Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to tighten remote voting rules draws split testimony on accessibility and accountability
Summary
CONCORD — The House Judiciary Committee heard House Bill 80, which would tighten rules for remote participation by public‑body members and bar remote voting except in emergencies.
CONCORD — The committee heard House Bill 80, introduced by Representative Mike Turcotte, which would narrow the circumstances in which members of a public body may participate remotely and would bar remote participants from voting unless an emergency exception applied.
Turcotte said remote participation has expanded since COVID and argued in‑person presence gives members a fuller sense of deliberations and allows caucusing and informal interactions that he said are essential. He proposed replacing the existing standard “not reasonably practicable” with the higher standard “unavoidable” and disallowing votes by members who are not physically present except in specified emergency situations.
Supporters of staying with the current language warned of unintended consequences. Karen Rosenberg of the Disability Rights Center said imposing a higher hurdle would exclude people who rely on remote participation because of disability, caregiving duties, transportation barriers, or specialized mobility needs. Sarah Bert Cohen of the New Hampshire Municipal Association said the existing statute already allows a public body to decide whether to permit remote participation and that roll‑call votes and audibility requirements preserve accountability when remote participation occurs. The New Hampshire School Boards Association and other witnesses urged preserving the right of remote participants to vote, noting the practice has been used sparingly and helps maintain participation by parents and volunteers.
Representative Turcotte and supporters said the bill did not seek to limit public access or silence minority views; rather, they said, it aimed to set a higher floor for officials’ physical attendance and to protect the integrity of deliberation. Committee members asked about the definition of “unavoidable,” who would make that determination (typically the chair under current practice), and whether the change would conflict with local charters or create operational burdens.
No formal action was taken. Several members asked for additional drafting work and for clarification about emergency exceptions and how the change would interact with existing local rules.
