Get email alerts on the Veterans Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee amends HB 64 to correct statutory cross-reference, moves veteran-preference changes forward
Summary
House Bill 64 would expand the definition of veterans for state hiring preferences and extend preferences to veteran-owned suppliers; the committee adopted a technical amendment to a statutory cross-reference and reported the bill out as amended.
Get email alerts on the Veterans Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Reardon introduced House Bill 64, which would expand the definition of "veteran" for state hiring and procurement preferences to include spouses and active-duty service members and would extend employment preferences to veteran-owned suppliers of goods and services.
Kevin Grady, representing the State Veterans Advisory Committee, testified in support and said the committee seeks parity for military spouses because "when one of us serves the entire family serves." He described the advisory committee's review process and said the proposal had broad support among veteran organizations.
Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert of the Department of Labor reviewed the bill's draft and highlighted two technical points. First, the department noted the bill referenced RSA 21:50 but used the wrong subparagraph number; the staff recommended changing the cross-reference from roman numeral 4 to roman numeral 5 to point to the correct definition of "military spouse." Second, the Department of Labor observed that the current verification language for hiring preference references documents enumerated in RSA 21:50 and that, as drafted, the verification process may be limited to veterans only; the department suggested clarifying whether the same verification should apply to the newly defined categories.
Committee members adopted the technical committee amendment (changing the cross-reference to roman numeral 5) and then voted to report HB 64 out of committee as amended. The committee also discussed whether verification language should be expanded to explicitly include military spouses and other newly defined categories; committee staff and proponents noted that further drafting could clarify that point.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
