Last week’s Bulletin went to press while the House was still knee-deep in municipal bills. We were able to report on some of those bills, but several were not resolved until later in the day. Here are the highlights. (See last week's Bulletin for information on other bills.) 

The good news. There was some very good news, as several of the most troubling bills are now in the rear-view mirror. 

• Municipal liability and immunity. In a huge victory, the House overturned the Judiciary Committee’s 19-2 recommendation of Ought to Pass on HB 111, the bill dealing with state and municipal immunity. This was one of the most fiercely debated bills of the week—both before and during the House session—and the one that worried us the most. The Ought to Pass motion failed by a narrow margin, 178-184, and the bill was then tabled on a voice vote. Because it was tabled, rather than voted Inexpedient to Legislate, it is technically possible for the bill to be removed from the table and passed—but the probability of that is a small fraction of one percent. For all intents and purposes, the bill itself is dead. Slightly more likely is that the language of the bill will show up as an amendment to another bill. We will watch for that, but we believe it is highly unlikely as well. 
  • Thank you to all the local officials who worked to defeat the bill. This was a major collaborative effort involving many groups—especially the Police Association, the Chiefs of Police Association, and the Fire Chiefs Association, in addition to NHMA, but also including several others. Here is the roll call. Please thank your representatives who voted “nay.” 
  • We know that many legislators were torn on this issue, and we recognize that some of them, while concerned about the bill’s effects on municipalities, simply felt that something must be done to address misconduct by government actors. We understand that, and there may be a legislative solution, but as we said many times, we believe HB 111 went too far. 
• City council powers. The House also rejected the Municipal and County Government Committee’s Ought to Pass recommendation on HB 439, by a similarly narrow margin, 185-192. This is the bill that would have repealed the authority of city councils to adopt ordinances “for the well-being of the city.” Here is the roll call. Again, please thank your representatives who voted “nay.” (And if they voted “nay” on both HB 111 and HB 439, thank them twice.) 
• Immigration enforcement.  On a voice vote and without discussion, the House tabled HB 266, which would have required municipalities to comply with federal immigration detainer requests, and would have prohibited the adoption of local policies discouraging the police from inquiring about the immigration status of any individual. We are not certain what prompted the tabling of the bill, but we would not be surprised to see a similar bill next year—or to see the language of HB 266 show up as an amendment to another bill this year. 

The bad news. Given how many bad bills had received positive committee recommendations, some of them were sure to make it through. The House passed the following bills that NHMA opposes: 

• Amending petitioned articles. By a 12-vote margin, 193-181, the House passed HB 67, which would prohibit the voters at a town meeting deliberative session in an official ballot referendum (SB 2) town from amending a petitioned warrant article “to change its specific intent.” As we have explained repeatedly, this makes no sense. In any legislative body, once a question—whether a warrant article at town meeting or a bill in the legislature—is filed, the legislative body can amend it as it sees fit, so long as it does not change the subject matter. HB 67 would prohibit an amendment even if the petitioners themselves want to amend the article. If they realize after submitting the article that they want to do something slightly different, or that they left an important piece out of the article, they will be out of luck. 
• Town budget format. In an extremely close vote, 189-186, the House passed HB 243. This bill requires that all budgets be prepared in “full line item detail,” but does not define that term. It requires the budget to be “published”—without saying how or where—in both “CSV and PDF formats for easy viewing and use by common spreadsheet programs.” Municipalities should be able to use the budgeting formats that work best for them, subject to compliance with existing requirements established by DRA. Municipal budgets, in whatever form they exist, are already subject to disclosure to anyone who asks for them. This bill is an effort to micromanage local processes by imposing requirements that the state itself does not follow. HB 243 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee this coming Monday, April 19, at 10:00 a.m. Members are encouraged to sign in opposition or register to testify using the Senate remote sign-in sheet. 
• Adoption of SB 2.  Finally, the House passed HB 374, relative to the process for adopting the SB 2 form of town meeting, by a margin of 200-175. This bill reinstates the process that was in effect before 2019, requiring the question of adopting SB 2 to be placed on the official ballot, rather than debated and voted on at the town meeting’s business session. We believe that a fundamental change to the town meeting format is something that should be decided after a thorough and informed discussion among those voting. HB 374 would instead relegate the decision to one sentence, without explanation, on the official ballot. This will leave voters a few seconds, alone in a voting booth, to make up their minds on the most significant change a town meeting is ever likely to make.            

All of these were division vote, so no roll call is available for them. All three bills are now in the Senate and have been referred to the Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee. As mentioned above, the hearing on HB 243 is scheduled for this coming Monday, April 19, at 10:00 a.m. Hearings on the other two bills have not been scheduled yet, but they will be soon. Please contact members of the committee to voice your opposition to these bills, or consider testifying or signing in opposition. Use the Senate remote sign-in sheet to register to testify or express your opposition. Please contact us if you have any questions. 

A few loose ends.  A few other bills we were following died an unusual death. Using a format we have not seen before, the calendar for last week’s House session listed all the bills that had committee reports of “Ought to Pass” first, with the bills that had reports of “Inexpedient to Legislate” at the end. When the House ran out of time on Friday evening, it had not yet gotten to most of the “Inexpedient to Legislate” bills. The session was adjourned, and because Friday was the deadline for the House to act on its bills, the remaining bills were, in essence, killed by inaction. They were not formally voted Inexpedient to Legislate, but they’re just as dead now as if they had been. 

There is one important consequence of the failure to vote those bills Inexpedient to Legislate. Under House rules, when a bill is voted ITL in the first year of a legislative term (like this year), the same subject matter cannot be introduced in the second year. Because those bills were not voted ITL, any of them could be introduced (with a different bill number) next year. 

Among the bills that died in this manner were HB 341, which would have required municipalities to allow certain single-family dwellings to be configured into four units; HB 588, which would have required municipalities to allow “tiny houses”; and HB 616, which would have instituted new requirements for certain zoning appeals. NHMA had opposed all of these bills.