Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Collective Bargaining Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to require public collective‑bargaining sessions to be open prompts split testimony from unions, towns and public defenders
Summary
HB 400 would amend RSA 91‑A to make meetings between elected public officials and labor unions over collective bargaining public; sponsors said transparency helps taxpayers, opponents warned it could undermine compromise and lengthen bargaining cycles and noted state practice already files executed contracts.
The committee examined HB 400, a proposal from Representative Pam Brown that would remove collective bargaining negotiations from the list of non‑public meetings under RSA 91‑A and require bargaining sessions between public employers and unions to be held in public while preserving each party’s right to private strategy sessions.
Brown said the bill would increase transparency for taxpayers because labor contract language and resulting terms substantially affect local property taxes and community budgets. Citing examples such as seniority rules and staffing formulas, she told the panel she had observed long closed‑door negotiations that produced provisions the public did not fully understand.
Union and municipal testimony pushed back. Teamsters representative Scott Gilbert and NEA‑affiliated witnesses argued public bargaining can encourage posturing and harden positions, slowing or complicating the give‑and‑take needed to reach a tentative agreement. The New Hampshire Municipal Association and school districts told the committee that timelines for bringing cost items to warrant articles and the logistics of venue, notice and recordkeeping would create practical burdens and might prompt subcommittees or single designees that sidestep a quorum and defeat the bill’s intent.
The Public Employee Labor Relations Board’s executive director explained the existing process for collective bargaining, noting parties file final agreements with the board and that most collective bargaining agreements are already public records once executed. He also told members the state has long deadlines and procedural steps for bargaining and that adding 91‑A notice and venue requirements to negotiation sessions could complicate timely agreement while not necessarily improving substantive accountability.
Representative Brown said the change was modest — removing the single phrase “or negotiations” from the RSA’s non‑public exceptions — and argued open negotiation would let voters and taxpayers follow and contribute to discussions that affect budgets. Opponents said local option measures or other targeted transparency reforms might be less disruptive.
The committee did not take a vote; members raised questions about quorums, statutory interaction with RSA 2 73‑A (the state collective bargaining law) and whether voter petitions or local warrant articles would better effect change than a statewide mandate.
