Norelli: GOP reps quashed public hearing on bill amendment

Free State Project Forum

265015 Posts in 21194 Topics by 34922 Members / Latest Member: NH N8TV

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2013, 09:09:17 pm

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

Sponsor: http://WeUseCoins.com - No idea if this is a violation of procedure or just a questionable PR move. But former NH House speaker Terie Norelli (D) says a Republican committee chair and others have prevented hearings on a bill amendment, partly on the grounds that it would fill the room & and cause a fuss. Presumably there have been hearings on the bill itself, just not on the amended version. Which of course in theory could be a completely different kind of bill from the original. What insight do the rest of you have to share regarding the bill wording in this case, and the rules commitees must follow when amending a bill?

Norelli posted this message on Facebook.com/NHDems - "HB1666: rel to state employee benefits was amended in Finance committee without a public hearing despite the fact that the amendment totally changed the bill. Rep. Ben Baroody moved to recommit the bill to committee in order to hold a hearing so as to be transparent and allow public input. Finance committee chair Ken Weyler argued against it saying it would only "fill the room with people who want to make a fuss". How disrespectful of the public and the process!!!!"

A note regarding "the other side of the story." I'd normally feel a need to call authorities, get their thoughts and record the entire interaction on tape when they are accused. But their wiretap law has a chilling effect on such calls. So I generally choose to practice overobedience - and decline to call for their opinions. In this sense, their bad law saves me time and costs them the chance to easily present their views. I'll generally still try and get those views when I bump into them and can do so without interrupting.

Ridley Report text bulletins like this one....are generally collected from New Hampshire's raw sources or "little press." Few of them are repeats from the state's bigger media. In that sense, nearly every RR bulletin is a "scoop." Stay tuned!

Original:

Quote

Amend RSA 273-A by inserting after section 3 the following new section:

273-A:3-a Limitation of Benefits. The aggregate of the state’s contribution on behalf of an individual for any benefits agreed to in any contract entered into after the effective date of this section, including life insurance, medical and dental insurance, and employer contributions to a retirement plan for any public employee shall not exceed 60 percent of the employee’s salary if the employee earns $50,000 a year or less, or 50 percent of the employee’s salary if the employee earns more than $50,000 a year.

Amended:

Quote

Amend RSA 273-A by inserting after section 3 the following new section:

273-A:3-a Legislative Approval Required. Every collective bargaining agreement entered into by the state shall be approved by the legislature before it can take effect.

Since the original puts an absolute cap on benefits, whereas the amended version merely requires that agreements be ratified by the legislature, and Norelli presumably opposes absolute caps on benefits, it does appear that she's just looking to "fill the room and make a fuss." The complaint would have more merit, if it came from someone who presumably supported the original bill, and would be upset that the amendment changed it. It's most likely that Norelli opposed the original bill, and expected it could not pass, and is now upset that a watered-down version has been created, which might pass.

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.