For someone that has written about the legislative process for years, it is a much different viewpoint when you involve yourself directly in the sausage factory. No, I haven’t become a “factory worker” (a legislator) but a constituent that saw a flaw in the State Statutes (or “RSAs”) and decided “why NOT me” in proposing a fix.
As many of you that follow GraniteGrok know I found something out. That when a Budget Committee told the “Governing Bodies” (e.g., the town selectmen, the School Board) they couldn’t spend money on a certain project or service (where the “No means NO!” comes from), it meant very little. There is a technicality once the budgets are “uplifted” to the NH Department of Revenue (“DRA”). Via the DRA’s innocuously named MS-Forms that are “roll ups” of the General Ledger line items on which BudComms must work.
Stated another way, the DRA doesn’t care about all of the line items of your local Public Works budget. They are only concerned with the entire amount for that “Purpose” of funding that DPW. Once received and accepted, the Governing Bodies are then free to blithely transfer any monies for any “lower purpose” they want. Even if the BudComm said “No!” As long as that reported entire amount is not exceeded.
As I noted here, my bill was accepted and became LSR 2019-0573 HB. Now, it has become HB576 – “AN ACT relative to municipal and district budget committees.”
Not only that, it has grown from having one sponsor, Glen Aldrich (one of my reps from Gilford) to a few more folks: Harry Bean (also from Gilford), Mike Sylvia, Michael Yakubovich, Peter Torosian, Jesse Edwards, and John Potucek. I am very grateful to them all for thinking that this technical correction is actually worth it (and would LOVE to see more)!
Now, as it was making its way into the HB hopper and Glen has sent me a draft of it, I noticed a couple of things that needed a bit more modification to really tighten up the language. I let Glen know and he arranged for me to sit with the Legislative Service folks yesterday (who work on the language for the bills going before the Legislature).
Here are the modifications to the original changes I submitted:
RSA 32:5 VI.
Upon completion of the budgets, an original of each budget and of each recommendation upon special warrant articles, signed by a quorum of the governing body, or of the budget committee, if any, shall be placed on file with the town or district clerk. A copy of the Budget Committee Exceptions Report (above), signed by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Budget Committee, will also be place on file with the town or district clerk(s). A certified copy of each document type shall be forwarded by the chair of the budget committee, if any, or otherwise by the chair of the governing body, and to the commissioner of revenue administration pursuant to RSA 21-J:34.
RSA 32:10 (b):
Records shall be kept by the governing body, such that the budget committee, if any, or any citizen requesting such records pursuant to RSA 91-A:4, may ascertain the purposes of appropriations to which, and from which, amounts have been transferred; provided, however, that neither the budget committee nor other citizens shall have any authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of the governing body in making such transfers unless such transfers begin or end in a GL line level account enumerated in the “Budget Committee Exception Report to the MS-Forms”. If so, the Governing body’s transfer shall be disallowed.
RSA 32:11
Such application shall be made prior to the making of such expenditure. No such authority shall be granted [until a majority of the budget committee, if any, has approved the application in writing] if such a Purpose / GL line level account is explicitly enumerated on the “Budget Committee Exception Report to the MS-Forms”. If there is no such Report or enumeration therein, then such authority shall be granted when a majority of the budget committee, if any, has approved the application in writing. If there is no budget committee, the governing body shall hold a public hearing on the request, with notice as provided in RSA 91-A:2.
Hmmm, RSA 91-A. For some reason, that RSA (otherwise known as part of the Right To Know (“RTK”) law kept ringing in my ears on the way down to Concord. Then I figured out why and suggested it to the LR staff member. The problem with RSA91 is that while it outlines how Government is to act to keep the public stuff public, there are those in government that don’t believe that their data is really OUR data – our tax dollars pay for it to be created, formatted, stored – and should be retrievable when we ask for it. So, other bills have been put forward to put teeth into the bills such that if elected, appointed, or employees of citizens fail to live up to both the spirit and the letter of the law, there are penalties that could be applied because they failed to do their jobs.
So, because of the shenanigans I have seen over the years, I asked that language be applied such that if someone votes to approve spending on an item that is listed in the BudComm Exception Report (above), there would be a $100 fine to be paid PERSONALLY (and not from the Town or District funds). A second-time infraction would be $200; third would be $300, and so on.
Teeth, baby, teeth. And there would be no Qualified Immunity available to hide behind. Do what’s right or pay for the wrong. Simple, clear-cut, and enforceable.
After all, if we are expected to follow “their laws”, why can’t we expect them to follow our’s?
To be continued.