Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would tighten 'remote participation' standard for public bodies; municipal and disability groups urge caution
Summary
Representative Len Turcotte proposed raising the threshold for allowing remote participation in public-body meetings from 'reasonably practicable' to 'unavoidable'; municipal officials and disability advocates warned the change could exclude people with disabilities or create confusion without clearer drafting.
Representative Len Turcotte told the committee his bill seeks to raise the standard for when a public-body member may participate remotely under RSA 91-A, replacing the current "reasonably practicable" test with a higher threshold described in the bill as "unavoidable."
Turcotte said the change aims to increase in-person participation and reduce instances where members choose remote attendance for convenience rather than necessity. He said the change would not remove the ability to participate remotely entirely, but would require a higher showing that in-person attendance truly could not be accomplished.
Witnesses and stakeholders cautioned the committee against adopting the language without revision. Sarah Burke Cohen of the New Hampshire Municipal Association said NHMA opposes the bill as drafted because it raises the burden for remote participation and could limit participation by people with disabilities or those who lack reliable transportation. An advocacy director from Granite State Independent Living testified that transportation costs can make in-person attendance prohibitively expensive for some people with disabilities and that the bill could diminish opportunities for participation by such constituents.
Questions from senators highlighted ambiguity in the bill's drafting: witnesses and the sponsor discussed whether the wording, as written, would require public bodies to adopt a formal policy or leave the decision to the chair at each meeting, and whether the clause as drafted might unintentionally read as limiting remote participation more broadly because of clause placement.
The committee did not record a vote on the bill in the hearing transcript. Stakeholders offered draft alternative language and suggested the committee could revise the bill to avoid unintended consequences for people with disabilities and for small public bodies that meet infrequently.
