Transcript Highlights:

• Last legislative session, Senate Bill 487 established that the PAB should be an independent state agency
• 00:06:40.560> established<00:06:41.560> that<00:06:41.720> the<00:06:42.039> PAB

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard from the Personnel Appeals Board, which explained that it became an independent state agency after Senate Bill 487 and was presenting its first standalone operating budget. The board described its quasi-judicial role in hearing appeals from classified state employees over disciplinary actions such as warnings, suspensions, and terminations, and said it handles about 25 to 35 cases a year, with some cases lasting longer because of their complexity. Members also outlined the need for a chair and vice chair who are attorneys, the board’s current staffing and space needs, and its plan to move away from reliance on Administrative Services for office support and website functions. The board requested about $353,500 for fiscal year 2026, including startup costs, routine operating expenses, and two new part-time positions: a program director and a paralegal. Members said the budget reflects the new independent status, includes funding for only four board members rather than the authorized five, and is designed to avoid full-time staffing costs and benefits. Legislators asked about the cost per case, the board’s relationship to DAS, whether appeals must go through the board before court, and how often cases are appealed further. The board said appeals must first go through it, that court appeals are infrequent but have increased recently, and that the board’s process is intended to resolve disputes more quickly and less expensively than court litigation. Committee members also asked about the board’s caseload, outcomes, and staffing. The board said that in the prior year there were 22 cases, with four decisions overturned in favor of employees, nine dismissals, and nine settlements, and that many disputes are resolved before reaching the board through a multi-step internal process. A member noted the governor and council had recently approved a new board member and were expected to approve a fifth soon. The discussion ended with questions about the board’s website and records access, which members said would need to be moved from Administrative Services as part of the agency’s transition. The committee then moved to the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities. The executive director explained that the council is 100 percent federally funded under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and develops a five-year plan to address the needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She said the council works with state agencies and advocacy organizations on quality-of-life issues, accessibility, voter rights training, and plain-language or easy-to-read materials, and that 60 percent of its membership must be individuals with disabilities or family members/guardians. She also described the council’s funding structure, including reimbursement to the state for operating costs, and noted that it currently has three full-time and three part-time positions, with no new positions requested but one full-time position being eliminated and replaced after a pandemic-era staffing change did not work out as planned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I presume this is section 187 of PAB 2.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met to continue work on House Bill 2, with the chair saying the goal was to finish the bill as given by the governor, though additional amendments were expected. Members first discussed the bail section and agreed to hold it for later because a separate House bail bill was expected on Thursday and could have significant county cost impacts. They also generally accepted the proposed reorganization of positions between Fish and Game, DNCR, and the Department of Environmental Services, but noted the need to review effective dates and funding details, including a possible double appropriation of $275,000 for a scientist position already funded in HB 1. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on environmental review and native plant-related sections moving functions from DNCR to DES. Members discussed changing the rulemaking timeline from 180 days to 90 days, and clarifying that “begin” means the public hearing stage. They also reviewed how fee revenue would shift between agencies in HB 1 so the budget impact would be net zero. The committee indicated it would prepare amendments reflecting these changes and revisit them at a later vote. The longest discussion concerned the boathouse provisions. Members debated whether the new definitions and construction standards were appropriate in a budget bill, with one member arguing they should be in a separate bill, while others said the provisions were urgent because of a lawsuit and the lack of clear guardrails. Concerns included the February 20, 2025 effective date, which some thought might be retroactive, the detailed limits on what may be stored in a boathouse, and a fee increase that some felt could discourage homeowners from seeking permits. The committee also questioned whether the fee structure should be tiered for smaller projects and whether permit-by-notification projects should be exempted. No final votes were taken on these sections during the discussion; instead, members agreed to seek legal and policy answers and to return with amendments and public hearing input before voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• “If I know that the PAB has a budget line item of $250,000 a year and that we heard yesterday in the

Keywords: 1189, house, all