Committee hears SB570 to define "direct benefit" and narrow recusal rules

Summary

A legislative committee heard SB570, which would define "direct benefit," "direct detriment" and "official legislative activity" in recusal law. Supporters say clearer definitions will reduce unnecessary recusals; members pressed how the rules would be enforced, how narrow cases (net metering, university budgets) would be handled, and whether disclosures are required.

The Legislative Administration committee heard testimony on SB570, a bill to clarify when lawmakers must recuse themselves from official legislative activity because they would receive a direct benefit or suffer a direct detriment.

Grant Bossi, deputy chief of staff for the New Hampshire Senate, introduced the bill on behalf of Senator Sharon Carson, saying the aim is to tighten vague recusal standards. "You are a citizen legislature. You should be affected by the laws you pass," Bossi told the committee, adding that the existing standards are "both vague and overly broad." He said the draft defines "direct benefit" and "direct detriment," preserves the traditional exemption for the main budget bills, and would require recusal for amendments to trailer bills that create a conflict.

The central debate centered on the legal line between a benefit that is "direct" and one that accrues only because others — customers, private parties or market actors — choose to transact with the member. Representative…

Committee hears SB570 to define "direct benefit" and narrow recusal rules

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading