2 weeks Ago
The state Senate appears poised to endorse a watering down of the year-old law regarding the recusal of legislators who have potential conflicts of interest. But the law’s prime author is objecting, asking that any change be studied further. Without debate or discussion during an executive session on Wednesday, the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee voted 5-0 to add the change to an unrelated bill regarding the suspension of certain state employees ( HB 248 ).
The Senate's top three ranking members -- Senate President Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, Majority Leader Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, and Democratic Leader Rebecca Perkins Kwoka, D-Portsmouth -- co-authored the change, though none of them testified for it during a brief hearing. The only lawmaker who did testify, Rep. Gregory Hill, R-Northfield, authored the recusal law last year after spending 31⁄2 years working on the topic as head of the House Legislative Administration Committee.
“I believe this weakens our work and the law we passed last year,” Hill said. The pending amendment would make three changes: • Financial interest: The recusal clause would only apply if the lawmaker or household member “is an employee of, or receives compensation from, an individual or organization.” • Public at large: No recusal would be needed if a benefit given to a legislator is the same as one given to the “public at large” or a large group of individuals who are similarly situated.
• Lobbyist carve out: This makes clear that having lobbied on behalf of an organization doesn't put lawmakers subject to recusal unless they meet a “test set” of circumstances. The recusal law advises lawmakers not to take part in matters where either the legislator or a household member “could stand to gain or lose anything of material value as a result of the official activity.” As a result, several legislators have asked the Legislative Ethics Committee over the past several months for advice on whether they could take part in specific bills.
“I think the way to fix these things is ethics (committee) inquiries and not to try and fix this through legislation especially when it is so new,” Hill said. During a recent interview, Sen. Donovan Fenton, D-Keene, said senators from both parties had expressed concerns that the new law is too restrictive.
Fenton had to leave a committee room and could not participate in discussion of a bill ( HB 649 ) to eliminate annual auto and truck safety inspections because his family owns a string of auto dealerships. The last time the Senate met, Carson said she and Birdsell weren’t participating in a bill to raise the property tax exemption for the permanently disabled because they had served in the military. Last year, Democratic state Senate candidate Rebecca McWilliams of Concord asked the ethics panel to rule on what legislation her Senate primary opponent, Tara Reardon, D-Concord, would have to recuse herself from.
Reardon’s husband is former Concord Mayor Jim Bouley, a lobbyist with 18 clients this year ranging from charity casino owners and tourist attractions to auto dealers, veterinarians and a children’s alliance. The ethics panel declined to issue an opinion at the time, but since February it has published several advisory opinions. Sen.
Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, was advised she likely did not have to recuse herself over legislation she sponsored ( SB 295 ) to expand Education Freedom Accounts because the last of her three private-school educated children who benefited from the grants will graduate next month and not be covered under the new law. Hill said it is "misguided" to try to pass the change as a non-germane amendment that would not face the same public review as a new bill. He asked the Senate to send the change back to committee until early in the 2026 session.
“I think it needs time to simmer,” Hill said. +++ What’s Next : The full Senate votes on this proposed change the next time it meets. Prospects : Uncertain.
It depends on whether House Republican leaders, who have remained silent thus far, agree with Senate leaders that the current recusal law needs to be changed. [email protected].
