Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Meetings Remote Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates remote attendance rules for public meetings and votes; moves HB 80 to ITL
Summary
Lawmakers considered House Bill 80, which would restrict remote meeting participation and require physical presence for voting, and voted to recommend ITL after concerns about unclear language and local control.
House Bill 80, which would limit a public-body member’s ability to participate remotely to situations that are "unavoidable" and would require physical presence to cast a vote, drew sustained debate in the Judiciary Committee.
Representative Smith argued the bill was not workable because “the definition of unavoidable is not clear.” Representative Orrick and others described practical examples where remote participation enabled continued member participation after medical events or unavoidable travel; Orrick recounted a board member who could not join in person after a stroke but remained mentally fit to participate remotely.
Representative Kuttab warned the bill’s quorum rules could produce unintended consequences in three‑member bodies where a single in-person member could end up making decisions alone if another member participated remotely but could not vote. Representative Tripp called the measure a broad-brush approach with many unintended consequences.
Representative Burke urged deference to members’ stated reasons for remote participation and said whether a circumstance was “unavoidable” should typically be respected. Several members noted the difference between being present for discussion and being physically present to cast a binding vote.
After debate, the committee took a roll-call vote on the motion to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate). The clerk recorded the outcome as 13 yeas and 4 nays; the motion to recommend ITL carried, meaning the committee does not recommend the bill for further action at this time.
Committee members who favored ITL framed the vote as a matter of local control and cautioned that a one-size-fits-all rule across the many kinds of public bodies in New Hampshire could produce unfair results. Members opposed to ITL said they favored a rule tightening remote participation but would support narrower language, such as replacing “not reasonably practical” with the more definite term “unavoidable.”
The committee did not adopt a uniform amendment to rewrite quorum or voting rules; sponsors and opponents indicated interest in working on narrower language or local options outside the full-committee floor vote.
