House Rep. Betsey Patten: May 2009 Archives

N.H. has an official dog, and a law made in haste

Long-time readers of the “Alert” should be familiar with the fact that one of the most contentious issues to confront the N.H. Legislature is the subject of “pets.” However, the House was able to deal with “dog” bill last week in a most pleasant and, based on the applause from the gallery, with great satisfaction from the session’s attendees. SB-13 declared the Chinook the state dog. The bill originated with the 7^th  grade of Bedford’s Lurgio Middle School. They took up the project and presented testimony before the respective House and Senate committees that this particular breed deserved the honor as it was the only dog originating in N.H. It also became a civics lesson in making law for the class that concluded with a overwhelming 335-23 division vote and a round of cheers from the students in the gallery. I wonder who were the 23 “no” votes? If the day started on such a happy note, it was not to last. SB-144 changes current law relating to the employment compensation trust fund to allow for unemployment benefi ts for job terminations instigated by the employee — in cases of domestic abuse, relocation of a spouse for a new job, and incapacitating health issues. While the change will allow the state to collect $21-million in Federal dollars for our depleted fund, the argument was made that employers will be penalized in the long run for these new categories. I felt that employers shouldn’t have to pay in cases of termination for personal choices of the employee. I voted

against the bill, but the majority of the House voted in favor. SB-153 proved to be a lesson in making law in haste. This bill provides relief to the auto dealers of the state in the midst of a major restructuring of the American automobile industry. It was rushed through the Senate, received a House hearing and a committee vote into the wee hours of the prior night, and required a suspension of House rules (2/3 vote) to allow consideration and debate. The committee vote was a unanimous favorable recommendation and was passed by the House by a significant majority. And I voted against it. I argued on the floor that the bill would represent a confl ict with the Administration’s attempt to rationalize the auto industry into a competitive force. One of the key reasons that American car companies are not competitive with their foreign counterparts is the size and nature of their dealership arrangements. Despite being touted as a “jobs bill,” I felt that the N.H. Legislature was negating business contracts after the fact, smacking of an “ex post facto” law. Where do we draw the line on government bailouts of American business? The dealerships, of course, lobbied hard for the bill. When good economic times return, I suspect that they will also lobby hard against government

intrusion into their business world. As indicated, the bill passed easily. It wasn’t the fi rst time I vote against a large majority; it won’t be the last. ,The House voted to pass legislation (SB-180) that puts the final touches on the issue of “adequacy” in public education in the state, by establishing a method of holding the schools accountable both in terms of meeting instructional standards (inputs) and/ or students’ performance (outputs). The bill passed easily by a large majority. I voted on the prevailing side. While we have now satisfied the state Supreme Court’s constitutional requirements relative to education adequacy, you have to wonder about

the funding requirement. Some would say that we’ve already accomplished this feat with the state-wide property tax; I think that we can do a better and fairer job. Finishing the bills on our calendar took approximately 2-hours. However, dealing with “messages” from the Senate would dominate another 3-hours. HB-436 would consume most of that time. As well publicized, the Senate had passed the so-called “gay marriage” bill, but had tacked on amendments that required our concurrence. The major change from the Senate was to clearly differentiate between religious and civil marriage. It was a change that was debated in the House, but defeated. I had supported this division, as it seemed clear that couples, whether gay or straight, married regardless of any religious affiliation. Further, such differentiation follows in the American tradition of separation of church and state. This made the bill a matter of civil rights. The Senate had also more clearly stated that clergy were not obligated to solemnize any marriage that conflicted with their religious beliefs.The House concurred with the Senate’s amendments by a 178-167 roll call vote. I voted with the majority. The governor will now decide the fate of gay marriage in New Hampshire. The only other Senate “message” that might have prompted some serious debate related to HB-648, on the medical use of marijuana. However, the differences between the House and Senate versions were too great, so a committee of conference was moved and accepted. These differences will now be hammered out by the committee

before returning to the two legislative chambers. While that concluded a long afternoon in Concord, the state representatives of Belknap County were not done for the day. We had the opportunity to meet with the county’s law enforcement officers that evening in Tilton. The give-and-take discussion focused on the legislative issues that most concerned the chiefs, and we appreciated the chance to listen and comment. Moreover, they even fed us. A worthwhile night! Stay tuned. (Bill Johnson is a State Representative from Gilford representing Belknap County District #5 which includes Alton, Barnstead, Belmont and Gilford. He can be reached at billjohn4@ metrocast.net or 524-8949.)