This week, we heard a lot of talk about Gov. John Lynch’s veto of so-called right-to-work legislation, pleasure over the first tax cut of the session signed into law, and a newspaper speaking out for consumers.

Veto speak

Jack Kimball, New Hampshire Republican Party chair, on Lynch’s veto of “Right to Work,” House Bill 474:

“It is clear by his veto on HB 474, John Lynch is against free market principles, job creation and individual liberty. It also confirms that he is out-of-touch with the plight of New Hampshire families and business owners. Right to Work would create a more appealing business climate that would attract new businesses, create sustainable jobs for our citizens and allow current businesses to grow while putting us back on track for a prosperous future.”

Gov. John Lynch’s HB 474 veto message:

“In the last seven years of recruiting businesses to move to New Hampshire, not one business leader has ever even asked me if New Hampshire had a right-to-work law, let alone suggested it was a factor in the company’s location decision. No New Hampshire business leaders have ever told me that the lack of a so-called right-to-work law prevented them from expanding or hiring new workers here in New Hampshire. And no New Hampshire workers have ever told me they couldn’t get a job because New Hampshire doesn’t have a so-called right-to-work law. The debate over the so-called right-to-work bill in New Hampshire appears to be largely driven by national outside interest groups, and is not a result of problems facing New Hampshire businesses or workers.”

House Speaker William O’Brien speaking to New Hampshire Public Radio before Lynch vetoed HB 474:

“My caucus members are concerned (about) not allowing the governor to believe that he can function as a third branch of the legislature. The senate and the house have spoken with very strong majorities that right to work is what the people of NH want.”

Ray Buckley, New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, critiquing Republican criticisms of Lynch’s HB 474 veto:

“Why do Republicans want to turn New Hampshire into Mississippi? New Hampshire is routinely recognized as having one of the most business-friendly business climates in the nation and ranks highest in public safety and our schools outperform most other states.”

Spread the good (tax cut) word

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt of Salem on Lynch signing House Bill 229, which repealed the 10 percent gambling tax:

“This tax cut is merely a first installment in our plans for tax relief for New Hampshire citizens. Help is on the way and we are going to get back to being a low tax, business friendly state. We want people from across New England and the country to come here to visit, to shop and to bring their businesses… I encourage Governor Lynch to travel around the border communities and get the word out about this pro-business tax cut. I’d be happy to work with local merchants in my hometown to set up an event with the governor to let people know about this tax cut that the Republican legislature has delivered to the people.”

Flawed measurements

Concord Monitor editorial:

“In its anti-regulatory zeal, House Republicans also want to eliminate the Department of Agriculture’s Weights and Measures Division. Last week, in this paper, Hanover Rep. Bernie Benn shared some startling facts that every consumer should know about the need for the division’s inspectors. Last year, the agency inspected 139 service station gas meters and found that 113 were pumping less gas than displayed on the pump. The inspectors found scales that were cheating customers and home heating oil trucks that were overcharging by $36,000 by using meters that overestimated how much fuel had been delivered.”

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Marijuana photo by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid

Later today, the N.H. Senate will vote on House Bill 442, which would allow people to legally use marijuana to treat certain diseases, under narrow qualifying exceptions and with a medical doctor’s recommendation.

The bill has strong bipartisan sponsorship from both chambers, including Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster), the bill’s prime sponsor, and Sen. James Forsythe (R-Strafford). And the House overwhelmingly passed the measure by a 221-96 vote in March.

In a closer 3-2 vote and with many suggested changes, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee has given it a narrow recommendation. Among the many amendments the committee would like to see are a controlled patient ID system and state-licensed (but not state-funded) alternative treatment centers to distribute the drug. (You can read the complete amendment by going to the May 5 Senate calendar page here, then scrolling down the amendments in numerical order to HB 442.)

Veto History — and Future

Supporters say that, if passed, the bill would create the strictest medical marijuana law in the country. But Gov. John Lynch is not among the bill’s supporters. He vetoed a similar measure in 2009, and has vowed to do the same this year, saying there simply aren’t enough legal safeguards.

He’s not readying his veto pen yet, though. House Bill 442, if it passes the Senate today with the committee’s suggested amendments, will still need to go back to the House for approval of those changes. Only when it’s passed both chambers will it go to Lynch’s desk.

Two years ago, the House had enough votes to override the veto, but the Senate fell two votes short of the two-thirds majority required.

If it eventually passes this session, New Hampshire would join 15 other states — including neighboring Vermont and Maine — and the District of Columbia in permitting medical marijuana.

>> Wednesday, May 11, full Senate session beginning at 10 a.m. at the State House.

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

Nanny rates

On Wednesday, the House defeated a bill to re-allow a variation of so-called “payday loans” — short-term, high-interest loans — that lawmakers banned in 2009. The vote on Senate Bill 160 was narrow at 186-179, and the issue generated passion and contrasting views on the role of government.

“What have we come to? We were elected to get government off our backs and no more nanny states. I’m really disturbed,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester).

“This will make loan sharking an acceptable business,” said Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter). “It’s state-regulated usury.”

Stuck in the middle

A Senate committee has voted to kill a House measure that would withdraw New Hampshire from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Sen. Jeb Bradely (R-Wolfeboro) is trying to keep RGGI alive, but make it a whole lot different.

“There are people who want to keep the program exactly as is, and there are people who want to repeal outright. We’ve got a long way to go with this,” Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) told the Concord Monitor about the amendment to House Bill 519 he plans to introduce on the Senate floor next Wednesday.

The article says his plan would lower the cap for the price of carbon from $9 per ton to $1 per ton (it’s currently $1.86). It would also turn that money back over to utilities, rather than use it to fund a state-administered grant program for renewable and efficient energy projects.

Power pleas

The House voted 261-104 to pass its version of Senate Bill 148, which would return any federal grant money for health care reform and force the state Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit against the law. The debate on the House floor was pointed and sharp.

“We don’t want to do anything, anything that will allow this federal law to plant its poisonous seeds in our state,” said Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry).

“I urge you to read article 37 (of the state Constitution), use your common sense, deny this lust for power and defeat this amendment,” said Rep. Gary Richardson (D-Hopkinton).

Accounting jujitsu

Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was puzzled by a Senate Finance Committee amendment to House Bill 635. It would cut the Department of Corrections budget by $10.5 million by sending 600 prisoners from the state prison in Concord to an as-yet unknown location run by private companies.

“I really didn’t see any materials that indicated we could save $10.5 million. I didn’t know where they were going, how they were going to get there, what the costs would be,” said D’Allesandro, who was the only Finance Committee member to vote against the bill.

On Wednesday, the full Senate did not take up the amendment and the bill was returned to the Finance Committee.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Sen. Tom De Blois (R-Manchester) sponsored the Senate's bill to fight the feds on health care reform.

The House version of Senate Bill 148, sponsored by Sen. Tom DeBlois (R-Manchester) requires the Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and requires New Hampshire to reject some $600,000 in federal grant money to help the state set up a health care exchange as provided for in last year’s law.

“This bill sends the Obamacare money back to Washington with specific instructions to use it to reduce our massive federal deficit,” O’Brien said in a press release. “Obamacare has been found unconstitutional by two federal courts and we are awaiting the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Spending that sort of money to comply with a mandate that is three years away and stands on very shaky ground makes no sense.”

Daily Briefing notes that the reform act’s unconstitutionality is far from a foregone conclusion; the law been upheld by two different federal district courts. Also, if the state doesn’t use the federal money to set up a health care exchange network, the federal government will set up an exchange of its own. And finally, New Hampshire can suggest, and even suggest nicely, but Granite State legislators have no legal authority over what the federal government does with money the state returns.

Senate Bill 148 now returns to the Senate, which may or may not take a dim view of the House amendments — especially because the Senate had merely suggested (not required) that N.H. Attorney General Michael Delaney join the lawsuit.

Lynch will have a couple weeks before he has to make a decision either way on SB 148. But whether he simply lets the bill become law or risks an override, Daily Briefing believes this one ultimately will be decided in state court.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

>> During the next few weeks as more bills are hashed out between the House and Senate, the Daily Briefing will highlight some of the more controversial, interesting and frankly obvious decisions awaiting lawmakers and Lynch.

We’d also like to hear from you: What bills are you tracking and which ones should Lynch sign or veto? (Comments below, policy here.)

This Rollinsford cow from Brookford Farm is headed for milking, not slaughter. (photo by Hilary Niles)

The issue has emerged in the past few years as a number of smaller meat and poultry farms have sprouted up throughout the state. Later today, the Senate will likely pass House Bill 339, which would establish a meat inspection services administrator.

The hunt for local food

According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 23 states have given up their meat and poultry protection program in the past four decades — as New Hampshire did in 1978. A Nashua Telegraph story by David Brooks from last August focused on the challenges of a state having only one federally certified slaughterhouse with inspection capability.

State veterinarian Stephen Crawford, whose office would oversee the state inspection service, said in the story that “the increase in interest for locally raised meat and poultry has created an enormous opportunity for New Hampshire farmers. The most significant limitation to filling the demand for meat other than poultry is a distinct lack of access to local slaughter facilities.”

Making it pay (for itself)

Establishing the program is one thing, but providing enough funding to get a viable service up and running may be an issue. House Bill 339, sponsored by Rep. Laurie Harding (D-Lebanon) establishes a meat inspection fund. But, it only appropriates $1 through June 30, 2012. Supporters believe the program will become more than self-sustaining through fees, fines and other grants and donations. The cost for inspection services will start at $50 for a cow, $10 for a turkey or rabbit and $5 for a chicken.

House Bill 339 had bipartisan sponsorship and passed the House by a voice vote in March. The bill already made it through one round of Senate vetting before being resubmitted (as all spending bills do) to the Senate Finance Committee, which gave it a unanimous recommendation for passage.

>> Wednesday, May 4, full Senate session vote on HB 339 and more than 60 other bills and amendments. Senate Chambers at the State House, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

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.

3 sides of the nickel

Gov. John Lynch dismissed the last-minute tax cut proposal that was trumpeted by House leadership (see “Speaking of Gas Prices“). Lynch said he wouldn’t have to veto Senate Bill 78 because the Senate won’t pass this “political gimmick” that could chop an estimated $6.5 million out of the state’s Highway Fund, which is used for road and bridge construction and maintenance.

House Majority Leader Rep. D. J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) countered with enthusiasm, suggesting an economic development chain reaction would unfold if the measure passes. While New Hampshire already has the lowest gas tax and prices in the region, Bettencourt said, “Expanding this margin by another 5 cents would result in more out-of-state residents coming to New Hampshire to fill their gas tanks. While they are here, visitors will also take advantage of our low tax environment and purchase other goods, including cigarettes, liquor and lottery tickets. This will help to drive up state revenues, as will the business profits taxes of the local gas stations benefiting from the additional business.”

On the other hand, Senate Finance Chair Chuck Morse (R-Salem) told the Concord Monitor he wondered whether oil producers would benefit most from the gas tax reduction. The Senate also wasn’t ready to embrace the math attached to the House cigarette tax reduction bill (lower taxes = greater revenues) when it tabled House Bill 156 yesterday (see “The Price of Taxing Tobacco“).

Steps of the dance

While it may appear that the Senate is playing bad cop to the House’s good cop when it comes to tax cuts, this is a traditional legislative dance of differing assumptions and priorities. It can and does work both ways, as Sen. Lou D’Allensandro (D-Manchester) found out in 2010 when he managed to get an expanded gambling bill through the Senate — only to run into a wall of opposition and skepticism in the House.

The reality is that this stage of the game is nearly all political posturing. The tax cuts that have been passed by the House or tabled in both the House and Senate remain very much in play. It’s the final House-Senate conference committees, where the two chambers’ differences are worked out, that will reveal the Legislature’s final revenue priorities come June.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

If you’re in retail, we want to know: Do you see more business with lower taxes?

(Comments below, policy here.)

It was slipped into the House budget proposal, but the N.H. Senate has stripped the controversy from its version of the budget. And now, a Senate committee has reshaped House Bill 580, which also included a collective bargaining provision that organized labor strongly opposed.

House Bill 580

When it passed the House last month, HB 580 was one of a handful of comprehensive proposals this session to reform New Hampshire’s public pension system. Daily Briefing took notice of one particular provision in the original text of HB 580. Bear with us here — the legalese is followed by regular English. It said when a collective bargaining agreement has lapsed, or during negotiations:

“the status quo shall be maintained as to the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of employees in good standing. Except where required by statute, the continuation, after the expiration of the agreement, of the provision of any medical, dental, and life insurance benefits, retirement or pension benefits, and any other fringe benefits, shall be subject to the exclusive authority of the public employer.”

In other words, while employees and their wages would not revert to “at will” status when a contract ends, their benefits would.

Another clause would have allowed public employees to opt out of all “medical, dental and retirement benefits in order to instead receive an increase in his or her base salary or wage.”

With that kind of change in law, collective bargaining negotiations and group insurance calculations would become a whole new ball game.

They’ll look into it

So, the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee acted in the time-honored legislative tradition of dealing with radioactive issues by creating a study committee.

Actually, they replaced everything in the bill with a provision to create this collective bargaining study committee. As amended, HB 580 would have three Senate members and four members of the House study the issue of public sector collective bargaining agreements.Their report would be due by December 1.

The measure passed the committee by a unanimous 5-0 vote. The bill now heads to a full Senate vote Wednesday.

It ain’t over till it’s over

But this may not be the end of the story. House Bill 580 — the one that got turned into a study committee — was sponsored by Rep. Neal Kurk (R-Weare). He’s the same representative who inserted the “at will” measure into the House budget bill, which the House passed by a sizable 228-139 vote.

Any changes the Senate makes to both the budget and HB 580 will have to be approved by the House. Stay tuned.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Should they study collective bargaining, leave it alone, or change it now?

(If you haven’t commented before, check out our Comments Policy first, please.)

Expect a long list of speakers to line up in Representatives Hall to support or oppose the myriad proposals for revenue and spending in 2012-2013. Senate budget writers have until June 2 to complete their version of the budget, at which point the House and Senate will have to hammer out any differences.

The committee is scheduled for two (2) two-hour sessions this afternoon and this evening on the main budget bills, House Bill 1 and House Bill 2.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Morse (R-Salem) has said that some of the spending cuts proposed in the House budget — especially programs for the developmentally disabled and mentally ill — would be either partially restored or given close examination. But, as he said last week, some $200 million in restored funding to those programs would have to be matched by cuts in other areas.

Senate Finance has already made recommendations to change a few notable proposals:

Last week, the committee decided to eliminate a controversial measure that would turn public employees into at-will employees when their contracts have ended. Morse said such a collective bargaining measure, which was added in the House at the last minute without public hearings by House budget writers, did not belong in the budget bill and should be vetted and debated separately.

The committee also recommended removing a House proposal to abolish the state Department of Cultural Resources moving its divisions into other state agencies and cutting the correlating budget — from the $427,000 proposed in February by Gov. John Lynch to $4,700 recommended by the House.

The House measure would also defund the New Hampshire Arts Council. If passed, that would make New Hampshire the only state in the country without an arts council or commission.

Q&A

What state programs are worth keeping, which should be gutted, and why?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below (Comments Policy here).

>>Thursday, April 21, 2-4 p.m. and 6-8 p.m., Senate Finance Committee public hearings and public testimony on HB 1 and HB 2 (State House, Representatives Hall). The hearings also will be streamed live online. Go to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) has proposed a new way to settle the JUA controversy.

Senate Bill 170 first forbids the state from claiming any surplus funds from the Joint Underwriting Association — either through legislation or taxation. It also orders that any “excess surplus” funds be distributed to policyholders. That excess measures at least $110 million, according to the bill. And that $110 million is at the core of the two-year controversy.

A House committee will hold a public hearing on SB 170 Tuesday.

the backstory

The JUA (officially known as the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association) is an otherwise unknown structure. Founded in 1981 by the N.H. Legislature, it was designed to help doctors, hospitals and other medical providers find affordable medical malpractice insurance through a state-administered not-for-profit agency.

Over the years, plenty of money has built up at the JUA from premium payments made by policyholders. The fund goes beyond a prudent reserve, some say, to the point of having “excess” surplus funds.

The JUA became a political flashpoint in 2009, when Gov. John Lynch and Democratic budget writers tried to transfer $110 million in surplus JUA money into the state’s general fund to help balance the budget for 2010 and 2011.

As we noted in an earlier post on SB 170, JUA shareholders were joined by Republicans in fighting the transfer, saying lawmakers had no right to the money. The Lynch administration countered that the people had a right to benefit from the surplus JUA funds because the state had established the entity in the first place.

Eventually, the JUA won a lawsuit that reached the N.H. Supreme Court. In its ruling, the Court said the tax-exempt JUA is a private agency, even though the IRS allows it to function within state government.

the new story

Senate Bill 170, sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), codifies the court’s ruling and goes a step further by prohibiting any possible taxation on the funds. It also orders that the current excess be distributed among shareholders, effectively emptying the cookie jar.

In a full Senate vote, even Democratic members who had formerly supported the Lynch administration’s stance on JUA supported SB 170 as it passed by a 23-1 vote. Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was the sole objector.

If SB 170 passes, that won’t mean that the JUA controversy itself is anywhere near over. Check out this Foster’s article on continued legal fallout.

Q&A

Is it about time for SB 170? Or does it go too far in prohibiting any possible taxation on the JUA’s surplus funds? And is it for the Legislature or the courts to order that excess money be distributed to shareholders?

Let us know your thoughts using the comments box below. (Comments Policy)

>> Tuesday, April 19, 10 a.m., House Executive Departments and Administration Committee public hearings on SB 170 and other legislation. An executive session is scheduled at 1:15 p.m . (Legislative Office Building, Room 306).

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