Committee Summary for House Judiciary (01/30/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB98 00:04:07.720 - 9:03:08 AM	Executive Session	relative to professional limited liability company (PLLC) assistant manager status.	Turer, Eric(D)[F]2025
HB164 2025-0087h 00:09:43.320 - 9:08:44 AM	Executive Session	relative to local records retention.	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
HR6 00:15:40.759 - 9:14:41 AM	Executive Session	condemning the judicial doctrine of "disparate impact".	Belcher, Mike(R)[B+]2025
HB111 2025-0178h 00:21:09.559 - 9:20:10 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) extending the position of right-to-know ombudsman for 2 years and exempting individuals who assist in the preparation of a right-to-know complaint at no charge from the unauthorized practice of law.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB66 2025-1101h 00:34:28.639 - 9:33:29 AM	Executive Session	relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB265 01:33:41.480 - 10:32:42 AM	Executive Session	(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 01:35:57.600 - 10:34:58 AM	Executive Session	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
HB376 01:47:21.080 - 10:46:22 AM	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
HB273 01:50:32.040 - 10:49:33 AM	Executive Session	relative to a parent's access to their minor child's library records.	Drago, Mike(R)[A-]2025

HB98: Representative Tur Support00:04:07.720 - 9:03:08 AM; Representative Tur moved for a motion of ought to pass (OTP) on House Bill 98. The motion was seconded by Representative Perez, and after a brief discussion, the committee proceeded to vote.
HB98: Representative Perez Support00:04:07.720 - 9:03:08 AM; Representative Perez seconded the motion of ought to pass on House Bill 98.
HB164 2025-0087h: Representative Alexander Support00:09:43.320 - 9:08:44 AM; Representative Alexander moved for a motion of ought to pass (OTP) on House Bill 164 and offered Amendment 2025-0087h. The amendment was to update the fiscal note as requested by the Secretary of State's office. The amendment passed unanimously, and then Representative Alexander moved for OTP as amended on HB 164.
HB164 2025-0087h: Representative Tur Support00:09:43.320 - 9:08:44 AM; Representative Tur seconded the motion of ought to pass on House Bill 164 with the amendment.
HB164 2025-0087h: Representative Smith Support00:12:36.880 - 9:11:37 AM; Representative Smith seconded the motion of ought to pass as amended on House Bill 164.
HR6: Representative Manos Oppose00:15:40.759 - 9:14:41 AM; Representative Manos moved for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on House Resolution 6. He argued that the doctrine of disparate impact is a judicial doctrine, and the legislature cannot bind the judiciary on decisions about it. He also felt that the resolution painted too broad a brush on the issue and oversimplified a complex matter.
HR6: Representative Horgan Oppose00:16:26.199 - 9:15:27 AM; Representative Horgan supported the ITL motion, citing the need for more work on the resolution. He mentioned that the written testimony was more detailed and understandable, and there was a drafting error regarding the governor's identity. He congratulated Representative Manos on the birth of his child.
HR6: Chairman Lynn Oppose00:17:12.359 - 9:16:13 AM; Chairman Lynn agreed with the concerns about the doctrine of disparate impact but felt the resolution painted with too broad a brush. He questioned the value of House Resolutions and supported the ITL motion.
HB111 2025-0178h: Representative Kutab Support00:21:09.559 - 9:20:10 AM; Representative Kutab moved for a motion of ought to pass (OTP) with Amendment 2025-0178h on House Bill 111. The amendment addressed concerns about the ombudsman office, particularly issues of legal threats and attorney fees that were discouraging parties from filing. The amendment aimed to prevent these issues to make the office more accessible.
HB111 2025-0178h: Representative Alexander Oppose00:26:03.960 - 9:25:04 AM; Representative Alexander opposed the motion to extend the ombudsman's office. He argued that the office, as currently structured, was fundamentally flawed and needed more funding or a complete restructuring to function effectively as an ombudsman rather than an arbitrator.
HB111 2025-0178h: Representative McFarland Oppose00:26:49.159 - 9:25:50 AM; Representative McFarland echoed Representative Alexander's concerns, stating that the ombudsman office needed restructuring or better funding to function properly. He noted that the office was saving money in the court system but still needed improvements.
HB111 2025-0178h: Representative Perez Oppose00:27:39.279 - 9:26:40 AM; Representative Perez agreed that the ombudsman office needed revamping but opposed putting more money into it, arguing that it could be done without additional funds.
HB111 2025-0178h: Chairman Lynn Support00:28:25.600 - 9:27:26 AM; Chairman Lynn supported the OTP motion, emphasizing the importance of the concept of an ombudsman for the state, despite its imperfections. He noted the reduction in right-to-know appeals in the superior court since the ombudsman's establishment and supported continuing the effort for two more years.
HB111 2025-0178h: Representative Smith Support00:30:00.200 - 9:29:01 AM; Representative Smith supported the OTP motion, acknowledging that the ombudsman concept was right for New Hampshire, even if not perfect. He praised the current ombudsman's efforts and supported continuing the office for two more years.
HB111 2025-0178h: Representative Horgan Support00:31:32.200 - 9:30:33 AM; Representative Horgan supported the OTP motion, noting that the ombudsman's office was cost-effective and doing a fine job with limited resources. He argued that it was a bargain and should be extended for two more years.
HB66 2025-1101h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:34:28.639 - 9:33:29 AM; The speaker begins by discussing the potential reordering of bills but quickly retracts the suggestion. The focus then shifts to discussing HB 66 FN and its implications on the Right to Know law. The speaker explains that HB 66 would broaden the law by changing references from 'citizen' to 'person', emphasizing that preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum are subject to the law, and allowing for remote requests of records. The speaker expresses a dilemma about the broadness of the bill, using the example of someone from China requesting records from Windham or Plaistow, New Hampshire, and the potential burden on local governments. An amendment, 2025-1101h, is introduced that would restrict remote requests to those with a New Hampshire connection, except for members of the media. The speaker discusses the pros and cons of this amendment, suggesting it as a compromise to limit remote requests while still allowing physical requests from anyone. The speaker concludes by seeking feedback on whether to pass HB 66 with or without the amendment and suggests retaining HB 74 for potential future adjustments.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Smith Information Only00:44:42.200 - 9:43:43 AM; Representative Smith inquires about the definition of 'media' in the context of the amendment. The speaker responds that it aligns with the statutory definition under RSA 102, which is broad and includes organizations or individuals who publish in recognized formats. Representative Smith also expresses concern about the amendment's restriction on who can request records remotely, highlighting the ease with which someone could circumvent these restrictions by finding a New Hampshire resident to make the request on their behalf.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Perez Information Only00:45:29.960 - 9:44:30 AM; Representative Perez raises a concern about the amendment's language regarding paying New Hampshire taxes, noting that it could be interpreted broadly, including incidental taxes like those from dining out. The speaker acknowledges the point, suggesting that even with the amendment, determined individuals could still find ways around the restrictions.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Alexander Information Only00:47:33.160 - 9:46:34 AM; Representative Alexander expresses skepticism about the necessity of the amendment, suggesting that those determined to access records will find ways to do so regardless of the restrictions. The speaker emphasizes maintaining flexibility in the Right to Know law interpretations.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Horgan Information Only00:48:18.200 - 9:47:19 AM; Representative Horgan discusses the broader implications of defining 'citizen' in the context of HB 74 and suggests that it might not be the right time to redefine it, given national debates. The speaker supports HB 66 without the amendment and opposes HB 74, suggesting retaining it for future considerations.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Katab Information Only00:50:27.760 - 9:49:28 AM; Representative Katab clarifies the definition of 'media' as it currently exists in the law and confirms that HB 66 would change 'citizen' to 'person', allowing anyone to access records remotely, but the amendment would restrict this to those with a New Hampshire connection or media members. The speaker also seeks confirmation on the implications of passing HB 66 with or without the amendment.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Tur Information Only00:52:49.680 - 9:51:50 AM; Representative Tur raises a question about potential conflicts within the amendment regarding charges for electronic records, which the speaker clarifies by distinguishing between delivery and assembly/redaction costs.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Manos Information Only00:55:11.359 - 9:54:12 AM; Representative Manos discusses the strategy of passing HB 66 without the amendment and retaining HB 74 for future adjustments, depending on the Senate's response. The speaker suggests this approach as a way to maintain flexibility in addressing potential changes.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative McFar Information Only00:56:45.359 - 9:55:46 AM; Representative McFar expresses support for HB 66 with the amendment, citing concerns about potential abuse of the law through numerous requests from outside the state. The speaker also suggests taking a feel of the room regarding support for the bill with or without the amendment.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Buron Information Only00:57:51.799 - 9:56:52 AM; Representative Buron inquires about the impact of the changes on municipalities, particularly regarding training costs. The speaker recounts a previous contentious debate about charging fees for records, noting the current law's limited allowance for such charges and the resources provided by the Municipal Association to help cities and towns comply with the law.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Andrew Information Only00:57:51.799 - 9:56:52 AM; Representative Andrew supports the amendment to HB 66, citing the need to limit potential abuse of the law through excessive remote requests. The speaker also mentions the Municipal Association's role in providing resources and training to cities and towns, such as Durham, to help them comply with state law changes.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Manos Oppose01:05:31.720 - 10:04:32 AM; Representative Manos expressed concerns about the amendment and the broader bill, particularly focusing on the burden placed on towns and municipalities to produce records without assurance of collection. He opposed the two-tiered system for accessing records based on electronic availability and the relationship with the state. Manos suggested setting up a working group to refine both HB66 and HB74, indicating a preference for HB74 over HB66.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Anders Information Only01:10:24.239 - 10:09:25 AM; Representative Anders questioned the constitutionality of the amendment, specifically referencing part one, article 8 of the Constitution regarding public access. He expressed support for retaining both HB66 and HB74 to further refine them.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Perez Oppose01:11:11.320 - 10:10:12 AM; Representative Perez opposed passing either HB66 or HB74, citing the recent passage of 91a and the need for more time to assess its impact. He also mentioned personal reservations about charging for records and suggested allowing more time for the ombudsman to work on these issues.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative McFar Support01:15:09.560 - 10:14:10 AM; Representative McFar supported the amendment, arguing that it better aligns with the concept of the public as outlined in the Constitution. He believed the amendment's language more accurately reflects those who engage with New Hampshire's social contract compared to the current language.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Smith Information Only01:14:22.639 - 10:13:23 AM; Representative Smith clarified that the challenges with 91a have been longstanding and not just related to the recent iteration. He acknowledged the complexity and historical difficulty in addressing these issues.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Manos Information Only01:19:11.320 - 10:18:12 AM; Representative Manos moved to retain HB74, indicating a desire to continue working on it without immediate action.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Smith Oppose01:21:27.800 - 10:20:28 AM; Representative Smith opposed HB80, arguing that the term 'unavoidable' lacks clear definition and that the bill does not provide a workable solution to the issues it aims to address.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Oregon Information Only01:22:16.199 - 10:21:17 AM; Representative Oregon seconded the motion on HB80, indicating procedural support but did not elaborate further on the bill's content.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Perez Support01:23:58.800 - 10:22:59 AM; Representative Perez supported changing the term 'not reasonably practical' to 'unavoidable' in HB80, arguing that 'unavoidable' has a clearer definition. He agreed with the need for physical presence for voting but emphasized the importance of the wording change.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Trip Oppose01:24:44.600 - 10:23:45 AM; Representative Trip opposed HB80, citing its broad application to all public bodies which could lead to unintended consequences. He highlighted the potential issues with quorum and decision-making in smaller bodies.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Kop Oppose01:25:32.639 - 10:24:33 AM; Representative Kop opposed HB80, focusing on the issue of counting remote members towards a quorum, especially in small bodies where this could result in one person making decisions. He supported changing 'not reasonably practical' to 'unavoidable' but opposed the bill's broader implications.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Alexander Support01:26:09.560 - 10:25:10 AM; Representative Alexander supported amending HB80 to change 'not reasonably practical' to 'unavoidable' and to drop section two regarding voting. He believed these changes would make the bill more acceptable.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative HG Information Only01:28:10.880 - 10:27:11 AM; Representative HG responded to a point made by General Le regarding the use of the term 'unavoidable' in the amendment. He clarified that he did not intend to imply that 'unavoidable' was better than 'not reasonably practical.' He emphasized the importance of respecting members of public bodies who choose to participate remotely, suggesting that unless there's a gross abuse, their reasons for remote participation should be respected. He argued that remote participation is preferable to non-participation, highlighting that changing the language to 'unavoidable' would not alter the need to respect members' decisions.
HB66 2025-1101h: Representative Trip Information Only01:29:42.679 - 10:28:43 AM; Representative Trip expressed support for voting ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on HB66 FN, emphasizing the importance of local control. He argued that local boards should have the autonomy to decide whether to allow remote participation or require in-person attendance. He criticized the bill for attempting to enforce a uniform policy across all localities, suggesting it contradicts the principles of democracy and local decision-making.
HB265: Representative Kab Support01:33:41.480 - 10:32:42 AM; Representative Kab moved to pass HB265, explaining that it's a simple bill aimed at adding start and end times to minutes, as well as the name of the person taking them. This amendment was proposed to address challenges regarding the official status of minutes. He argued that identifying the minute-taker is crucial for establishing the official nature of the minutes.
HB114: Representative Tur Oppose01:35:57.600 - 10:34:58 AM; Representative Tur moved ITL on HB114 FN, arguing that it would roll back the efforts put into House Bill 102 from the previous session, which was a new change still being evaluated. He felt that repealing it prematurely, given the effort and lack of experience with the new rule, was not appropriate.
HB114: Representative Andress Oppose01:36:43.639 - 10:35:44 AM; Representative Andress opposed the current law, stating it was enacted after much discussion but primarily addressed issues in specific areas like Rochester. He argued that it did not consider the average citizen's right to know about government actions and their inability to pay for information. He had an amendment to reinstate liability in the bill, reflecting on the need to protect citizens' rights in New Hampshire.
HB114: Representative Tur Information Only01:38:21.840 - 10:37:22 AM; Representative Tur clarified that the right to know issues were widespread beyond just a few high-profile cases, affecting many communities. He defended the previous law's provisions that protected those unable to pay and argued that it was crafted to protect the right to know from abuses.
HB114: Representative Perez Information Only01:39:10.239 - 10:38:11 AM; Representative Perez reiterated her vote in favor of the previous bill, despite not wanting charges imposed, because the Senate's bill was worse. She emphasized the compromise nature of the decision made the previous year.
HB114: Representative McFarland Information Only01:39:57.520 - 10:38:58 AM; Representative McFarland expressed support for both the underlying bill and the amendment. He questioned the necessity of striking paragraph E from the original bill, suggesting that it allowed towns to negotiate with requesters to save funds, a process he found reasonable.
HB114: Representative Andrew Oppose01:41:36.480 - 10:40:37 AM; Representative Andrew urged support for the ITL motion, arguing that HB114 FN effectively repealed House Bill 102 from the previous year, which was a compromise after much contention. He highlighted that the law's limited ability to recover fees was not being abused by municipalities, as no guidelines had been adopted to implement it. He believed the compromise should stand and that the current law had not been in effect long enough to assess its impact.
HB376: Representative Alexander Support01:47:21.080 - 10:46:22 AM; Representative Alexander moved OTP (ought to pass) on HB376, emphasizing the importance of libraries as community resources and the privacy concerns related to library card holder information. He argued that releasing such information undermines individuals' right to privacy and could deter library use. The bill aims to clarify that releasing library card user information violates RSA 91a, aligning with privacy protections in other sectors.
HB273: Representative Perez Support01:50:32.040 - 10:49:33 AM; Representative Perez moved OTP on HB273, stressing the importance of parental access to their minor child's library card information for safety reasons. She argued that parents should know what books their children are checking out, especially since they are financially responsible for any lost or late materials. She viewed it as a common sense measure and a fundamental parental right.
HB273: Representative Horan Oppose01:52:08.679 - 10:51:09 AM; Representative Horan opposed HB273, arguing that it was a solution in search of a problem. He noted that if parents want to monitor their child's reading, they can use their own library card. He highlighted the complexity of child custody and abuse situations, suggesting that libraries are not equipped to handle these nuances. He was concerned about the bill's potential to infringe on children's privacy, especially in non-traditional living situations.
HB273: Representative Pno Support01:57:39.560 - 10:56:40 AM; Representative Pno shared an email from former Representative Arene Corello, a librarian, who explained that linking family accounts at the Raymond library did not bypass current state law but merely facilitated quicker check-ins and check-outs. She argued that parents should have the right to manage the books their children take out of the library, emphasizing the importance of parental oversight.
HB273: Representative Bur Oppose01:59:58.000 - 10:58:59 AM; Representative Bur, serving on the Manchester School District board, opposed HB273, arguing that students should have access to library materials without parental knowledge in certain situations, such as researching topics they cannot discuss with their parents. He emphasized the importance of privacy for students exploring sensitive subjects.

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