HB 51 is a new twist on an old effort: to make it harder for local officials to make local decisions and engage with the legislature. We anticipate this bill will have its hearing before the House Municipal and County Government Committee very soon, and local officials must urge committee members to recommend the bill as Inexpedient to Legislate. 

HB 51 would add a new paragraph (paragraph III) to RSA 15:5: 

Towns and school districts which fund lobbyists defined under RSA 15:1, I, shall use a warrant article for each agency. Such article shall read as follows: “Shall the town or school district fund ____________________________ (name of lobbyist or lobbyist agency) using local funds to lobby for legislation.” 

The clear intent is to create a statewide mandate requiring a separate warrant article for membership or contracts with entities that lobby, by overriding the local authority of locally elected select boards—and voters—to decide which questions must be warned separately at town meeting. 

As an initial matter, HB 51 is confusing in its application. As stated above, the new paragraph would apply to towns that “fund lobbyists under RSA 15:1,” using RSA 15:5 as the vehicle for the mandate. RSA 15:5 is a statutory section that applies to the state and to entities that receive funds from the state. Although there have been numerous efforts over the years to twist the meaning of RSA 15:5, I to apply to municipalities—all of which have failed—the legislative history of the statute reveals that its purpose is to prohibit organizations from receiving state funds, and then turning around to lobby the state with those funds. This is not the same as municipal officials advocating to their state legislature with local funds. And while it is true that local governments receive certain funds from the state, the decision to hire an attorney, to buy sand and salt, or to pay dues to a membership organization are all paid for by local revenues and property taxes. In fact, the bill recognizes this to be the case, when it refers to using local funds to engage in lobbying, creating an internal inconsistency in the legislation, underscoring that the use of lobbyists by towns does not fall under RSA 15:5. 

This leads us back to the heart of the issue: local funds and local decisions. The purpose of HB 51, despite its internally inconsistent language, is to create a statewide mandate on local government operations and on local voters. NHMA—through our member-adopted policies and principles—opposes all legislation that detracts from existing local authority and supports maintaining local government authority without infringement by the state and measures that enable municipalities to exercise existing authority more efficiently and with greater discretion. Putting aside the technical issues with the bill, the bill’s purpose is to override existing local authority by allowing unnecessary infringement by the state on local authority.  

Select boards are the officials elected by the voters, in local elections, to handle local operations. By state law, they are charged with the responsibility for noticing a town meeting, including the content of the warrant. And both select boards and voters already have the ability to include any appropriation or question in a separate warrant article: A mere 25 registered voters (or two percent, whichever is less) are needed to put a petitioned article on a town meeting warrant under RSA 39:3. (In fact, there have been past instances where voters have submitted petitioned warrant articles regarding payment of NHMA’s dues, as is their right.) And with respect to transparency, municipalities are already required to present their budgets, in full line-item detail, to voters before the proposed budget is finalized—a budget the voters will have the opportunity to discuss, debate, amend, and adopt at town meeting. The state legislature should not supplant its judgment for that of the locally elected officials or the voters with respect to the town warrant or local spending decisions. 

Furthermore, very few questions are mandated by state law to be included in separate warrant articles. Again, this is, for the most part, the local decision of select boards or voters, not legislators. Municipalities, like other governmental entities, fund many different programs, contracts with vendors, and products and services through their budget. There is no requirement that municipalities use separate warrant articles for attorneys to defend or advise them; consultants to assist on land use applications; or insurance in the event of a lawsuit. Why should membership to professional and advocacy organizations be different? Most towns have identified that membership in an organization like NHMA is more cost effective than requiring local officials to monitor and testify on several hundred of bills each year—although that is not, ultimately, the point. The point is that these are the types of decisions select boards are charged with making on behalf of the town, and that voters already have the ability to accept or reject those decisions at town meeting. 

With regard to professional organizations, although proponents of similar legislation over the years have focused their efforts on NHMA, there are many other organizations run by local officials, for local officials that provide a variety of functions, including advocacy, which would be affected by HB 51. Membership with groups like the NH City and Town Clerks Association, the NH Building Officials Association, and the NH Association of Assessing Officials would be allowed only if approved on a separate warrant article. This mandate would remove the ability of local officials to decide whether to join professional support organizations. Should local officials not seek out resources and training? Each of these organizations provides hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of specialized training and education to their members each year—education and training that those officials need for their positions and which they cannot obtain elsewhere. If a town hires a new employee in June who wants to join one of these organizations, does the town need to call a special town meeting to authorize membership, simply because the organization also engages in advocacy? Curiously, this bill would apply its mandates to towns and school districts only—not to other governmental entities, including the State of New Hampshire, for use of public funds in its lobbying activities or membership organizations. 

Finally, this legislation will open the door for legislators to continue to target municipal operations or spending that they do not agree with through statewide, one-size-fits-all legislation like HB 51 without the benefit of hearing from the people who actually perform the functions that the state is regulating. Local decisions on spending and policy should remain the purview of locals; we do not understand why the state should micromanage municipal operations or the will of the voters. 

We urge our members to contact the Municipal & County Government Committee to ask them to recommend HB 51 as Inexpedient to Legislate.

This week, the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee began to hold hearings on the seventeen bills that deal with the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) this session. We have analyzed the bills that have language published to date to understand the impact on both municipal employers and employees. The wide variety of bills present both positive and negative proposed policy changes. 

HB 555 would require that the state transfer 75 percent of the biennial surplus to NHRS to reduce the retirement system’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) determined under RSA 100-A:16, II to the extent the surplus meets or exceeds certain financial conditions. For fiscal year 2022, NHRS reported an unfunded liability of $5.69 billion in the actuarial valuation. Current actuarial valuations estimate that the unfunded liability accounts for more than 75 percent of current employer rates which is borne solely by the participating employers. NHMA supports legislation that promotes a solvent, fiscally healthy, and financially sustainable defined benefit plan that both employees and employers can rely on to provide retirement benefits for the foreseeable future.

Two bills of note, HB 50 and LSR 2023-0801 are NHMA policy bills that would restore a portion of the state’s NHRS employer contribution at 7.5 percent of the retirement costs for teachers, police, and firefighters. Over the last decade, the state has downshifted 100 percent of the employer contribution cost to the municipalities. Prior to 2012, the state contributed up to 35 percent toward these costs. The 2021 legislative session provided municipal employers with a one-time 7.5 percent (26.5 million) payment allocated from state surplus. Beginning in fiscal year 2024, these bills would provide a yearly 7.5 percent contribution, estimated to be $26.4 million, providing significant and much-needed local tax.

Across the country, state and local governments are challenged with balancing the need to provide reasonable retirement benefits for their employees with the need to provide those benefits at reasonable costs to their taxpayers, a daunting task—particularly with the current economic conditions. The prospect for the immediate future is that employer rates will continue to increase if proposed legislation is passed that increases the unfunded pension liability.

Some concerning bills would increase employer contribution rates, increase the unfunded liability, or create a change in benefits to current members or retirees that will impact municipal budgets—and increase local property taxes.  There are seven bills that propose policy changes for Group II police and fire employees, specifically.

Please click here to find a list of hearings next week on bills that NHMA is tracking. Please note that the linked PDF only covers hearings scheduled for the next week. For the most up-to-date information on when bills are scheduled for a hearing, please use our live bill tracker.