Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Recusal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft to tighten ZBA recusal rules after concerns about vagueness
Summary
SB 436 would make disqualification and recusal for zoning board members mandatory when conflicts or bias exist; municipal officials warned the language is vague and duplicates RSA 673:14, prompting calls for a redraft and reference to existing statute.
Senators debated Senate Bill 436, which would require that members of zoning boards of adjustment recuse themselves when disqualified because of bias, predetermined conclusions, or other conflicts.
Senator Daryl Abbess, the bill’s sponsor, said SB 436 aims to make recusal mandatory in cases of disqualification. "If there is a board member that is disqualified for any reason, they shouldn't be sitting on it," he said, comparing ZBAs to quasi‑judicial bodies that must avoid biased decision‑making.
Committee members raised drafting and scope concerns. Several senators observed that the bill's language — particularly a phrase that a member's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" — could be too broad and might be triggered by routine local relationships. Committee members also noted that RSA 673:14 already addresses disqualifications across land‑use boards; folding overlapping language into statute could create confusion.
Margaret Burns of the New Hampshire Municipal Association reiterated opposition, calling the proposed standard vague relative to the existing juror standard and warning that a new, overlapping rule could encourage appeals. Burns also explained that while a board can take an advisory vote, the onus of recusal remains with the individual member.
Senator Abbess said he may offer a redraft and referenced RSA 673:14 as the statute he wants to align with; senators suggested working with him on more precise language or a revised RSA reference. The committee closed the public hearing without taking immediate action.
