is retained because the federal Healthy Families Act, sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), would provide seven days of paid sick leave for workers, surpassing the benefit HB 662 offers.

HB 663: flexible working
Rep. Mary Gile (D-Concord)

Say an employee wants to change the hours, times or location where he or she works. House Bill 663 lays out a clear way to ask for that, and instructs employers on steps to follow in response.

HB 663 would only affect companies with 15 or more workers. The process starts with a written request, includes two meetings for discussion, and wraps up in a month, with an optional second round of discussions if the employee isn’t satisfied with the result.

Although the process appears straightforward for the workplace, fiscal notes from the Dept. of Labor, N.H. Association of Counties and N.H. Municipal Association claim that implementing and enforcing the law would raise their administrative costs by an “indeterminable amount.”  The Judicial Branch also points out that, if any contested cases come as far as the court, it would take a financial hit, too.

HB 663 is on hold until the U.S. Congress votes on the federal Working Families Flexibility Act, sponsored by Rep. Carol Maloney (D-NY). Its passage would make the N.H. bill unnecessary, but Gile wanted to cover her bases, so she introduced the state-level legislation in case the federal act is killed.

Should businesses compensate workers for family leave?
What do you do for family or sick time off?  
Share your thoughts or ask your questions below.