Committee Summary for House Judiciary (01/22/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB66 00:13:41.800 - 9:12:42 AM	Public Hearing	relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB66 00:37:39.560 - 9:36:40 AM	Public Hearing	relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB74 01:42:13.480 - 10:41:14 AM	Public Hearing	defining the term citizen for the purposes of the right to know law and including preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum of a majority of a public body as disclosable documents.	Edwards, Jess(R)[B+]2025
HB80 02:00:31.040 - 10:59:32 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) allowing a public body member's presence at a meeting by electronic or other means of communication only if physical presence is unavoidable.	Turcotte, Len(R)[B]2025
HB164 02:39:45.479 - 11:38:46 AM	Public Hearing	relative to local records retention.	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
HB265 03:07:45.560 - 12:06:46 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) requiring that a public body's meeting minutes include start and end times of the meeting and the printed name of the recording secretary.	Smith, Marjorie(D)[F]2025
HB114 FN 03:34:09.399 - 12:33:10 PM	Public Hearing	removing fees and charges for governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstating potential liability for disclosure of information exempt from disclosure.	Andrus, Louise(R)[C+]2025
HB273 05:31:36.958 - 2:30:37 PM	Public Hearing	relative to a parent's access to their minor child's library records.	Drago, Mike(R)[A-]2025
HB98 06:28:15.638 - 3:27:16 PM	Executive Session	relative to professional limited liability company (PLLC) assistant manager status.	Turer, Eric(D)[F]2025
HB164 06:31:44.040 - 3:30:45 PM	Executive Session	relative to local records retention.	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
HB376 06:34:58.478 - 3:33:59 PM	Executive Session	specifying that library user information exempted from disclosure in the right-to-know law includes information regarding library cards and library membership status.	Mazur, Lisa(R)[A]2025
HB476 06:36:33.000 - 3:35:34 PM	General Working Session	relative to abortion statistics reporting	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #

HB66: Representative Lynn Support00:13:41.800 - 9:12:42 AM; Representative Lynn introduced House Bill 6 as the prime sponsor, explaining that the bill aims to remove the word 'citizen' from the right to know law and replace it with 'any person'. This change would allow any person to request information under the law. She highlighted that the issue of citizenship in the context of the right to know law had only recently been questioned, notably in a case involving Rochester. She also discussed that the bill would allow requesters to specify the format in which they want the information, with certain limitations to ensure the request isn't unduly burdensome or a threat to record integrity. Lastly, she mentioned an addition to the bill, suggested by Representative Edwards, to clarify that preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body must be provided, despite this being arguably covered by existing law.
HB66: Representative Perch Information Only00:21:26.520 - 9:20:27 AM; Representative Perch asked Representative Lynn about the implications of changing 'citizen' to 'any person', specifically regarding whether this would allow requests from anywhere in the world, including potential bad actors. Representative Lynn acknowledged this concern but noted that even if restricted to New Hampshire citizens, bad actors could still find ways around such restrictions. She also mentioned that, historically, there haven't been significant issues with out-of-state requests. Representative Perch also inquired about the potential fiscal impact on municipalities, to which Representative Lynn responded that it was unclear but speculated that it might even save money by allowing more efficient responses.
HB66: Representative Alexander Information Only00:25:58.840 - 9:24:59 AM; Representative Alexander questioned the addition to the bill regarding preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body. He expressed concern that releasing preliminary drafts could lead to confusion among the public due to the potential for incorrect information in working documents. Representative Lynn responded by stating that such materials would likely be covered under existing law and suggested that the burden of ensuring the accuracy of the final document lies with the requester.
HB66: Cordell Johnston Oppose00:28:56.440 - 9:27:57 AM; Cordell Johnston, an attorney representing municipalities, opposed most of House Bill 6. He expressed concern over the requirement to deliver government records to anyone who asks, arguing that current law allows residents to access records at town halls, which deters frivolous out-of-state requests. He highlighted the burden this could place on local government workers, particularly if requests came from overseas. He also noted that the provision regarding preliminary drafts was unnecessary as existing law already covers such documents. Johnston emphasized that the right to know law should focus on enabling citizens to understand local government actions, not serve external interests.
HB66: Unnamed speaker from Lake Winnipesaukee area Information Only00:37:39.560 - 9:36:40 AM; The speaker expressed concerns about the definition of who can request information under HB66. Living near Lake Winnipesaukee, the speaker noted the presence of many second-home owners and questioned whether the bill would allow non-residents with property or businesses in New Hampshire to request information from municipalities. The speaker suggested that the definition should be broad enough to include anyone who owns property, is a resident, or a taxpayer in New Hampshire. They also mentioned that their concern was not about out-of-state requests but the obligation of municipalities to deliver records.
HB66: Representative Bur Information Only00:39:03.359 - 9:38:04 AM; Representative Bur inquired about the obligation of public bodies or agencies to provide records electronically under HB66. Specifically, they asked if there was a responsibility for businesses to classify themselves as technologically incapable if they couldn't provide records electronically. The discussion clarified that under current law and the proposed bill, if a town cannot provide records electronically due to technological limitations or risk of harm to documents, they can provide them in paper form instead.
HB66: Yil Biset, ACLU of New Hampshire Support00:41:44.440 - 9:40:45 AM; Yil Biset, representing the ACLU of New Hampshire, expressed support for HB66, emphasizing its positive impact on transparency. Biset argued that the bill's language is reasonable and modest, and it aligns with existing exemptions in RSA 91-A. They addressed concerns about foreign agents requesting documents, stating they were unaware of such occurrences in New Hampshire. Biset clarified that changing 'citizen' to 'person' in the bill does not expand the law but clarifies existing rights, supported by case law and constitutional principles. They also highlighted last year's HB12, which addressed burdensome requests, and criticized some municipalities for not providing electronic records, arguing it goes against the spirit of RSA 91-A, which aims for transparency.
HB66: Barrett Christina, New Hampshire School Board Association Oppose00:49:51.839 - 9:48:52 AM; Barrett Christina, representing the New Hampshire School Board Association, opposed HB66, citing concerns over out-of-state individuals requesting information, often for commercial purposes such as marketing to students and parents. Christina argued that the bill could open up the right to know law to anyone nationwide, which could lead to misuse, particularly by entities seeking personal information held by the government. They supported limiting requests to those with a direct connection to New Hampshire, such as residents or taxpayers. Christina also mentioned the issue of providing records electronically, noting it's not problematic for local requests but could be exploited by out-of-state entities. The School Board Association supports HB74 instead.
HB66: Barrett Christina, New Hampshire School Board Association Information Only00:49:51.839 - 9:48:52 AM; Barrett Christina concluded his testimony by addressing a question from a representative about the practical implications of defining a requestor as a New Hampshire taxpayer. He explained that out-of-state entities could theoretically use a New Hampshire resident to request documents, but in his experience, when such entities are informed of the cost and process, they typically do not pursue the request further.
HB66: Representative Information Only00:53:44.079 - 9:52:45 AM; A representative questioned the differentiation between versions of the bill and expressed confusion about why one would be supported over the other, given their similar outcomes. The representative highlighted the hypothetical scenario where an out-of-state entity could use a New Hampshire resident to request documents, questioning the necessity of the opposition.
HB66: Representative Smith Information Only00:55:15.200 - 9:54:16 AM; Representative Smith asked a minor question about whether there is a specific tax that someone must be paying to be eligible under the bill. The question was intended to clarify the scope of the term 'taxpayer' in the context of the bill.
HB66: Representative Pell Information Only00:56:00.359 - 9:55:01 AM; Representative Pell raised a concern about the definition of 'taxpayer' being too broad. He used a hypothetical example of a person from Anchorage, Alaska, vacationing in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and paying room and meals tax, questioning if that constitutes a sufficient connection to New Hampshire for access under the right to know law.
HB66: Kathern Coko, Right to Know New Hampshire Support00:56:27.400 - 9:55:28 AM; Kathern Coko, representing Right to Know New Hampshire, strongly supported HB66. She emphasized the need for clarity in the standard for requesting information under New Hampshire's right to know law and advocated for the inclusion of electronic communications in the implementation of RSA 91A. Coko highlighted issues stemming from the application of the law by certain municipalities and the New Hampshire Municipal Association, particularly around the term 'citizen.' She referenced a 2015 Attorney General's memorandum and recent changes, arguing against the requirement for requesters to demonstrate citizenship. Coko also addressed concerns about large requests and costs, noting that solutions were put in place with HB 10002 to manage these issues.
HB66: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose01:06:19.319 - 10:05:20 AM; Sarah Burke Cohen, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA), opposed HB66 for several reasons. She argued that the bill would broaden the definition of a requestor to include anyone worldwide, which she believes contradicts the New Hampshire Constitution and RSA 91A. Cohen cited interpretations by the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Right to Know Ombudsman that support limiting requests to New Hampshire residents. She expressed concerns about privacy and security risks associated with electronic delivery of records, the potential for misuse by bad actors, and the financial burden on municipalities to fulfill requests from out-of-state or international entities. Cohen urged the committee to reject the bill and maintain the current language of RSA 91A.
HB66: Representative Smith Information Only01:12:05.800 - 10:11:06 AM; Representative Smith inquired if the Right to Know Ombudsman was scheduled to testify, as his position was mentioned during the hearing. He also challenged Sarah Burke Cohen's testimony, likening it to the story of 'Henny Penny' and requesting factual documentation of the claims made about international and out-of-state requests causing issues for municipalities.
HB66: Representative Manos Information Only01:15:06.120 - 10:14:07 AM; Representative Manos asked Sarah Burke Cohen about the NHMA's stance on a recent Superior Court order in the city of Rochester case concerning the interpretation of RSA 91A. Cohen confirmed familiarity with the order but needed to review it to provide a formal position, agreeing to do so.
HB66: Andrew Information Only01:16:20.280 - 10:15:21 AM; Andrew inquired about specific instances where electronic information sent by the school district or town was not received by the requester. He sought clarity on the effectiveness of electronic communication for right-to-know requests.
HB66: Lori Arulano, representing Right to Know New Hampshire Support01:18:02.960 - 10:17:03 AM; Lori Arulano expressed support for HB66, emphasizing the importance of electronic information dissemination. She shared her experience with the Nashua school district and town, noting that they efficiently handle electronic requests and have not faced the overwhelming issues suggested by opponents. Arulano argued against the necessity of in-person requests and highlighted the benefits of electronic formats in reducing costs and increasing efficiency. She also discussed the positive impact of electronic records on municipal record retention and dismissed concerns about potential abuse of the system.
HB66: Representative Jess Edwards, representing Rockingham District 31 (Auburn, Chester, Candia, Deerfield) Oppose01:22:42.080 - 10:21:43 AM; Representative Jess Edwards, speaking in a non-official capacity as a risk management professional, criticized the dismissal of potential risks associated with HB66. He used examples such as the Titanic, pandemics, and 9/11 to illustrate the importance of anticipating low-probability, high-impact events. Edwards expressed concern about the potential for 'denial of service attacks' on government systems through an influx of right-to-know requests. He advocated for a working group to discuss these risks and suggested the need for a robust electronic document transfer system to ensure legal compliance.
HB66: Representative (presumably Bur) Information Only01:29:01.480 - 10:28:02 AM; The representative questioned Representative Edwards about the future implications of algorithms and AI in the context of right-to-know requests, particularly in terms of commercial data aggregation. Edwards responded by acknowledging the rapid development of AI and its potential to generate massive, automated requests, which could be used to disrupt government functions. He emphasized the need for forward-thinking risk assessment.
HB66: Representative (presumably Se La Lauren Seling) Oppose01:32:20.080 - 10:31:21 AM; The representative shared an email from the Durham town clerk expressing opposition to HB66 due to the potential burden on minimally staffed offices. The clerk highlighted experiences with numerous right-to-know requests and First Amendment audits, which disrupted regular operations. Concerns were raised about the bill's potential to increase administrative burdens and facilitate fraudulent activities, including those enabled by AI bots.
HB66: Tom Care, Right to Know Ombudsman Information Only01:36:09.480 - 10:35:10 AM; Tom Care, the Right to Know Ombudsman, was called to clarify a previous statement about a case (2023 RKO 2023 D). He explained that his opinion was specific to the facts of the case and was upheld by the Superior Court. He refrained from discussing details beyond what was publicly available on his website and through the New Hampshire Supreme Court Law Library.
HB66: Former Representative Josh Kella Support01:39:27.320 - 10:38:28 AM; Josh Kella supported HB66 by highlighting that using the term 'person' rather than 'citizen' or 'taxpayer' would prevent municipalities from requiring proof of residency, which could delay the processing of right-to-know requests. He argued that this change would streamline the process and prevent potential legal hurdles.
HB74: Representative Jess Edwards, representing Rockingham District 31 (Auburn, Chester, Candia, Deerfield) Support01:42:13.480 - 10:41:14 AM; Representative Jess Edwards, the prime sponsor of HB74, presented the bill as a narrower approach to address the issue of citizenship in right-to-know requests. He argued that the purpose of the right-to-know law is to ensure transparency for New Hampshire citizens and questioned whether it should also support international commercial enterprises. Edwards proposed defining 'citizen' as someone with a legal status in New Hampshire by domicile, and included the press as entities informing citizens. He also suggested elevating language regarding preliminary drafts to prevent public bodies from hiding information under the guise of drafts.
HB74: Representative HG Information Only01:51:44.440 - 10:50:45 AM; Representative HG questioned the need for a separate definition of 'citizen' in HB74, noting that there is an existing definition in the state statutes. Edwards responded by emphasizing the need to return to the first principles of the right-to-know law, which is to inform and engage the New Hampshire public, suggesting that the definition should align with that purpose.
HB74: Katherine Coco Oppose01:54:23.199 - 10:53:24 AM; Katherine Coco opposed HB74, clarifying that last year's HB12 set a threshold for charging for electronic communications at 250 requests. She quoted Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which does not limit right-to-know access to citizens but mentions taxpayers. Coco also referenced a Superior Court ruling related to the Rochester case, explaining that the court found that residency was not a barrier to accessing information when representing an entity within New Hampshire.
HB74: Jel Binet, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose01:56:56.679 - 10:55:57 AM; Jel Binet from the ACLU of New Hampshire expressed appreciation for the sponsors' efforts to address the citizenship issue with HB74. However, he believes that the bill is too narrow and prefers the language of HB66, which maintains the status quo under RSA 91a. He argued that HB74's definition of domicile might exclude individuals with significant investments in New Hampshire, such as second homeowners who pay property taxes but are not domiciled in the state. Binet suggested that HB74 could unintentionally narrow the scope of public records requests and emphasized the importance of expanding public records laws rather than restricting them.
HB74: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support01:58:57.280 - 10:57:58 AM; Sarah Burke Cohen, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, expressed support for HB74. She stated that the bill codifies the transparency of government as outlined by the New Hampshire Constitution, RSA 91a, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The association believes that transparency should be for those who have ties to or are governed by the state and urged the committee to support the bill.
HB80: Representative Turkot, Barrington and Strafford Support02:00:31.040 - 10:59:32 AM; Representative Turkot, representing Barrington and Strafford, introduced HB80, which seeks to amend RSA to require physical presence for voting in public meetings. He shared his experiences with the Strafford County delegation, where remote voting became an issue post-COVID. Turkot argued that remote participation can lead to less transparency and accountability, citing examples where members chose convenience over attendance. He proposed changing the language from 'not reasonably practical' to 'unavoidable' to set a higher standard for remote participation and emphasized that voting should only be allowed for those physically present at meetings. He also raised concerns about the subjectivity of current rules and suggested potential amendments to address emergency situations.
HB80: Representative Rambo Information Only02:09:12.760 - 11:08:13 AM; Representative Rambo questioned the definition of 'unavoidable' versus 'not reasonably practical' and asked who would make the determination under the new bill. Turkot responded that the determination would still be made by the chair of the body but argued that 'unavoidable' sets a higher standard than 'reasonably practical.'
HB80: Representative Smith Information Only02:09:58.000 - 11:08:59 AM; Representative Smith sought clarification on the definition of 'unavoidable.' Turkot explained that 'unavoidable' implies a higher hurdle than 'reasonably practical,' suggesting that 'unavoidable' means impossible to prevent, while 'reasonably practical' could be interpreted more loosely.
HB80: Representative Bur Information Only02:11:33.360 - 11:10:34 AM; Representative Bur expressed concern about the definition of 'public body' and its applicability to local municipal bodies. Turkot clarified that the bill does not change the definition of public body but focuses on the criteria for voting. He emphasized that individuals should be physically present to vote, regardless of the level of government.
HB80: Representative Perez Information Only02:14:37.920 - 11:13:38 AM; Representative Perez confirmed that the bill does not change the existing law regarding participation in public meetings, only the requirement for physical presence to vote. Turkot agreed, stating that the bill aims to change the standard from 'not reasonably practical' to 'unavoidable' for voting.
HB80: Representative Trip Information Only02:15:30.239 - 11:14:31 AM; Representative Trip raised concerns about the impact of the bill on local town charters, particularly in Derry, where remote participation is allowed. Turkot clarified that the bill does not change public participation but focuses on the voting criteria.
HB80: Representative Hagan Information Only02:17:04.519 - 11:16:05 AM; Representative Hagan, also from the Strafford County delegation, questioned why remote participation via Zoom was worse than not attending meetings at all. Turkot referred to his testimony for a detailed response, emphasizing the importance of physical presence for transparency and accountability.
HB80: Representative Beron Information Only02:18:11.799 - 11:17:12 AM; Representative Beron asked if Turkot's concerns about Zoom were related to security or non-Zoom preferences. Turkot clarified that his concerns were about public meetings under RSA 91a, not private business, and offered to provide his testimony for further details.
HB80: Representative Alexander Information Only02:19:14.439 - 11:18:15 AM; Representative Alexander inquired if Turkot would be open to an amendment that only updates the standard for absence from meetings without changing the voting requirement. Turkot expressed opposition to removing the voting requirement but suggested he might accept an amendment allowing voting in emergencies.
HB80: Representative Perez Information Only02:20:49.560 - 11:19:50 AM; Representative Perez asked if Turkot was concerned about potential external influences on votes cast via Zoom. Turkot acknowledged the possibility, citing current RSA requirements that only necessitate voice identification without visual confirmation.
HB80: Representative Lauren Seelig, Durham Oppose02:21:36.200 - 11:20:37 AM; Representative Lauren Seelig, representing Durham, opposed HB80, citing her experience with remote participation due to illness. She argued that the bill could negatively impact all town boards and meetings by limiting remote participation, which could be necessary for various reasons including health and personal obligations. Seelig emphasized that remote voting can be more accountable than in-person voice votes and urged the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate on the bill.
HB80: Representative Perez Information Only02:24:13.880 - 11:23:14 AM; Representative Perez clarified their stance on remote voting during public meetings. They believe that members should be allowed to vote remotely during committee meetings where the vote is advisory, citing instances such as unavoidable absences due to family events or long travel distances. However, they respect the tradition of in-person voting on full House session days and would not object to remote participation in executive sessions if full video coverage were ensured, although they are not actively promoting it.
HB80: Karen Rosenberg, Disability Rights Center New Hampshire Oppose02:27:01.359 - 11:26:02 AM; Karen Rosenberg from the Disability Rights Center New Hampshire opposed the bill, arguing that it could be discriminatory against people with disabilities who may not be able to attend meetings in person. She highlighted the importance of civic engagement and public participation, especially for individuals with disabilities who might need specialized transportation or face other barriers to attending meetings. Rosenberg mentioned that the current law allows for remote participation and requires disclosure of others present during remote participation, which she sees as a step forward in ensuring inclusivity.
HB80: Sarah Bur Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose02:32:28.399 - 11:31:29 AM; Sarah Bur Cohen, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, opposed HB80. She explained that the current statute allows public bodies to decide on electronic participation, which is generally used when attendance is not reasonably practicable. She argued that changing the standard to 'unavoidable' would impose a higher burden and potentially prevent ill members from participating and voting remotely, which could lead to health risks and reduced participation. She emphasized the importance of maintaining the current language to ensure voices and votes are not silenced.
HB80: Christina Barrett, New Hampshire School Board Association Oppose02:35:40.359 - 11:34:41 AM; Christina Barrett from the New Hampshire School Board Association opposed the bill, stating that the provisions for electronic participation have been used appropriately and sparingly. She argued that changing the language from 'not reasonably practical' to 'unavoidable' is unnecessary and that the existing law ensures sufficient transparency and participation. Barrett also opposed the restriction on voting for members participating electronically, asserting that if a member is present at a meeting, they should be allowed to vote. She addressed concerns about mandatory electronic participation by noting that public bodies can choose whether to allow it.
HB164: Representative Alexander, Goffstown Support02:39:45.479 - 11:38:46 AM; Representative Alexander introduced the bill, which aims to enable municipalities to transition their records to an electronic format. He mentioned that the bill includes a small appropriation, which he hopes can be absorbed into the budget. The electronic transition would allow public records to be accessed electronically, provided municipalities offer free access to computers or other means. He highlighted potential savings for municipalities in terms of storage and printing costs. He also mentioned an amendment to adjust the appropriation and indicated readiness to answer questions, with the state archivist and the Secretary of State's office available for further clarification.
HB164: Aaron Hennessy, Deputy Secretary of State Information Only02:42:47.920 - 11:41:48 AM; Aaron Hennessy introduced himself and Ashley Miller, the New Hampshire State Archivist, indicating that Miller would discuss the bill and their department's role in it. They were prepared to answer any questions from the committee.
HB164: Ashley Miller, New Hampshire State Archivist Support02:43:08.840 - 11:42:09 AM; Ashley Miller supported HB164, explaining that her role involves assisting municipalities with recordkeeping. The bill would fund an existing unfunded position, enhancing their ability to serve municipalities through outreach, training, and providing a repository for records. She emphasized the importance of archives for government transparency and public access to records.
HB164: Josh Vella, Former Representative Support02:45:36.640 - 11:44:37 AM; Josh Vella, the former sponsor of the bill, explained that it passed through various stages the previous year but was tabled due to funding issues. The bill aims to help municipalities manage records more efficiently by allowing them to digitize records and reduce overhead and liability. He discussed the potential cost savings and the benefits of having records accessible online, reducing the need for physical storage and manual retrieval.
HB164: Katherine Coko, Right to Know New Hampshire Support02:50:32.359 - 11:49:33 AM; Katherine Coko supported HB164, emphasizing its role in making records more accessible and reducing the burden on communities to respond to requests. She noted the bill's initial support from various stakeholders and stressed the unique challenges in New Hampshire due to the lack of an independent oversight body for transparency. She highlighted the grassroots nature of transparency enforcement in the state and the need for solutions like HB164 to ensure equitable access to public records.
HB164: Sarah Buren, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support02:52:38.040 - 11:51:39 AM; Sarah Buren from the New Hampshire Municipal Association expressed strong support for HB164. She highlighted that the creation of a publicly accessible website for the retention and public access to electronic records would be immensely helpful for municipalities. This would facilitate more effective and efficient processing of requests under RSA 91a, as individuals could be directed to the website to retrieve requested records. Additionally, she emphasized continued support for hiring a local government records manager to guide municipalities in their record retention policies.
HB265: Representative Caitlyn Cab Support03:07:45.560 - 12:06:46 PM; Representative Caitlyn Cab introduced HB265 on behalf of the prime sponsor. She explained that the bill requires meeting minutes to include the start and end times of the meeting, as well as the name and signature of the person who wrote the minutes. This requirement stems from issues where the authenticity of minutes was questioned due to a lack of clear identification and acceptance processes. She highlighted that this bill would help in verifying official records.
HB265: Lori Ortolano, Right to Know New Hampshire Support03:08:31.239 - 12:07:32 PM; Lori Ortolano from Right to Know New Hampshire supported HB265, noting that the organization had written the legislation. She discussed a case in Nashua where meeting minutes were challenged in court due to a lack of attestation, causing issues with evidence admissibility. She stressed the importance of including start and end times and signatures on minutes to make them certified records, which would be beneficial in legal proceedings. She also mentioned issues with meeting notices in smaller towns and the need for more transparency in committee meetings.
HB114 FN: Representative Luise Andrew Support03:34:09.399 - 12:33:10 PM; Representative Luise Andrew introduced HB114, explaining that the bill aims to repeal current laws allowing fees for public record requests. She argued that charging fees restricts citizens' access to information, particularly affecting those who cannot afford the fees. She shared personal experiences, including a case where extensive research into school district minutes led to a successful lawsuit against the district for improper use of nonpublic sessions. She emphasized the importance of public access to government records without financial barriers.
HB114 FN: Representative Bur Information Only03:40:30.040 - 12:39:31 PM; Representative Bur asked Representative Andrew about the potential tax implications for citizens if fees for public record requests were eliminated. Representative Andrew acknowledged the concern but did not provide a specific number on additional taxes that might be required.
HB114 FN: Representative Perez Information Only03:41:16.160 - 12:40:17 PM; Representative Perez inquired if Representative Andrew would consider an amendment to HB114 that would exempt residents and businesses within a town from paying fees, while charging those outside the town. Representative Andrew indicated openness to this idea, noting that most requests come from within the town, but acknowledged potential issues with enforcement.
HB114 FN: Representative Kulam, Hillsboro District 30 Support03:43:03.040 - 12:42:04 PM; Representative Kulam supported HB114 but suggested considering amendments, such as exempting New Hampshire residents from fees. She shared concerns about the burden of requests on local police departments and issues with inflated time estimates for fulfilling requests. She suggested encouraging electronic submissions to reduce costs and highlighted the need for balance in managing public record requests.
HB114 FN: Katherine Coko, Right to Know New Hampshire Oppose03:49:15.760 - 12:48:16 PM; Katherine Coko from Right to Know New Hampshire opposed HB114, arguing that it could undo the progress made with HB12, which addressed burdensome electronic communication requests. She noted that many municipalities are not implementing the current policy, which requires a policy before charging for records. She emphasized that removing time-based charges was a significant concession and warned against renegotiating this issue, as it could hinder other right-to-know advancements.
HB114 FN: Al Brandano, Kensington, New Hampshire Support03:53:23.120 - 12:52:24 PM; Al Brandano from Kensington supported HB114, citing the recent memorandum from the Attorney General on RSA 91a and his personal experiences with the law. He argued that charging fees for public records conflicts with the New Hampshire Constitution's guarantee of public access to government records. He shared his experiences with legal challenges and the ombudsman process, emphasizing the need to repeal laws that impose financial barriers to exercising constitutional rights.
HB114 FN: Representative Alvin See, Loudon, New Hampshire Support03:58:59.359 - 12:58:00 PM; Alvin C from Loudon expressed his support for HB114, emphasizing that the right to know should not be burdened by fees or taxes. He argued that even a minimum number of free requests before fees apply could be problematic because it might take multiple requests to uncover the needed information. He highlighted the potential for towns or cities to delay information release, forcing requesters to make more requests until they hit the fee threshold. He suggested that specific abuses should be analyzed and addressed, possibly by charging out-of-state research or law firms. He also discussed the challenges of researching multiple towns and school districts as a representative, suggesting that limiting requests to one's own town could be problematic.
HB114 FN: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:02:46.000 - 1:01:47 PM; Sarah Burke Cohen, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, opposed HB114, arguing that it eliminates the ability of municipalities and the state to recoup costs associated with voluminous record requests. She highlighted the strain on limited municipal staff resources, the inability to negotiate request modifications, and the potential liability for redaction errors. She emphasized the importance of the existing fee schedule in preventing these issues and suggested that without it, small towns would be disproportionately affected, potentially sacrificing other duties or facing lawsuits over errors.
HB114 FN: Lori Orano, Nashua, New Hampshire Support04:05:52.560 - 1:04:53 PM; Lori Orano from Nashua supported HB114, expressing her frustration with the city's handling of right-to-know requests. She criticized the city for not adopting a fee policy or implementing redaction software despite advocating for fees. She shared her personal experience with a Supreme Court-ordered request, highlighting the city's inefficiency and the absurdity of potential fees for simple emails. She argued that the process in Nashua was designed to hinder transparency and burden citizens, and she supported the bill to prevent such fees.
HB114 FN: Joe Alexander, Goffstown, New Hampshire Support04:15:26.960 - 1:14:27 PM; Joe Alexander from Goffstown introduced HB313, which aims to give the public the right to attend meetings where they are discussed in non-public sessions. He proposed changes to allow citizens to request open meetings when they are the subject of discussion and to be notified when they are being discussed. He also mentioned considering extending the same rights to members of the public as government officials in non-public sessions. He expressed a desire for further refinement of the bill based on feedback and collaboration.
HB114 FN: Joe Alexander, Goffstown, New Hampshire Information Only04:15:26.960 - 1:14:27 PM; Joe Alexander was finishing his testimony regarding the right to know law and the implications of non-public sessions. His testimony ended at 04:15:26.960.
HB114 FN: Representative Information Only04:17:15.000 - 1:16:16 PM; The representative asked how a body could know in advance if a person's name would come up in a non-private session, and what rights the person would have if their name was mentioned without prior notice. This question was posed at the start of the discussion at 04:17:15.000.
HB114 FN: Witness Information Only04:18:00.760 - 1:17:01 PM; The witness responded that public bodies can go into non-public sessions for specific reasons, and they should notify the involved individuals in advance. They suggested that if a name comes up unexpectedly, the session could be paused to allow the person to attend. This was discussed starting at 04:18:00.760.
HB114 FN: Witness Information Only04:18:49.239 - 1:17:50 PM; The witness further discussed the scenario where multiple individuals are discussed in a non-public meeting and the differing opinions on making the meeting public. They suggested forming a subcommittee to address this issue. This was discussed starting at 04:18:49.239.
HB114 FN: Miss Coko, Right to Know New Hampshire Support04:19:36.000 - 1:18:37 PM; Miss Coko from Right to Know New Hampshire expressed support for the bill but highlighted a different interpretation from Representative Alexander. They believed the bill should allow individuals to request that meetings discussing their reputation be open, and they should be notified in advance. They also mentioned the frequent misuse of the reputation exemption and shared an example from their local community where the exemption was abused. Miss Coko suggested forming a working group to refine the legislation. This testimony started at 04:19:36.000.
HB114 FN: Representative Oran Information Only04:22:40.880 - 1:21:41 PM; Representative Oran asked about potential amendments to the bill to address situations where multiple individuals are involved in discussions, and how the bill could be modified to handle such scenarios. This question was posed at 04:22:40.880.
HB114 FN: Miss Coko, Right to Know New Hampshire Information Only04:23:26.119 - 1:22:27 PM; Miss Coko responded to Representative Oran's question, emphasizing that communities usually know the agenda for non-public sessions in advance and can postpone discussions if necessary. She noted that emergency meetings can be called if urgent matters arise. This response was given starting at 04:23:26.119.
HB114 FN: Representative Bir Information Only04:23:47.479 - 1:22:48 PM; Representative Bir asked how a board or committee could predict all names that might come up in a private session and how they would handle situations where a name unexpectedly comes up. This question was posed at 04:23:47.479.
HB114 FN: Miss Coko, Right to Know New Hampshire Information Only04:24:36.720 - 1:23:37 PM; Miss Coko clarified that the bill is meant to enable an existing right under statute for individuals to request that meetings be open when their reputation is discussed. She emphasized that the bill does not address the right to participate in non-public sessions but rather the right to be notified and request an open meeting. This clarification was given starting at 04:24:36.720.
HB114 FN: Phil Jeru Support04:28:34.119 - 1:27:35 PM; Phil Jeru supported the bill, highlighting the contradiction between current law and court rulings regarding the notice requirement for non-public sessions. He shared his personal experience of being arrested and prevented from attending a closed session, arguing for clarity in the law to protect due process rights. He emphasized the need for municipalities to understand and respect these rights. This testimony started at 04:28:34.119.
HB114 FN: Barrett Christina, NH School Boards Association Information Only04:34:57.759 - 1:33:58 PM; Barrett Christina from the NH School Boards Association clarified their position on the bill. They did not support the interpretation that an individual has a right to attend a non-public session simply because their reputation is being discussed. They proposed an amendment based on existing law that allows an employee to request an open meeting if they have a right to it. Christina discussed the practical implications in the context of school districts and student matters, emphasizing the need for clarity in the law. This testimony began at 04:34:57.759.
HB114 FN: Sarah Bur Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:43:55.000 - 1:42:56 PM; Sarah Bur Cohen from the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed the bill, citing practical implications and potential adverse effects on individuals' reputations if the bill were to be implemented as proposed. She mentioned the Supreme Court's decision that does not require notice for non-public sessions and suggested a work session to refine the bill. This testimony started at 04:43:55.000.
HB114 FN: Lisa Mererer, Hillsboro District 44 Support04:58:39.600 - 1:57:40 PM; Lisa Mererer supported HB376, which aims to clarify the exemption in the right to know law to include library cards and membership status. She recounted an incident in her town where library cards of candidates running for Library Board of Trustees were released publicly, leading to an invasion of privacy. Mererer emphasized the need for the bill to prevent such incidents and protect individuals' privacy, particularly in sensitive situations like domestic violence. This testimony began at 04:58:39.600.
HB114 FN: Alexander, unidentified town Information Only05:13:29.000 - 2:12:30 PM; Alexander asked whether it would be possible to obtain a list of people who voted on November 5th and then use a 91A request to see how many of them have library cards, specifically in the context of how the Gown Library interpreted RSA 9185. They noted the lack of current limits on what can be done with such information and expressed support for the amendment, which clarifies that library user records include library card status.
HB114 FN: Representative Perez, unidentified town Information Only05:14:16.240 - 2:13:17 PM; Representative Perez questioned the rationale behind checking if someone running for a budget committee has a bank account, drawing a parallel to the requirement of having a library card for library trustee candidates. They mentioned a recent incident at their library where trustees wanted to know who among them had a library card, highlighting privacy concerns.
HB114 FN: Representative Horgan, unidentified town Information Only05:15:05.240 - 2:14:06 PM; Representative Horgan inquired about the possibility of a town making a rule that library trustee candidates must have a library card as a qualification. They discussed the relevance of this to the current law and the proposed bill, expressing sympathy towards the issues raised but seeking clarity on the implications.
HB114 FN: Lynn, unidentified town Information Only05:15:53.160 - 2:14:54 PM; Lynn discussed the appropriateness of asking a library trustee candidate at a forum if they have a library card. They argued that it's a relevant question but emphasized that it should be the candidate's choice to answer, not compelled by law or right to know requests.
HB114 FN: Unidentified speaker, unidentified town Information Only05:16:38.638 - 2:15:39 PM; The speaker clarified that the right to know law should not be used to push the line on privacy further back, emphasizing that candidates should decide whether to answer questions about their library card status in public forums. They also mentioned that written testimony could be emailed to the committee.
HB114 FN: Barbara Schult, Goth toown Oppose05:17:24.000 - 2:16:25 PM; Barbara Schult expressed opposition to the bill, citing her experience as a voter in Goth toown and emphasizing the importance of the library. She mentioned reading legal documentation online that clarified the library's obligations under the right to know law, arguing that the library card itself is not a privacy issue. She raised concerns about the sponsors of the bill and their interactions with the library, suggesting potential bias. Schult also cautioned against the unintended consequences of limiting transparency under the right to know law.
HB114 FN: Representative Alexander, unidentified town Information Only05:24:19.320 - 2:23:20 PM; Representative Alexander asked Barbara Schult if she believed that the library card status of domestic violence victims should be disclosed to the public and if that posed a safety concern. Schult responded by questioning the connection between library card status and domestic violence.
HB114 FN: Representative Perez, unidentified town Information Only05:25:06.798 - 2:24:07 PM; Representative Perez clarified that the bill aims to clarify an existing law that prohibits the disclosure of library users' information. They questioned whether Schult was aware that the law already existed and that the bill was just a clarification. Schult responded by stating she had read a legal opinion suggesting otherwise.
HB114 FN: Representative Henry Gason, Gtown, Hillsboro 29th District Support05:26:43.200 - 2:25:44 PM; Representative Henry Gason expressed support for the bill from a safety and security standpoint. He highlighted the potential risks to victims of domestic violence if their library card status is disclosed through a right to know request, arguing that this is the only government agency where such information can be obtained. Gason stressed the importance of protecting citizens' privacy and urged the committee to pass the bill to protect victims.
HB114 FN: Katherine Coco, Right to Know New Hampshire Support05:28:56.320 - 2:27:57 PM; Katherine Coco from Right to Know New Hampshire expressed support for the bill, stating that it clarifies an existing law. She mentioned the American Library Association's stance on privacy and libraries and noted that the organization found it hard to find examples where personally identifiable information was of interest. Coco also commented on an unusual case where a library responded to questions rather than refusing to under 91A, suggesting it was motivated by something else.
HB273: Drago, Town of Raymond Support05:31:36.958 - 2:30:37 PM; Drago introduced HB 273, which aims to give parents access to their child's library records. He shared personal experiences illustrating the practical implications of the current law, such as not being able to know which book was available for pickup when requested under his daughter's card. He highlighted the financial responsibilities parents have for lost or overdue books without knowing what those books are. Drago also discussed the issue of explicit material in libraries, referencing the book 'Gender Queer' and the American Library Association's policies, which he believes do not adequately protect children. He argued that the bill would help parents monitor and control what their children read, especially in situations where children are not directly supervised by parents, such as during after-school library programs.
HB273: Rambo Information Only05:40:43.440 - 2:39:44 PM; Rambo asked Drago about the implications of the bill on situations where there might be disagreements between parents or issues with non-custodial parents. Drago clarified that the bill is designed to protect children from estranged or potentially harmful situations by restricting access to the parent living at the same address as the child. Rambo also inquired about the bill's effect on library activities where children are not checking out books but participating in programs, to which Drago responded that the bill concerns only the books children check out and take home.
HB273: Orgon Information Only05:42:19.160 - 2:41:20 PM; Orgon questioned Drago about the implications of the bill on open stacks and the practice of libraries giving away or selling books. Drago clarified that the bill does not address open stacks or the practice of giving away books but emphasized the importance of maintaining a record of books taken out to ensure accountability and proper use of taxpayer funds.
HB273: Beron Information Only05:45:51.240 - 2:44:52 PM; Beron expressed concerns about the privacy of children and whether the bill would infringe on their rights to read materials without parental knowledge, especially in sensitive situations. Drago acknowledged the concern but did not provide a direct answer to the question, leading to a clarification from the chair.
HB273: Rambo Information Only05:47:23.920 - 2:46:24 PM; Rambo asked Drago about potential conflicts between the bill and existing school privacy laws, particularly concerning school libraries. Drago mentioned that the intent of the bill covers both public and school libraries but suggested that an amendment might be necessary for clarity.
HB273: Katherine Harvey, Hinsdale, Chesterfield, Westmoreland Oppose05:49:21.840 - 2:48:22 PM; Representative Katherine Harvey, speaking on behalf of the New Hampshire Library Trustees Association, opposed HB 273. She highlighted two main issues with the bill: the requirement for address verification, which could be problematic due to various living situations of children, and the practical challenges in non-automated libraries where manually tracking books would be time-consuming and costly. Harvey also mentioned the potential costs of upgrading systems and the need for new policies, which would be difficult to implement within the bill's proposed timeframe. She suggested that libraries already have policies linking children's cards to an adult's card to address the issue of financial responsibility for lost books.
HB273: Pon Information Only05:55:32.200 - 2:54:33 PM; Pon asked Harvey about the maximum age at which a child's library card would be linked to a parent's card. Harvey explained that this is determined by individual library policies, not state law, and that the New Hampshire Library Trustees Association provides recommended policies but does not dictate them.
HB273: Aubrey Freeden from Bridgewater Support06:01:29.558 - 3:00:30 PM; Aubrey Freeden expressed support for HB273, emphasizing the importance of parental access to their children's library records, especially for young children. He argued that it is ridiculous that parents are not informed about what books their young children are accessing. He also suggested that the bill could be improved by including penalties for library personnel who disregard the law, noting that without such measures, the law might be ignored.
HB273: Chris Sechel from GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, Boston Oppose06:04:04.558 - 3:03:05 PM; Chris Sechel, an attorney, opposed HB273, focusing on the privacy rights of young people, particularly regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. He argued that young people need privacy to explore their identities through literature, and that forced disclosure of their reading materials could lead to harm, referencing a tragic case from Pennsylvania to illustrate his point.
HB273: Anarie Banfield Support06:07:07.120 - 3:06:08 PM; Anarie Banfield supported HB273, highlighting the potential dangers of children accessing harmful materials like books on bomb-making or suicide without parental oversight. She questioned why there is resistance to allowing parents access to their children's library records, suggesting it could prevent harm and arguing for the inclusion of schools in the bill.
HB273: Nancy Beerman Support06:10:11.920 - 3:09:12 PM; Nancy Beerman supported HB273, sharing her experience from a time when libraries managed records without computers. She argued that record-keeping is feasible and criticized the lack of parental access to school library records, suggesting that schools should also be included in the bill.
HB273: Rebecca Leak from Andover Support06:11:56.240 - 3:10:57 PM; Rebecca Leak supported HB273, stating it is common sense for parents to have the right and responsibility to oversee their children's media consumption. She emphasized the bill's narrow scope, applying only to current records, and shared her expectation of having access to her future children's library records.
HB273: Arlene Corello from Atkinson Support06:13:28.600 - 3:12:29 PM; Arlene Corello, a former legislator who originally introduced the bill, supported HB273. She discussed the shock of parents upon learning they cannot access their children's library records, criticized the state law, and addressed counterarguments about costs and privacy concerns. She emphasized that the bill would not be an unfunded mandate and suggested that libraries already maintain the necessary records.
HB273: Unknown Information Only06:16:37.478 - 3:15:38 PM; The speaker raised a question about the potential impact of parents not allowing their children to get library cards if they knew they were not entitled to certain information. The speaker suggested that parents might check out books on their own cards instead, which would deprive children of the experience of getting a library card, described as a right of passage. The speaker referenced the cultural significance of library cards by mentioning Arthur's song about having fun with a library card.
HB273: JB, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose06:19:01.240 - 3:18:02 PM; JB from the ACLU of New Hampshire spoke in opposition to HB273, echoing concerns about unfunded mandates which were also discussed the previous year. JB suggested that if the committee shares these concerns, the bill's application could be limited to information accessible at the time of a parental request, potentially alleviating those concerns. JB highlighted the privacy implications of the bill and suggested that parents could use their library cards for their children to monitor book checkouts, as a more narrowly tailored approach.
HB273: Representative Smith Information Only06:21:19.840 - 3:20:20 PM; Representative Smith asked about the definition of a child in New Hampshire law, specifically in the context of a minor's record, suggesting that it applies to anyone under 18.
HB273: Representative Pino Information Only06:22:05.478 - 3:21:06 PM; Representative Pino questioned the feasibility of children using a parent's library card, suggesting it might be burdensome for libraries to verify parental permission. JB responded that if a child has a parent's card, it's a safe assumption they have permission.
HB273: Representative Bur Information Only06:22:44.400 - 3:21:45 PM; Representative Bur shared a personal anecdote about children's pride in signing for their library cards in Manchester, expressing doubt about parents preventing their children from getting library cards. The discussion emphasized the importance of parental involvement and communication regarding children's library activities.
HB273: Representative Trip Information Only06:24:19.040 - 3:23:20 PM; Representative Trip raised a question about whether minor children are allowed to get their own library cards without parental permission, suggesting deferment to librarians for clarification.
HB98: Representative Smith Support06:28:15.638 - 3:27:16 PM; Representative Smith moved to pass HB98, explaining that the bill was passed last year but didn't make it to the final line due to reasons unrelated to its merits. He argued for unanimous passage and sending it to the floor without debate due to its ability to address a solvable issue.
HB164: Representative Alexander Support06:31:44.040 - 3:30:45 PM; Representative Alexander moved to pass HB164 FN, noting that it was passed by the house the previous year and is important for modernizing and electronic system of local record retention.
HB376: Representative Manos Information Only06:34:58.478 - 3:33:59 PM; Representative Manos expressed a need to refrain from executing HB376 immediately due to concerns and the absence of Representative Smith during the hearing.
HB376: Representative Smith Support06:35:44.360 - 3:34:45 PM; Representative Smith, despite having questions for the prime sponsor, stated support for HB376, suggesting it makes sense. However, due to Representative Manos's concerns and the late hour, they decided to pass on executing it.
HB476: Chairman Lynn Information Only06:36:33.000 - 3:35:34 PM; Chairman Lynn outlined the upcoming hearing on HB476 and the non-germane amendment to it, indicating that both would be discussed and potentially executed at the end of the hearing. He clarified the amendment process and scheduling for the following Monday.

Lynn, Bob(Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Kuttab, Katelyn(Clerk)(R)[B]2025	Mannion, Dennis(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Smith, Marjorie(D)[F]2025	Bergeron, Dan(D)[F]2025	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[F]2025
Berch, Paul(D)[F]2025	Turer, Eric(D)[F]2025	Scully, Kevin(R)[A-]2025
Tripp, Richard(R)[B]2025	Andrus, Louise(R)[C+]2025	Ball, Lorie(R)[B+]2025
Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025	Perez, Kristine(R)[B+]2025	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025	Rombeau, Catherine(D)[CT]2025	Paige, Mark(D)[D-]2025