Let’s not just do the job – that OK with you?

UPDATE: Well, THAT was quick.  The ‘Grok has just obtained an email that was sent out by John Thomas concerning his legislation:

The bills regarding RTK are out and published on the state web sight [sic]. They are, HB1408, HB1272, and another one which may or may not have an impact, HB1444. The reason why HB1444 may be of interest is the issue of process in filling a vacant county elected position. It’s the interview and selection process that will have 91A concerns. My county chair and I put the bill in because of frustration over what the legislature has not done nor have the courts As a result all the self proclaimed experts, especially the editors and critics, all have their own ideas as to the process. Maybe by forcing a 28A issue we can get it done once and for all. Would you pass this on to the rest of the commission please?

 

Thanks.

 

JT

JT stands for John Thomas.

And no, it is not over the frustration of what the Courts and Legislation has or has not done – it is all about some State Reps not wanting to do things in public.  The flashlights are on and the result is predictible.

Remember Monty Python -> "Runaway!  Runaway!"

Well, I don’t know what House Bills 1408 and 1272 are, but if Mr. Thomas thinks they are part of the mix, I guess we’ll have to figure it out.  And what 28A is as well.

If any of you have some spare time (and I am working today) and can look them up and give me a quick clue to the intent with respect to RTK, let me know!  

Also, one thing that I did not emphasis is the cost of the foolish change – BIG BUCKS! 

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Secretary of State and the New Hampshire Municipal Association state this bill may increase state and local expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2008 and each year thereafter. The New Hampshire Association of Counties states this bill may decrease county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2008 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue.

The Association of Counties – no increase…BUT OF COURSE!  THEY DON’T PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL SPECIAL ELECTIONS! Why the heck would they care???

"this bill may increase state and local expenditures by an indeterminable amount" – what a crock!  I’ll find out what the Town Clerk estimates for Gilford – a town of 7,400.  I’ll extrapolate for Belknap County.  Then do it across the State.

Example:  If it costs $5,000 in Gilford (which is a reasonable guess), imagine what it would cost County or State wide!!

All because some State Reps don’t want to vote the peoples’ business in public. 

More later on……sheesh…. 

============================================================= 

As regular readers of the ‘Grok now, my blogging partner Doug is embroiled in a lawsuit against the "County Convention".  In brief, they sued that when a constitutional officer (e.g., Sheriff) must be replaced, it should be done in public session and not with secret ballots.  That suit are now before the Supreme Court (having to do with the question of is the Sheriff a constitutionally elected officer or an employee with certain rights to privacy).

Note: Here in NH, each county has a "Convention" that is made up of all of its elected representatives to NH House.  They oversee the county level budget and organizations.

Anyways, the County Registrar of Deeds became vacant and it looked like the whole Sheriff mess might happen again.  Fortunately, the Convention decided to do all of its interviewing and deliberations in public session – WELL DONE!

However, one of the State Reps, John Thomas (who had voted to keep the process in non-public [read: closed door] session, had said a couple of statements saying that he had filed legislation to "clean up the process".

Great, just great.  Instead of standing up as elected officials and sometimes doing the right thing (that could lead to "hard" or difficult decisions being made in public) when needed, he has legislation that really bollixes things up (IMHO).

While I am normally in favor of more people voting rather than less, it seems that he wants to make it possible for elected officials sidestep the public eye (or should that be glare?) for those hard decisions:

2 Vacancies; County Officers. Amend RSA 661:9, I to read as follows:

I. If a vacancy occurs in the office of county sheriff, county attorney, register of deeds, or county treasurer, the members of the county convention shall [fill the vacancy for the unexpired term by majority vote] request the governor and council to declare that there shall be a special election to fill the vacancy following the provisions of RSA 655:81 and RSA 655:82.

Get that, NH taxpayers?  Instead of having the Convention vote, he’s going to cost you money to have a special election, county wide, so as not to put politicians on the spot.  Sure, no more problems with Right To Know laws, no wondering if things will be done in open or closed door sessions.  In fact, the solons will be totally off the hook. 

The entire change to the RSA (which is what we call laws here in NH) after the jump

The word "shirk" comes to mind….so does "passing the buck, no matter the cost".

HB 1444-FN-LOCAL – AS INTRODUCED

2008 SESSION

08-2211

03/09

HOUSE BILL 1444-FN-LOCAL

AN ACT relative to vacancies in county offices.

SPONSORS: Rep. Nedeau, Belk 3; Rep. J. Thomas, Belk 5

COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government

ANALYSIS

This bill requires a special election to fill vacancies in certain county offices.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

08-2211

03/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eight

AN ACT relative to vacancies in county offices.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Nominations for Special State Elections; County Officers Added. Amend the section heading and introductory paragraph of RSA 655:81 to read as follows:

655:81 Nomination of [U.S.] United States Representative, Executive Councilor, State Senator, [and] Representative to the General Court, and County Officer. The nomination of candidates for the [U.S.] United States House of Representatives or for the executive council or for the state senate or for representative to the general court or for county officer for special elections shall be accomplished through the holding of special election primaries. The filing of candidates for such primaries and all other matters connected with such primaries shall be the same as for primaries before a state general election except that:

2 Vacancies; County Officers. Amend RSA 661:9, I to read as follows:

I. If a vacancy occurs in the office of county sheriff, county attorney, register of deeds, or county treasurer, the members of the county convention shall [fill the vacancy for the unexpired term by majority vote] request the governor and council to declare that there shall be a special election to fill the vacancy following the provisions of RSA 655:81 and RSA 655:82.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

LBAO

08-2211

11/28/07

HB 1444-FN-LOCAL – FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT relative to vacancies in county offices.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Secretary of State and the New Hampshire Municipal Association state this bill may increase state and local expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2008 and each year thereafter. The New Hampshire Association of Counties states this bill may decrease county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2008 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue.

METHODOLOGY:

The Secretary of State, the New Hampshire Municipal Association, and the New Hampshire Association of Counties indicate this bill will require a special election be held when a vacancy occurs in a county office instead of the county convention holding an election. The Secretary of State is not able to determine the number of vacancies that would occur during a term, thus not able to determine the increase in expenditures associated with a special election. For each special election, state expenditures related to the cost of printing ballots for a countywide special election could range from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association states conducting a special election will increase local expenditures. Municipalities within a county having to hold a special election would incur costs associated with running an election, such as voting booth rentals, room rentals, and paying voting officials.

The New Hampshire Association of Counties states the change from filling a vacant elected county position using a special election under state election laws versus an election by the county convention may reduce county expenditures for those few times an elected county seat is vacated and needs to be filled.