Judiciary subcommittee reviews HB 313, which would require notice when a person’s reputation is discussed in closed sessions

A Judiciary subcommittee work session on HB 313 considered a bill that would give individuals notice and the ability to attend nonpublic (closed) meetings when their reputation will be discussed, but the panel took no action.

The bill’s sponsor and several committee members framed the discussion as an effort to protect people from reputational harm arising from closed-session discussions while carving out exceptions for active investigations. Phil Giroux, a Goffstown resident who testified, described being arrested after showing up at a closed session he said he had tried to attend and said the experience motivated his proposed changes: "I was arrested, prevented from attending a closed session, which basically I requested." He also said the town later sealed minutes he sought to review and that some charges against him were later vacated.

Committee members and other speakers focused on practical and legal limits. Representative Burch warned of scenarios that could make the proposal unworkable in practice, such as hearings that name multiple people during the proceeding: "What happens if in the middle of that hearing... another Smith says, it wasn't me. It was that Laus Jones?" Burch said. He added, "I don't know how you make it work in real life." Several members and commenters raised similar concerns about how to handle subsequent, unexpected names or allegations that arise during a nonpublic session.

To address some concerns, one committee member outlined draft language discussed in the meeting: notify the person by email at least 24 hours in advance (unless not reasonably practicable or no email exists), give the person a right to attend the meeting, exempt the initiation of an inquiry or investigation from the notification requirement, and make it unlawful for anyone present in the nonpublic session to disclose information that would identify other involved parties without written consent. As stated in the meeting, "Notification shall not be required for the initiation of an inquiry or an investigation. It shall be unlawful ... to disclose any information that may identify any other involved parties without their written consent."

Speakers also cited existing law and guidance in the discussion. Members referenced RSA 91-A (New Hampshire’s right-to-know statute) and noted two New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions that limit the scope of the reputation exception; representatives also mentioned the New Hampshire Attorney General’s law-enforcement manual and the Attorney Discipline Office as background on how investigations and notice are handled. Several committee members suggested limiting the bill’s reach to political subdivisions (towns, school districts) rather than statewide matters, because state-level investigations can raise additional legal and practical complications.

Public commenters and lawmakers repeatedly emphasized the need to prevent closed sessions from becoming forums for gossip or political targeting, while also preserving confidentiality where disclosure would prejudice criminal or child-protection inquiries. Committee members discussed alternatives that might preserve evidence integrity — for example, redacting minutes, limiting the right to unseal to the person directly discussed, or allowing attendance only for the portion of the session that pertains to the named individual.

The meeting ended without a vote. The subcommittee chair said members would do further work before the Judiciary executive session and encouraged additional research and drafting; the chair also welcomed Representative Kevin Scully as a new permanent committee member. No formal action on HB 313 was taken at the work session.