NHMA pushes back as lawmakers press bills to require local votes, oversight of municipal association

Representative Jason Osborne introduced two companion proposals — HB 13‑59 and HB 13‑60 — intended to add transparency and legislative oversight when municipalities use taxpayer dollars for lobbying. HB 13‑59 would require a recorded vote by the municipal legislative body before dues paid with public funds may be used for lobbying; HB 13‑60 would create a legislative oversight commission with authority to suspend NHMA’s lobbying activities if the commission believes those activities run counter to municipal interests.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association’s executive director, Margaret Burns, strongly opposed both bills in testimony to the committee. Burns told members the bills would not only force NHMA to split educational and lobbying services into separate entities, it would also demand an unusually high two‑thirds vote and impose organizational changes that do not apply to other associations supported by municipalities. She said NHMA already complies with federal and state transparency laws — including lobbyist reporting to the Secretary of State and annual audits — and warned the oversight provisions could create constitutional problems and a conflict of interest by letting legislators police lobbying speech aimed at them.

Several municipal officials and town representatives also testified against HB 13‑60, arguing the oversight proposal would weaken municipalities’ collective voice at the Legislature and increase administrative costs. James McLeod, a Raymond municipal employee, called legislative takeover of NHMA’s advocacy a “power grab” that would intimidate local governments and reduce their practical ability to influence state policy.

Sponsor Osborne framed the bills as modest reforms to restore taxpayer trust: he said the measures would not ban municipalities from joining associations or limit advocacy, but would require elected officials — not staff — to make clear public decisions when taxpayer money funds lobbying. Osborne said the oversight commission could include recusals to address conflicts if legislators are involved in disputes with NHMA.

Committee members pressed Burns and the sponsor on legal specifics, including whether the bills’ draft language defines which bodies qualify as a 'municipal association,' how the two‑thirds threshold would apply in town‑meeting towns, and whether the legislation would require separate accounting for educational versus lobbying services. Burns said statutory language is ambiguous and could sweep in organizations not traditionally viewed as municipal associations (for example, school boards or village districts) and could raise conflicts with RSA 31:8‑a, the statute that presently references NHMA dues.

The committee did not act on the bills during the hearing. The record contains extensive testimony from both proponents and opponents, legal questions about statutory drafting, and repeated requests for clarifying amendments. The legislation would require further drafting to specify definitions, thresholds and whether alternatives such as enhanced public reporting could achieve the sponsors’ transparency goals without the structural changes NHMA warns would be costly to implement.

Ending: The committee kept the record open; sponsors and NHMA representatives told members they are available for follow‑up amendments. If sponsors choose to amend the bills to narrow definitions or alter voting thresholds, hearings or deliberations may resume in a future session.