1979 SB21 Legislative History

Versions of SB21:

• SB21 As Introduced

Senate Index

[HJ 2572] SB 21 Repealing the law that exempts the department of employment security from the right to know law. (Splain et al) 94, S Ct opin req (SR 4) 594-595, LT 726, opin printed 1061, 1062, K 1620

From 1979 Senate Journal

Tuesday, January 16, 1979

[SJ 93] INTRODUCTION OF SENATE BILLS

Sen. Brown moved the following resolution:

Resolved, that in accordance with the list in the possession of the Clerk, Senate Bills numbered 20 and 23 shall be by [SJ 94] this resolution read a first and second time by the therein listed titles, laid on the table for printing and referred to the therein designated committees.

Adopted.

SB 21, repealing the law that exempts the department of employment security from the right to know law. (Splain of Dist. 24; Allen of Dist. 7; Bodi or Merrimack Dist. 7; Morrisette of Strafford Dist. 7-Executive Departments)

Thursday, April 19, 1979

[SJ 594] INTRODUCTION OF A SENATE RESOLUTION

Senate Resolution No. 4

requesting an opinion of the justices on SB 21

WHEREAS, There is presently pending before the Senate, SB 21, "An Act repealing the law that exempts the department of employment security from the right to know law"; and

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 21 provides solely for the repeal of RSA 91-A:6 which states that "(RSA Chapter 91-A) shall not apply to RSA 282, relative to employment security;" and

WHEREAS, RSA 282:9 (M) makes confidential certain information obtained from individuals, claimants, and employing units pursuant to the administration of RSA Chapter 282; and

WHEREAS, RSA 91-A:5, IV exempts from the right to know law . . . records pertaining to internal personnel practices, confidential, commercial, or financial information, personal, medical, welfare, and other files whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy; and

WHEREAS, RSA 91-A:4 bars disclosure of information or records "otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5"; now therefore be it

RESOLVED by the Senate that the Justices of the New Hampshire Supreme Court be respectfully requested to give their opinion in answer to the following questions:

1. Would passage of SB 21 make administrative determinations and hearings of the department of employment security relative to claims for benefits "public proceedings" under RSA 91-A:1-a and 2 (Supp. 1977)?

[SJ 595] 2. Would passage of SB 21 make available to the public records and information the disclosure of which is otherwise made or deemed confidential by or pursuant to RSA 282:9 (M)?

3. Would passage of SB 21 make available to the public the personnel, financial, commercial, personal or confidential information of individuals, claimants, and employing units?

That the Clerk of the Senate submit the necessary copies of this resolution to the Clerk of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Sen. CONLEY: Mr. President, members of the Senate, we, the members of the Senate Executive Departments Committee voted unanimously yesterday to present to the Senate, Senate Resolution No. 4, which is making a request to the Supreme Court to give an opinion on three basic questions that the committee felt need to be answered before we can make an appropriate decision on SB 21, an act repealing the law that exempts the Department of Employment Security from the right to know law. We had 16 pages of testimony. This is a bill which has come before the Senate and the House on occasions before and has raised the same questions year after year. The committee felt that it was about time that we raised the question and had them answered or at least try to get an opinion of the court before we carry this bill any further. I might say to you that this resolution has been discussed with Mr. Adams, he is aware of the resolution and has shared in its adoption by the Senate today. The essence of it is in question 1, 2 and 3 on the bottom of page 1 and at the top of 2 and I believe that they speak for themselves and if there is any question, I would be happy to answer them. As I said this was the unanimous vote of the Executive Departments Committee and it has the approval of the commissioner who was involved.

Adopted.

[SJ 685] COMMITTEE REPORTS

Senator Conley moved that the words "inexpedient to legislate" be substituted for the words "without recommendation."

Senator Poulson moved that SB 21 be laid on the table.

Adopted.

Tuesday, May 15, 1979

[SJ 1061] Supreme Court Decision on SB 21 Rendered May 7, 1979

To the Honorable Senate

The undersigned justices of the supreme court return the following reply to your request filed in this court on April 24, 1979.

Your request is as follows:

Whether the enactment of Senate Bill 21, which proposes to repeal the provision of the right to know statute, RSA 91-A:6, that the right to know statute does not apply to employment security, RSA ch. 282, would make

1. administrative determinations and hearings of the department of employment security relative to claims for benefits "public proceedings" under RSA 91-A:1-a, :2 (Supp. 1977); and

2. records and information, which RSA 282:9(M) makes confidential, available to the public; and

3. personnel, financial, commercial, personal, or confidential, information of individuals, claimants, and employing units available to the public.

The repeal of the exemption in question, without more, might create ambiguities as to whether administrative determinations and hearings would become public and whether the confidentiality provisions of RSA 282:9(M) would be impliedly repealed even though RSA 91-A:5, IV already exempts certain personnel, financial, commercial, personal, or confidential information from being made public. The existence [SJ 1062] of these ambiguities is presently known to the Honorable Senate and appears to be the underlying reason for the request. Moreover, the request seeks, to a large extent, an interpretation of existing statutes.

Any contingent ambiguities between RSA ch. 91-A and RSA 282:9 (M) may easily be removed by express provisions added to the pending legislation which will make clear the legislative intent.

We respectfully ask, therefore, to be excused from answering your present inquiries as not being within the spirit or the letter of N.H. Const. pt. 2, art. 74. Opinion of the Justices, 116 N.H. 358, 360 A.2d 889 (1976).

We are returning the reply without waiting for the filing of memoranda in order to save unnecessary work on the part of those who have planned to file such memoranda.

Edward J. Lampron
William A. Grimes
Maurice P. Bois
Charles G. Douglas, III
David A. Brock

May 7, 1979

Thursday, June 7, 1979

[SJ 1617] Senator Preston spoke under Rule 44.

Sen. PRESTON: Last December we had our differences. There was a fight for the presidency and you won. We had a big debate on rules. It was a power play to give you essentially all the power you needed to run the Senate and you won. I must admit throughout the session, I think we have moved efficiently and in a timely manner. But what I just witnessed was the worst parliamentary maneuver I think that I have ever seen in my three terms as served in the Senate. I think it was discourteous, I think it was one of the most distasteful tactics I've ever seen, to deny some of the Senators and the House members the opportunity to at least give some last minute consideration to their bills. Some of the senators in this chamber had asked two days ago for the opportunity to take their bills off the table and in my mind, and I will stand to be corrected, you recognized the motion, it was a lower priority in my mind from the list you had then at the time given to you. Mr. President, you have displayed your power, you've proven you've got the votes, but in this case I think it was disgusting.

Senator Allen spoke under Rule 44.

Sen. ALLEN: Mr. President, I may be a freshman and new comer to this body but I am absolutely appalled by your maneuver. It is a fact that you knew yesterday that I wanted to take two different bills off the table. You did not let me take one of them off, and you thanked me for informing you about the other one. I do not believe that you already had this motion in hand or had it drafted. I doubt that you had all the other speakers who came before me today. It is a fact that another Senator was put off two days ago with a thing he wanted to take off the table [SJ 1618] you said to put it off until today. And you then have forbidden him to speak. There is absolutely no evidence that this is proper. The privileges of the Senate body have been abused, the debate has been reasonable, I do not believe that any of the senators have made a mockery out of our process and to cut it off so abruptly, I think is an appalling behavior.

Senator Bergeron spoke under rule 44.

Sen. BERGERON: We have heard charges here that I think are poppycock, I would defy and ask both Senator Preston and Senator Allen to submit to this body their proof and their evidence that the motions in the order that they were submitted to the chair were not handled. I don't think they can prove this, I think they're sour grapes, and I wish if they can prove the motion that they would come forth to the full body.

Senator Saggiotes spoke under rule 44.

Sen. SAGGIOTES: As many of you know I am completing my 8th term in the Legislature, I've enjoyed my service in the legislature and serving the people of New Hampshire. But this is the first time in the 8 sessions that I have served under a number of presiding officers whereby I feel that the preciding officer could have exercised a little more fairness in his decision to accept the motion of adjournment. He has the power both to accept and to refuse. My point is that I believe that he exercised poor judgment in accepting the motion to adjourn, but that is not my point because I have known Sen. Monier for a number of years and I know him fairly well. I'm disappointed in some of the Senators who went along with his decision to cut some of us Senators who were interested in bills to be taken off the table not for our own personal interest but the interest of the individuals who have elected us. That is the reason that we are all here. We're not down here for the $100 a year we get or for personal gain in most instances. Yes, in some instances, there are people who are interested in their own interests particularly in some of the committees that they might be serving on or heading. So, I close by saying that I'm deeply disappointed [SJ 1619] in the judgment of the chair and I would also like to apologize to my fellow Senators for having to take this time to say these few words.

Senator Rock spoke under rule 44.

Sen. ROCK: I'll be very brief. I think there have been unfair criticisms aimed in a direction in which they are not properly aimed. You all have the rules of the Senate. There has been criticism of the Senate President for recognizing an elected member of the Senate to speak and make a motion. Under Rule 8 of the Senate the motion was in order. I may not be the greatest Parliamentarian in the world, but I see no way if I were sitting in that chair or anyone else, that he could refuse to accept that motion. If you want to make an issue out of it, make an issue out of the roll call. That is where the issue is. The majority of the Senators voted that we have had enough, there is a lot of work to be done both in Capital Budget and in Finance. Some of the bills that are on the table have been there for weeks and weeks and nobody made a move to take them off. So I certainly have no criticism of the Chair for accepting a proper motion in proper order from a Senator who had been recognized. Had that failed, then some other action would have taken place. I support the vote. I support the motion and I certainly support the proper parliamentary procedure that was adopted, followed and all of us in this Senate adopted those rules.

Senator Splaine spoke under Rule 44.

Sen. SPLAINE: "It is with a humble heart and a sense of deep responsibility that I accept this office. Ideas rule the world, obstructionism, antagonism, and special interests or concerns are the tools of those who are without real ideas." Those comments were spoken by you, Mr. President, on December 6, immediately following your election as President of the Senate. It seems to me that we have demonstrated by our action here today in tableing all of the other bills, consequently letting them die, and adjourning until next Monday that we had used, arrogantly used, parliamentary procedure, parliamentary order, so that we can go home to a parade or [SJ 1620] whatever and end up killing a number of bills. We don't need any other proof than this list of ours we received on our table today. This is the proof of the bills which by that vote that we had a few moments ago we killed. Everyone voting in favor of Sen. Sanborn's motion which sees the Senate adjourn today voted opposed to all of these bills including annual sessions, including legislation that would have repealed the law that exempts the Department of Employment Security from the right to know law, that Senator Allen wanted to make his motion on and which I had co-sponsored during this session of the legislature. Those are the issues that the Senators who voted in favor of the motion that adjourns this Senate today voted in favor of killing. I don't always, even after 10 years in the State Legislature, including 4 terms in the House and 6 months in the Senate, I don't always understand the intricasies and some of the reasons behind what happens on the Senate floor. I do know that there was a lot of political game playing in order to come up with this kind of motion and this kind of vote today and I think it is a dastardly dead and alot of people are going to keep their eyes on this Senate during the next three weeks to see what else happens.

Senator Rock moved to adjourn at 3:30 p.m.

Adopted.

The following list of bills laid on the table were made inexpedient to legislate by the motion to adjourn:

SB 21, repealing the law that exempts the department of employment security from the right to know law.