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House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt of Salem on Lynch signing House Bill 229, which repealed the 10 percent gambling tax: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

House Bill 82 will have its first Senate hearing later today. Sponsored by Rep. Laura Pantelakos (D-Portsmouth), HB 82 passed the House by a voice vote in February. The measure is the fruit of a legislative study committee formed last year to provide recommendations to update the annulment law for the first time in almost four decades.

The main issue with the current statute is this: While a conviction may be removed from official records, that annulled conviction isn’t necessarily removed from public databases outside the courts with seemingly infinite storage capacity (like online search engines or media archives).

The first criminal record annulment statute was passed by the New Hampshire Legislature in 1971 and allows for a process to remove a conviction from the public record. The process works like this:

1. Depending on the type of conviction and after a period ranging from one to 10 years following conviction, a person can request an annulment.
2. A judge decides whether to grant the annulment after considering input from state and local police, the local prosecutor and correction officials.
3. Conviction records for murder, felonious sexual assaults and other violent crimes cannot be annulled. The number of granted annulments has increased from about 800 criminal cases in 1997 to more than 4,000 in 2009.
4. With narrow law enforcement exceptions under current law, any person who discloses information about an annulled conviction can be charged with a misdemeanor.

The leaking of an annulled record to a Portsmouth Herald reporter during the Rockingham County Sheriff election in 2008 was one of the main factors that led to the study committee and to HB 82.

The most significant change in law the bill would bring is to eliminate legal ramifications for journalists reporting both a previous criminal record and a subsequent annulment. Annulments also would become public records that courts would be required to release upon request — and media organizations would not be required to revise details of a conviction or deny public access to that content.

One fundamental pillar from the old statute will remain in effect: Those with annulled criminal records will still be able to truthfully say that they have no criminal record.

>> Thursday, May 12, Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on pending House legislation, including HB 82. Hearings begin at 1 p.m. in Room 101 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

House Bill 474 would prevent New Hampshire’s public sector unions from collecting fees from non-union employees who are nonetheless covered under the union’s collective bargaining agreements. The bill is sponsored by Rep. William Smith (R-New Castle).

The Senate’s 16-8 vote to pass an amended version of the bill on April 20 hit the veto-proof mark with no room to spare. The House yesterday voted to pass the Senate’s amended version, but missed the veto-proof mark, with a vote of 255-140. It appears the House has lost some steam for the measure since its February vote of 221-131.

But House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) wasted no time in calling for Lynch to sign the bill into law. “Right to Work is the single greatest opportunity to create jobs in New Hampshire that the legislature will pass this year,” O’Brien said in a press release. “This means more manufacturing jobs, more service jobs and more companies coming to the Granite State to grow.  If Governor Lynch is committed to growing our economy and creating jobs, he will sign this legislation at the first opportunity.”

The State Employees Association of New Hampshire, on the other hand, has taken to calling HB 474 “Right to Work for Less.” The union says it overturns decades of Republican and Democratic leadership respect for collective bargaining rights and essentially tells employers how to run their businesses. SEA President Diana Lacey called on Lynch to veto the bill and applauded the 140 lawmakers who voted against it.

The House’s concurrence with the Senate’s amendment means that Lynch has five days to sign the bill into law or veto it. Alternatively, he simply do neither, in which case it would become law without his signature — but that’s not likely.

If Lynch vetoes HB 474, a two-thirds majority vote will be required in both the House and Senate to override his decision. Expect a bruising rhetorical battle.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

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.

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.

Rep. Will Smith has sponsored New Hampshire's Right to Work Act

Depending on one’s political perspective, it could mean more employee freedom and a better business climate, or it could mean lower pay for workers.

The New Hampshire Senate will give its answer to the question Wednesday when it takes up one of the more controversial issues of the session with House Bill 474.

The Bill

For some context: Federal law prohibits private sector workers from being forced to join unions. But, unions are required to bargain on their behalf if all workers fall under a negotiated contract — and unions are allowed to collect fees for that service.

Under HB 474, New Hampshire’s public employees also would have the choice of whether or not to join a union — and unions would not be allowed to collect fees for negotiating contracts of non-union workers. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Will Smith (R-New Castle).

Two successful House amendments clarify that bargaining agreements negotiated by unions will only apply to their members, and not the workers who decline to join.

The Senate Commerce Committee, however, recommends stripping out that those provisions — meaning unions would bargain on behalf of non-union employees.

For and Against

Supporters of the Right to Work Act, as it’s named in the legislation, say it gives both workers and employers more freedom of choice and would spur economic development by creating a more business friendly environment.

Opponents say HB 474 is a solution in search of a problem since it is being pushed by out-of-state special interest groups and not by businesses in New Hampshire.

Opponents also say it will depress wages for all workers, while potentially creating different pay scales for workers doing the same jobs. In February, Department of Labor Commissioner George Copadis testified that in his six years on the job that not one business had asked him about right-to-work.

Status

The Right to Work Act passed the House in February by a 221-131 vote and the Senate Commerce Committee approved it last week by 4-1 party line vote. Gov. John Lynch has promised to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

If it becomes law, New Hampshire would join almost two dozen other states with right-to-work laws. It would be the first state north of Virginia to adopt them.

Q&A

Should unions bargain on behalf of non-union employees? Should public employees be allowed to work without joining a union? What effect do you think all this has on the state’s economy?

Share your thoughts below (comments policy here).

>> Wednesday, April 20, 10 a.m. – Full session of the Senate to vote on HB 474 and more than 30 other bills and amendments (State House, Senate Chambers).

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Altogether, there are 19 Democrat-sponsored floor amendments to the House Finance Committee’s version of House Bills 1 and 2, which together comprise the Granite State’s budget.

In particular, the amendments would provide more money to community college and university systems, mental health services, three programs in Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture (to stop three proposed job cuts), and to the consumer protection division in the Department of Justice.

Other amendments also propose alterations to retirement system changes, a measure to restore more funding to reimburse hospitals for uncompensated care, and — importantly — revised revenue estimates, which would allow for the increased funding.

Here are a few floor amendments, in particular, that caught our eye:

• Listing the scores of highway construction and improvement projects in dozens of towns that would be eliminated due to reductions in the Finance Committee’s budget. The projects total $378,000, and all had been approved in 2010 as part of the 2011-2020 Ten-Year Transportation Plan. (HB 2)
• Remove Rep. Neal Kurk’s (R-Weare) amendment that would make public employees “at will” when their contracts expire, giving employers (ie: the state, municipalities) the upper hand in negotiations. (HB 2)
• Restore more than $25 million in payments to community mental health centers. (HB 1)
• Add $12 million to the community college system and $50 million to the University System of New Hampshire budgets. (HB 1)
• Restore $5 million for employment–related childcare programs. (HB 1)
• Fund seven state police detective positions. (HB 1)

>> The debates will begin in earnest today at 9 a.m. when the House meets in full session at Representatives Hall to consider the main budget bills, the floor amendments, and more than 25 other bills on the consent and regular calendars.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The budget is split into two parts, House Bills 1 and 2. Generally speaking, HB 1 (weighing in at 862 pages) is a massive spreadsheet whose lists include revenue estimates, job cuts, and spending plans. Its counterpart, HB 2, is the nuts and bolts bill detailing a host of statute repeals, executive branch reorganizations, fee reduction explanations and many other matters.

The Finance Committee’s amended 2012-2013 budget recommendations have been posted and are linked here for your viewing. It’s pretty dense material, so if you’d like to dig in, we suggest starting with a helpful 152-point amended analysis at the bottom HB 2. There is also a lengthy amended analysis beginning at Page 802 for HB 1.

We’ll continue researching these budget documents and what they mean for New Hampshire households. In the meantime, here are a few notable points from HB 2:

• Proposed retirement system changes (pp. 46-73)
• Disallowing the Department of Justice from using any funds to take up legal action against the Legislature (p. 90)
• A provision to strip all local and state public employees of collective bargaining protection when a contract expires. Workers would be ‘at will’ at the end of their contracts, subject to wage and benefit guidelines at the employer’s discretion (p. 135)
• Abolishing of the Department of Cultural Resources (p. 84)
• A measure to “Encourage law enforcement personnel to assist, whenever possible, the traveling public by providing them with a hospitable reception and appropriate information” (p. 104)

>> Presentation by House Finance Committee on its 2012-2013 budget recommendations, Representatives Hall at the State House, Tuesday, March 29, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

As always, to help you follow along, we have highlighted committee names with a link to previous dispatches on these bills.

Retirement System Reform

Executive Departments and Administration

The push by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) for comprehensive retirement system reform takes its next step before the full Senate. Senate Bill 3 passed its committee by a 4-1 vote, with Democratic minority leader Sylvia Larson being the sole vote against the measure. The bill includes a massive amendment, with changes including an increase in contribution rates for teachers, police and fire, while phasing in a system of extended length-of-service requirements for newly hired police and fire personnel and those having less than 10 years of service. The original bill had set the earliest retirement age at 50 following 25 years of service for anyone currently working who had less than 10 years of service.

Expanded Gambling Stalled

Ways and Means

Senate Bill 182, the 13^th attempt by Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) to expand gambling in New Hampshire, likely will be returning to committee. The full Senate will vote on the committee’s unanimous recommendation to re-refer the bill back to committee until 2012. The measure called for up to 10,000 video slots and table games, such as poker and roulette, at four locations in the state. D’Allensandro told the Eagle-Tribune that, in his estimation, no one wanted a fight over gambling this session. “There’s got to be an appetite. I think the perception is the House doesn’t want to raise money,” he said.

(In proving the Daily Dispatch can be a questionable prophet at times, we noted in our March 4 dispatch on SB 182 that it was unlikely the bill would face the same fate — retained in committee until 2012 – of a similar proposal in the House. We stand humbled and corrected.)

Electronic Car Registration

Commerce

Senate Bill 156, which would establish New Hampshire’s first Electronic Vehicle Registration program, passed its committee with unanimous 4-0 recommendation shortly after its one and only public hearing on March 11. Sponsored by Sen. Andy Sanborn (R-Henniker), the measure would set up a one-year pilot program of allowing consumers to register their newly purchased new or used cars with participating dealers — rather than a town or city hall office.

>> Wednesday, March 16 – Senate in Session beginning at 10 a.m. in the Senate chambers at the State House.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.