[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6373296,"mediaKeyId","2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349","parentId",2146038,"title","Sponsor seeks to limit executive-branch advocacy before committees; agencies warn of operational and constitutional conflicts","audioSeconds",454,"startMs",15725000,"endMs",16179000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349&start=15725&end=16179","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349/thumbnail_15725000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6373296/New-Hampshire/Sponsor-seeks-to-limit-executive-branch-advocacy-before-committees-agencies-warn-of-operational-and-constitutional-conflicts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373296-441e0d634eb7f0fc15394f4e37b34bf9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185428&Signature=anZbv10Rir6W51p93SsNaUhQpZjgbPq1EJUkLuBcKlDiWsxYyV7n7c2q4O8PseVm-Aok83w7kaEHXuqFScUOy87ZStJAwrqjoO-etfk9XxkicMTgdWnTzHmqR5z7JwuGJf1~nxd44ytmDVhKCuAykwufX3HxZ~x1VP-MUH8SM1HdG-7NhFzQejh4eTd7gm2BZwOvNJq4twPv2F00zUb7UssW~TxF4UscJIXgr8yX8zb-n-tQ09sDERQTFpMGJUg-vYXS4aPxSmJPZdhJUUt6RoDtF70lYP9juhETfKE7dkQHdM23BZTxpHTzSu-f8trDC1a9ndhFnB1efA~oZGNmTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-01-23T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Potenza presented House Bill 456, a proposal that would require state agencies to provide information to House committees only \"at the committee's request\" and bar agencies from taking positions in support of or opposition to matters before the legislature. Potenza said the measure was intended to keep executive-branch testimony factual and avoid agencies \"gaming the system\" by signaling policy positions while using department resources.

Why it matters: If enacted, the bill would reshape the relationship between executive agencies and the legislature by limiting unsolicited agency communications and by restricting agencies from taking a position during formally scheduled testimony.

Key testimony and concerns

- Operational consequences: Paul Smith, clerk of the House, and John Williams, legislative director for DHHS, explained how current practice allows agencies to send letters or analysis in advance of hearings and to participate in budget and policy discussions; Smith said the plain-language reading of the draft could prevent agencies from submitting factual letters or other pre-hearing materials until a committee formally requests them.

- Scope and exceptions: Witnesses asked whether the governor’s address or a commissioner’s appearance in support of a department-requested bill would be affected. Potenza said a department-requested bill would still permit factual information, but that the bill aims to distinguish factual information from taking a position. Multiple agency witnesses said the distinction is operationally difficult because information and policy positions are often intertwined.

- Child-advocacy and small agency concerns: The Office of the Child Advocate — a small oversight agency that often brings expertise on bills affecting children — said the proposal would impede its ability to provide timely, protective testimony and cited its statutory duty to advocate for vulnerable children.

Process and next steps

Clerk Smith summarized the statute history: chapter 98f grew out of a 2005 legislative ethics effort intended to hold paid actors (like lobbyists and executive staff) to identification and disclosure standards. Committee counsel and staff were asked to weigh in on the mechanical meaning of \"committee's request\" language and on whether the bill would require open-session committee votes to request agency input.

Taper: The committee closed the HB 456 hearing without taking action; staff and counsel will examine statutory mechanics and whether revisions could balance transparency, separation of powers and the agencies' need to provide budget and public-safety information.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Legislative Administration (01/23/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Potenza presented House Bill 456, a proposal that would require state agencies to provide information to House committees only \"at the committee's request\" and bar agencies from taking positions in support of or opposition to matters before the legislature.","taxTitle","Legislative Administration, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17757,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373301,"Mixed reaction as sponsor seeks penalties and testimony restrictions for state employees who give false statements",797,12780000,13577000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349&start=12780&end=13577","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349/thumbnail_12780000.jpg","/articles/6373301/New-Hampshire/Mixed-reaction-as-sponsor-seeks-penalties-and-testimony-restrictions-for-state-employees-who-give-false-statements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373301-22daa63d326fcf1d8e6b5151ddf56ec5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185428&Signature=UU~jtik2uIYPlNIbiAnZPwymhP4jJNegeaVVizSkIaxbu~QztReVQKp8N2xCGVrjBUWeoHnIaRaeJrziprq8jWLD7ZIWDTw8aZJUKILgAJzE1ebHF6RkKw2ffGsNCLWGvw5o0JF3y6Pz9yZftJKmEhqMVPKMJssh9FMOjsC1zvuUKZ9tHoj83ya9Gev0qJ0bCrG4NulEQLUJ7Bz9Qc58iIMaAD8HUhpuVv38a~3e2qKD~55T8~jrbjCmB7cjshC0F8VqISQyZDcPW2D2mZ8~zxUxF1cWlhObKP8cGa2WM8Phjoq8aBUIRijqfe0V2RfI2t2uw59heXiNIPdqHR7Xxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Potenza introduced language intended to bar state employees who \"knowingly provide false information\" before a committee from further testimony and to make them \"liable for perjury\" or related offenses. The proposal also referenced identification badges for state employees who appear before committees.

Why it matters: The bill would add a criminal and administrative sanction tied to testimony by executive-branch employees before legislative committees, raising constitutional and practical concerns about who determines falsity, what process is used, and whether the measure would chill interbranch communication.

What transpired at the hearing

- Agency concerns and chilling effect: John Williams, legislative director for the Department of Health and Human Services, testified the bill would create a \"chilling effect\" for state employees who provide information to the legislature, noting that existing remedies include legislative ethics processes and other statutory checks. Williams told the committee that state employees are already accountable through professional licensure and internal review processes and cautioned that singling out the executive branch raises separation-of-powers concerns.

- Due process and legal standards: Commissioner (private citizen) Sean Jasper and other witnesses emphasized the high standard of \"knowingly\" and the lack of an explicit due-process path in the bill language. Jasper warned that the bill as drafted could remove the ability of private citizens and state employees to testify without clear adjudicative protections. He noted existing authorities (ethics committee, referral to the Attorney General) that could be used instead.

- Scope and enforcement: Questions arose about whether the language would apply only to agency employees or more broadly to any person who testifies, and whether agencies could be asked to send a different liaison to a committee if concerns about candor emerged. Several witnesses stressed that committees can already admonish or report problematic testimony to appropriate adjudicative bodies.

- Sponsor response: Representative Potenza said the intent is to provide a clear pathway for holding accountable people who give demonstrably false testimony, not to chill legitimate testimony. She said the measure could be implemented in ways that allow an ethics review and that many of the existing enforcement tools could still be used. Potenza noted the committee could amend the language to address process and due-process concerns.

Process and next steps

Representatives on the committee heard concerns from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor (technical input earlier in the schedule), a private citizen (commissioner Jasper), the House clerk and the sponsor. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the sponsor said she would provide additional materials and examples to the committee.

Taper: The committee closed the HB 315 hearing after extended Q&A and directed staff review and potential redrafting to address due-process, separation-of-powers and enforcement questions.","Representative Potenza introduced changes to statutes that would bar state employees who \"knowingly provide false information\" from testifying before committees and expose them to potential criminal penalties. Multiple agency witnesses and former House leaders raised due-process, separation-of-powers, and chilling-effect concerns.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373305,"Sponsor proposes job-protection leave for legislators to prevent employment conflicts during session",417,11970000,12387000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349&start=11970&end=12387","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349/thumbnail_11970000.jpg","/articles/6373305/New-Hampshire/Sponsor-proposes-job-protection-leave-for-legislators-to-prevent-employment-conflicts-during-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373305-dfa491047acae61515db30e790b9ff61/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185428&Signature=JHfz--VPWNMrZiIne8TKRfB0KSHcmma~XKDd7qMlubJGTVWt6cyr31x1BqAT9ZusIiyjNK1r~1xo9C6JokrCl0eFR-FfxvkGKHt-WggnhdM9CszGdBu3cJxjFsmzudY-BB9tGXMlvRG7OraEV973M1ZoFIFgPhnZz-Q9oRBQpNiKLwj3DxV56S322dAUvVtcvA2w9i5vai10IVw8NAqScpBLeDYjEm02g04RpY99-eFY8xZjIZvzuj5Hd0zuPl0KucuNR9Xgs7-aWEID5-fpYC-fh27~xHCivF2bxRMFd5~nyj5V5lYh9anjNj3h42sM~arGzDp3cL10X0x3O5RHxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Loy introduced House Bill 347, a proposal to create an employment-protection leave so that employees can attend mandatory House session days without risking discipline from outside employers. Loy framed the proposal as similar to jury-duty protections: employers would not be required to pay during leave but would need to allow the legislator the time off to perform statutory duties.

Why it matters: Many House members hold outside employment. Loy said an employer in a prior situation prohibited an employee from attending legislative sessions; the bill aims to prevent employers from blocking constitutionally required legislative duties and to protect legislators from having to choose between their jobs and representation duties.

Key points from the hearing

- Scope and calculation: Loy said the bill’s 168-hour cap was an initial estimate based on the 2022 legislative calendar multiplied by eight-hour days; she said the number could be amended after review. She said the proposal would apply to session days when the legislature requires presence; it would not cover committee work or campaigning.

- Employer size and hardship clause: Loy did not include a minimum-employee threshold in the draft but included a hardship clause to exempt employers who could not afford the absence. She said she was open to adding a size threshold if the committee preferred.

- Jurisdiction and enforcement: John Garrigan, general counsel for the Department of Labor, noted RSA 273:11-a as the general penalty provision the department uses to enforce labor statutes. He said RSA 273:11-a allows for a warning and 30-day cure period for a first violation and penalties for subsequent violations, but it does not automatically give the Department of Labor investigatory authority for novel enforcement items. Garrigan suggested adding explicit investigation or enforcement language or amending existing labor statutes to give the department jurisdiction if the committee intends that enforcement route.

- Out-of-state employers: Members asked how the bill would apply to employers located outside New Hampshire. Loy acknowledged the state lacks jurisdiction over such employers and said the bill would not directly alter out-of-state employers’ obligations; it could, however, give employees leverage in negotiations and an argument with an employer that the state recognizes legislative leave.

Process and next steps

The Department of Labor said it was neutral on the bill but offered technical drafting guidance. Loy indicated willingness to revise the hourly cap and to further develop enforcement language and thresholds with staff and stakeholders. No vote was recorded at the hearing; the bill will return to the committee for further consideration.

Taper: The committee closed the hearing after staff and member questions; Loy and staff will consider revisions, especially on the cap, employer-size thresholds and enforcement mechanism.","Representative Loy introduced HB 347 proposing a leave-of-absence protection for employees who are legislators, modeled in part on jury-duty protections and capped at a number of hours. The bill drew questions about employer scope, out-of-state employers and enforcement mechanisms.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373310,"Prime sponsor urges 10-minute breaks after three hours of continuous legislative proceedings",213,10973000,11186000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349&start=10973&end=11186","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349/thumbnail_10973000.jpg","/articles/6373310/New-Hampshire/Prime-sponsor-urges-10-minute-breaks-after-three-hours-of-continuous-legislative-proceedings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373310-0f93c1b4e97a9b3a1abfd48b7e6ee6d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185428&Signature=MXqjDE1Ejd3mdIKZKFmRd9zFir8gaSYYRb6ZruKk8vgeXyz3LyaXq~lmIq2ahU4WmtVtMZzUKMuhzWhzJFLeU6fDk3XYtS~6iSiJ7-Y2YSJNfTob1CtVH5VaaPYm06cMjbpetptzqOFkf7zJp5HIDtbyDWc22zjGQoHkjH6hbISAcOxyOaU5qKMflLajRwCFX1ORIStxc3MZIHwSqAUtbsDjoaBk7aqkSEg1tr9MIidw3iBoMvfX~Z6E1Q0IY84nyhLNNeI9LG04PO6DSRexChFQMspZE2KRANFMrMpL8b7LB7fvLkJAE1FNLPCbfHSDJaGBRra7KArRbybNLfbm4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Wendy Thomas (Merrimack) introduced House Bill 118 to require a 10-minute break after three hours of continuous legislative proceedings, arguing the brief recess would protect legislators’ health and help working and caregiving members manage outside responsibilities.

\"Allowing a 10 minute break every 3 hours of continuous legislative work supports the well-being, mental focus, and personal responsibility of older, employed, parents and caregivers,\" Thomas told the committee. She described possible physical effects of prolonged sitting and framed the proposal as a dignity and health protection for legislators.

Why it matters: Sessions and committee hearings sometimes run long without formal breaks; the bill would codify a pause schedule for both committee and floor proceedings. Sponsors framed the measure as an accommodation to keep legislators — who often hold outside employment or family caregiving roles — healthy and able to participate.

Discussion and questions

- Current practice: Thomas said the existing practice is to return after lunch (roughly 1 p.m.) and continue into the evening; on some days that can be several hours without an intervening recess. Members asked whether the committee or chair can already call for a break; Thomas said members could request it but she had not seen that happen consistently.

- Practicality and precedent: Committee members asked whether the rule could instead be accomplished by motion or by house rules rather than statute. Thomas said she introduced a bill rather than seeking a rule change because she wanted a permanent statutory protection \"that should never be overturned.\" The clerk and other committee members noted practical questions about whether a single-member request for a pause would require the full house to stop during session.

- Personal testimony: Representative Wahl described having undergone knee surgeries and needing extra time to navigate the floor and return to votes; she supported the accommodation argument.

Process details and next steps

No formal votes were taken. Thomas said she would submit written testimony and the committee took questions from members and staff. John Garrigan, general counsel for the Department of Labor, attended as a neutral technical witness and provided guidance on enforcement and statutory penalty language when asked about other bills; he did not recommend enforcement mechanics for HB 118 specifically.

Taper: The committee closed the HB 118 hearing after Q&A and moved to the next scheduled bill.","Rep. Wendy Thomas introduced HB 118, a bill that would require a 10-minute break after three hours of continuous legislative work, citing health, caregiving and workplace concerns for legislators who are older, employed, or caretakers.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373315,"New Legislative Administration committee orients members on scheduling, decorum and bill ownership",1406,356000,1762000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349&start=356&end=1762","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2146038-1c03e90dda3154ec0fa977e09a5db349/thumbnail_356000.jpg","/articles/6373315/New-Hampshire/New-Legislative-Administration-committee-orients-members-on-scheduling-decorum-and-bill-ownership","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373315-9db4b2839853719c50900ba597d4673e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185428&Signature=TY~p7WnhLRGXElXp-tHz-cWTpSc~PjWWu9rQRNyQjZR2FnRqlGK81fh~2Mv0w2Z80vO1hoSO9jPilvQGM94fS0~7UIMs8F2~DHQhUft27-AwH2T4~~qn-OEG6tXCgVDqK2fIUlIrP8DsUJTyViZJR4U3wUFRg6Wn67haBfrFhtxSf0-kwpgvhUZTJeTNBcSMcbNWxMfLYprWHMg4fNjh1FRIrw9Ujg9-8X8c-Kh5Ni4kQNYOJEjOOEahiImbLKXKTP5Buz9l~HCagPcCJvA8gQcu7mP5DbjjVaAoVvoqtX3--roTQOFWBAW17CXcz-wlDB8LAHPfBFMuPnRmJ-rp-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chairman Representative Greg Hill opened orientation for the Legislative Administration Committee with administrative guidance on scheduling, public testimony and committee norms, urging members to coordinate absences and to treat witnesses with courtesy.

The session laid out several practical items: how the committee schedules hearings, a proposal to post large-font placards identifying the bill at the witness table for live-stream viewers, guidance on electronic devices and testimony, and a reminder that committee replacements require 24-hour notice for exec session votes. \"We tend to look at bills on their merits... and whether it will help state of New Hampshire and primarily the legislature operate,\" Hill said.

Why it matters: legislative-administration is the committee that oversees how the House organizes hearings and internal process. Clarifying logistics — who to contact about absences, where committee files are kept, and how committee reports are drafted and published — affects how quickly bills move from hearing to calendar and how transparent hearings are to the public.

Highlights and details

- Scheduling and hearings: Hill said he typically schedules hearings in short blocks (15–20 minutes) and runs them consecutively to avoid idle time; he asked members to help place a visible bill placard at the witness table so remote viewers know which bill is being heard. Members agreed to a make-up hearing date of Feb. 19 for remaining bills rather than a date that conflicts with the governor’s budget delivery.

- Committee reports and records: Committee assistant Karen Davis described her role assembling files, drafting committee reports with researcher review, and submitting final materials for publication. Clerk Paul Smith urged timely, legible committee reports and noted the committee historically places many bills on the consent calendar when members resolve issues in advance.

- Public testimony and decorum: Chairs emphasized clarifying, not adversarial, follow-ups to witnesses. Hill instructed members to signal for follow-up questions rather than interrupting testimony, to avoid using devices that block a witness from view, and to treat witnesses courteously. He discouraged food at the table and asked members to notify chairs about absences, amendments, or anticipated late arrivals.

- Bill ownership after committee: Hill proposed a committee-level practice to \"maintain ownership\" of bills after they leave the committee — for example, assigning a member to follow and testify for the committee in the House or at Senate hearings so that committee reasoning is represented. Members discussed case-by-case assignments for floor testimony.

What members asked and emphasized

Members asked for predictable scheduling (some preferred Thursdays), requested clarity about how the committee will present public comment tallies on exec days, and requested options to store committee materials and lockable drawers in room 104. The clerk and chairs answered process questions about exec sessions and replacements; Hill said replacements require 24 hours. Several members noted the committee’s unusually small size and the presence of experienced former chairs among members, calling that a resource for procedural questions.

Taper: The orientation closed with reminders about security, emergency egress, and a pledge to work collaboratively; the committee reconvened for the afternoon’s scheduled bill hearings.","Members of the New Hampshire House Legislative Administration Committee met for orientation, where Chair Rep. Greg Hill and Vice Chair Rep. Vanessa Sheehan reviewed scheduling practices, committee procedures, public-testimony protocols, and a proposed system for “owning” bills as they move through the General Court.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sponsor seeks to limit executive-branch advocacy before committees; agencies warn of operational and constitutional conflicts

Mixed reaction as sponsor seeks penalties and testimony restrictions for state employees who give false statements

Sponsor proposes job-protection leave for legislators to prevent employment conflicts during session

Prime sponsor urges 10-minute breaks after three hours of continuous legislative proceedings

New Legislative Administration committee orients members on scheduling, decorum and bill ownership