Special Meeting BOS 08 24 2026

Speakers are labeled SPEAKER_N. This transcript is machine-generated.

Recording

America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.
>> All right. Thank you, Representatives
Sir and Kofalt for coming. We do
appreciate the answer to the call and we
appreciate his service.
>> Appreciate you. Appreciate the
opportunity to be here.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> So, this we started this what would you
say four years ago, five years ago,
>> something like that.
>> Um, and it's been a very informal.
We give you the floor to um update us as
sele to what's going on at the state
house and then also of course with the
public here if they have any questions.
But really looking to you um handing the
floor over to you both of you um yeah to
bring us up to speed. All right. Well,
um I think you know we're we're just at
the end of our two-year session.
Normally, we meet January to June. And
the first year of the bianium, which
would have been last year, was a budget
year. So, the big, you know, it's a
whole lot of work leading up to the
passage of a budget in the end of June.
Um this year, we're able to finish a
little bit earlier because it was not a
budget year. Um And then just last week
we had veto day um where we considered
the the governor's vetos and whether or
not to override them. I unfortunately
had travel already planned. Uh normally
we put veto day out in September October
but uh this year uh the decision was
made
you know against my wishes to uh to have
it in in August at a time when I already
had a trip planned. So, uh, that
actually we the house overrode the house
and senate overrode seven vetos, which
is, uh, an extraordinarily high number
for for a sitting governor with
legislators controlled by the same
party. But
>> I think those were some good and
important overrides and
>> the most in the century, I think, too.
>> Yeah. Was it?
>> Yeah. She she actually vetoed more uh
bills I think than than um again of the
of the same party controlling the
legislature. Um but there were some I
think some good things that were
overridden. So the the highway bill uh
she she had concerns about um toll
increases for for people who don't have
an easy pass. basically is something
that all surrounding states are doing is
essentially it's their way of charging
our people more money for going through
tolls in their states. And so we're
essentially doing the same thing now. Um
I I wish all the states would stop doing
it, but uh that was the sticking point
for her. But the the important part of
that bill was it's a 10-year highway
plan. It has a lot of funding in it for
uh roads and bridges and highways and a
lot of infrastructure uh costs that
really um you know needed to be moved
forward.
>> So it was vetoed because of the tolls
>> because of the tolls and um you know
generally speaking people were very
supportive of the idea that if other
states are charging us more you know we
actually don't even have that many
tolls. And um so she was concerned that
people would decide not to vacation in
New Hampshire because of the extra
toll that they would be paying which I
think is
probably not enough for hope to really
decide not to to vacation here.
Um, there was another one that was, I
think, not not on a lot of people's
radar screen, but I think it was an
important one, and it was a bipartisan
uh strong bipartisan agreement. Um, had
to do with
the ability for somebody who's been
convicted of a crime to uh if if new
evidence comes up, they can appeal for a
new trial. Doesn't mean they'll
necessarily get one, but they can ask
for a new trial based on new evidence.
becoming available or new technology
like you know at one time DNA technology
was not you know didn't exist. So
um now it does. So if in New Hampshire
if you were convicted of a crime you had
three years to appeal. So if new
evidence became available or new
technology became available after three
years you're out of luck. And I think if
you have an opportunity to prove your
innocence and uh you know a judge sees
that there is new ev evidence and agrees
that you should have that it should be
heard then I don't think there should be
a time limit on it. So this is in fact
what that bill did. Um
former chief justice of the New
Hampshire Supreme Court Bob Lynn was a
big proponent of that bill. We have
people from both sides of the aisle who
felt that it was important that New
Hampshire join the vast majority of
other states that do not have a time
limit on that. So that was that was an
important one that uh was also
overridden.
>> So what was the reason for the veto?
>> Well, the reason that she gave in her
veto statement was that it would be um
unnecessarily traumatic for the families
of crime victims.
>> I see.
>> And I I
I'm I'm sympathetic to that argument and
I also understand the governor as a as a
former prosecutor kind of has that that
mindset. But um I think the the
principle of innocent till proven guilty
and the if there's an opportunity to do
justice and justice was not done. I
think it's important that um
>> that people have that opportunity. Um so
that was overridden. We also had one
that came very close to an override,
fell short by a handful of votes, but uh
that had to do with meat inspections.
And um I know some some folks here in in
Whipswitch who would very much have
liked that bill to pass because it would
have um potentially freed them from some
of the U some of the oversight of the
USDA. And I've heard quite a few
complaints about USDA inspections versus
um you know versus the the higher
standards that that that most of these
businesses have for um for for
maintaining you know clean healthy
operations. So um what's crazy is that
the USDA actually allows a certain
amount of garbage in their meat like
cigarette butts. It doesn't matter for
debris, they allow it.
>> When when the inspection is done on
local farms, you know, that that do this
um you know, and other other places,
they're much cleaner facilities. And so
that was that was another argument, but
um it was it was a very great bill and
um now it almost passed. I mean,
overturned and then but it didn't. So we
there was a motion to reconsider and
then it failed by three votes. We came
so close to overturning that and that
was probably one of the biggest bills on
on you know on our side that we wanted
to overturn. That was that was something
that was just so important to us. It was
a priority
>> and we we lost it by three
>> HB 396.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So for people who aren't aware, how many
members are in the house
>> this? Well, actually what is the number?
Because it should be 400. should be 400,
but we have a few um few resignations.
Um we had a lot we've had I don't know
if we've had any any people pass uh this
year, but we've had a few resignations
and um so it's it's generally
in the mid 390s,
you know, between 395. There's a lot 400
>> there are a lot in fact
>> um
>> when
392 active right now
>> we're hearing 392 active so thank you
>> but on veto day there was a lot of
resations so
>> that was a special day
>> there was a lot of resations that day
>> so um so when I when I speak to people
in other legislatores from around the
states and Canada and elsewhere you say
there's 400 in New Hampshire, they just
they can't believe it. Um, it is a large
group, but it's a citizen legislature
and that's one of the things that I like
about it. Um,
so we get paid $100 a year. Um,
>> tax
>> and it is taxed and
>> and and you have to buy your you have to
buy your license plates, you have to buy
your name tags, you have to buy your uh
your business cards.
>> So, there's really not anything left
when you're when you're done with all
that. But uh you know so it's
essentially a volunteer position and I
think that means that you know
regardless of which side side of the
aisle you're on you're there because you
care not because you're you know raking
in a big salary and benefits. So
>> but so when you have these really close
votes
it it's kind of surprising to me with so
many members in the house
>> that you come down to the wire. Is that
two/3 majority on that vote?
>> So that would be 2/3 would have
>> it's it's 2/3 present um present in
voting. So if you're in the House
chamber, you're required to cast a vote.
If you don't want to vote on a bill, you
can leave the House chamber, but if
you're in the chamber, you have to vote.
And
>> we had very low attendance that day.
Well, I mean,
>> it was very low attendance because it
was it was scheduled on short notice
when it
We would have had much better
attendance. I would have personally
would have preferred if we' had it in
September, October like we normally do.
But
>> so are there plans to bring up this meat
bill again?
>> Um I expect that it will come up again.
So Barbara Kaisa was the prime sponsor
of that. Um she is a farmer uh from up
in Belnap County and she's been, you
know, a very strong advocate of this. In
fact, I I met probably year and a half
ago, two years ago with her and some
constituents from New Hips Switch who
you know who who are in that business.
And um you know I think that that and
some other folks who who have a strong
interest in this has sort of led to this
getting to where it is. Very often we
bring legislation forward. It gets up to
a certain point. We learn what the
objections are. we learn maybe what we
need to do to over you know to overcome
the objections. How can we improve the
bill? We bring it back the next year
with the hope that we can get it passed.
Sometimes you get different people in
the house. Sometimes you get a different
you know committee membership and they
recommend it instead of not recommending
it. In this case given the given the
numbers I think, you know, there's a
very good likelihood it could pass
again. Um, and I think on a different
veto day, we might have we might have
prevailed with that one.
>> Then there was a few others.
>> Uh, there were a few others and
>> then were the main ones.
>> Um, yeah, those were the key ones. There
there were some bills which you know
some of the ones that I have have
advocated for um around sort of
separation of of uh or allowing
separation of facilities, bathroom
facilities, locker rooms, prisons um
based on biological sex. Those were
vetoed and the vetos were I did not
expect that we would be able to override
those.
>> No, we did not.
>> Those were upsetting to me. So that was
like the third year that that was
attempted.
>> Yeah. And and I had a conversation with
the governor oneonone actually. And her
reason to me it was a little bit
different than what she put out to to
the public was was that she she was just
afraid of litigation statewide. And I
said and that's probably likely to
happen but it's it's still doing the
right thing. And and what about the the
likelihood of litigation because, you
know, a family a 12-y old girl gets
assaulted in the bathroom, you know, by
by a male, you know, what about that
litigation, you know, and so but
that's a
>> litigation,
>> it seems like is a strong motivator
of
for better or worse,
>> right? It comes down to
>> people making decisions. Yeah.
>> It's a fear thing. is the tool of the
enemy. And I I don't I don't operate
that way. I stand in truth and what's
right. And uh unfortunately, that didn't
didn't work in our favor, but we're
going to keep fighting for it.
>> So, yeah. So, I I think uh at the end of
the day, we got some good legislation
passed. Um there were,
you know, with the the budget is always
a very big deal, but there's some things
that we did uh as policy in the budget
that uh that I think were important. Um
I've been advocating for quite a long
time that if you don't want a particular
vaccine, you shouldn't be forced to get
a particular vaccine. And um so for for
years there there was
a law in place that basically said well
the the unelected people at the
Department of Health and Human Services
can add anything any any requirement
they want to the list of mandated
vaccines for children. And um and so I
had introduced legislation again. This
was one of those where it came back over
and over again. Um, and we finally got
that through where it said we're not
going to if if if we're going to have
mandates, it needs to be passed by
elected representatives, not by
unelected officials in a state agency.
So, we got that passed. I was thrilled
about that. We we also did something
with foster
the again the unelected agency personnel
come up with administrative rules in
this in the case I'm about to talk about
has to do with foster homes and there
were some vaccine requirements on foster
homes that in essence made it a
requirement to have the co shot and
every other shot on the CDC's list which
is a very long list for everyone in the
home. So, I introduced a bill a couple
years ago and we got it passed that
said, "No, the children won't be
mandated to have those, but we still had
adults required to get those." And um
now we've removed the requirement. We're
just saying everybody is everybody in
the state has the same requirements.
You're not going to have more or less
than anybody else. And previously, they
didn't allow the religious exemption for
foster homes, which to me is crazy. If
you have a religious objection, if you
have a moral objection to um to certain
vaccines because of their ingredients,
um that should be that should apply no
matter what. And you should be able to
foster children even if you have those
concerns. So we got rid of that um and
said everybody gets access to the
religious exemption.
>> That's good. Um so we we did some things
with um with school choice as well. So
um education freedom accounts are
something that have been very popular.
Um we're actually a lot more popular
than uh anyone anticipated at first. Um
and so we we expanded that program such
that the there's a sort of a gradual
removing the the cap on income. So it's
not means tested. So that'll take some
time for that to to go into effect. Um
but that's another another key change.
Um, we also brought back bills to try to
um empower parents and limit the
some of the obscene materials in in
school libraries because there are
some libraries where there are
shockingly obscene materials. And uh it
just blows my mind that that is allowed.
But um that's one that we're still we're
still pushing to to try to create some
some
better processes for parents to object
and some u
some ways to get, you know, protections
against some of those things being
school libraries.
>> But no headway
>> on Sunday.
>> Yeah. Well, um I mean no bills were put
forward. Uh well, the governor vetoed
one last year. Um and again, it's you
know there there are people who have
said um you know it's censorship and I
can tell you I've seen some of these
materials and it's
there.
This is not about opinion or or
presenting different points of view.
This is about some really
>> graphic,
>> really, really graphic and disturbing
stuff.
>> And so I would say it's not it
censorship is when the government tells
you you cannot have, you know, you
cannot you cannot publish this, you
cannot buy it. Um, we would not put
pornographic magazines in the school
library or I would hope we wouldn't. And
yet we have books that are
um pretty pretty close to the same
thing. And so um it's not censorship. I
think it's a matter of drawing some
boundaries around what we think are
appropriate materials, age appropriate
materials for children
>> for uh for children.
>> Um so
>> uh that is something that we've we've
been continuing to push for and will
continue to push for as well.
So on the subject of schools, was it the
moderator who brought up that there
might be a re kind of a referendum
question on the ballot this?
>> So So there there was a bill introduced
in the the initial bill, House Bill 675
was
have applied would have essentially
automatically
applied it a a budget cap on school
districts. So it said essentially given
the the growth of the of the student
population
and inflation and other factors, the
budget could go up by a certain amount,
but it couldn't go up beyond that unless
you had a twothirds vote of the people
attending the district, the voters,
whether it's a district meeting or um an
SB2 ballot. um that budget override
and and and we have a provision in state
law right now that allows districts to
you can you can petition and vote for
a cap and the cap would say you can only
go up by a certain amount and if you
want to go above that then you have to
have a twothirds majority to go above
that.
>> We had we had some petition warrant
articles come through
>> but there's a process to it.
>> Yes. that that petitioners were not
aware of.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah.
>> So So the the original bill 675 would
have basically just automatically
applied that to every every district in
the state. Um but there there were some
people had some concerns about that. So
what ended up passing instead was to put
it on the general election ballot to ask
voters, do you want a tax cap? uh or or
a budget cap in your school district. Um
and
um I think the the idea there is that we
get a lot more people showing up for an
election in November typically than we
do for an election in you know the local
elections in most towns of New
Hampshire. There's not a very big
turnout. So it's a more representative
um
expression of what the what the voters
want. So that will be happening this
November that will be on the ballot in
every
every city and town in state.
>> Is there a place we can go to see the
verbiage on that?
>> Um the statute would have the verbiage
if you if you look up House Bill 1300.
Um
House Bill 1300 was what was the bill
that that had that in it. and um I would
have to so so the verbiage that will go
on the ballot is in is in that bill and
that has been passed and signed. So now
it's it's in statute as well. So I just
I don't remember which RSA which which
statute it would be in
>> legisl will tell you where it is.
>> What's that?
>> Legiscan.
>> Yep. Legiscan is a good source and I
usually go to the general court website.
So ggc.nh.gov.
Jim core you can search it or if even if
you Google if you put NH
space HB and then the bill number
>> that's how I've found it'll pop
>> usually you can find it on both of them
>> and like legislator will have a history
of where it went you know if it was in
the Senate where it is now it'll give
the whole history down
>> well that'll be interesting so then if
if a town passes it it is or does this
have to be a statewide
>> No it's at the district level. So if it
if the people if the voters in that
district say nope we don't want that
then it doesn't happen. It's also only
going on this one November ballot. So I
think the original there was a version
of the bill earlier that
said it would go on the November ballot
every two years and the Senate amended
that to say no we're just going to do it
once in in 2026. So then there must be a
provision that a town could put it on
the ballot
>> should it fail.
>> You can you can always you can always
you can always put it on the warrant. I
you can always make a warrant article
for it
>> to redo it.
>> Yeah. But and and there's process also
for removing the tax cap. If you have if
you had a tax cap and you want to remove
it there's a process for that as well.
>> Okay. So, you know, what we've seen is
generally speaking, twothirds is not um
it's certainly not an insurmountable
bar. Um so, it's just basically the
argument is if you if you want to if you
want to increase spending above
inflation and above the the the growth
of students in the district,
you have a higher standard for
justifying those additional expenses.
>> So, And this would only apply to
schools,
>> correct?
Um,
so some other
um legislation I had I had one that
passed that had to do with um PEL
grants. So we had some legislation. So
at the federal level um HR1
um made a lot of changes
uh to to
Medicaid Medicaid eligibility, the SNAP
program. And so those are changes from
the federal level that are pushed down
on states. And then there were some uh
there's some leeway in how states
implement those things. So for example,
the Medicaid,
the federal government added a work
requirement for Medicaid, and the work
requirement is for able-bodied adults uh
between
18 and 65, I think. Um, but it doesn't
apply to anybody over 65.
Um, and it's only able-bodied. So, if
you're, you know, if you have any kind
of a disability,
um,
medical frailty,
there there's if you're caring for for
if you're a caregiver for for a an
elderly person or somebody with a
disability, you're exempt from the
requirements, but the the requirements
are roughly 20 hours a week. um although
that's 20 hours a week at minimum wage.
So you could actually fulfill it in a
lot less than 20 hours a week. So that's
something that the federal government
pushed down and there were parameters
that we set in statute to sort of
determine how does New Hampshire want to
implement that. So um so we made those
changes. SNAP was another one where, you
know, we're concerned that because of
the federal changes, New Hampshire is
going to be required to um to pay back
the federal government some, you know,
some portion of
of what we get from SNAP based on
something called an error rate. An error
rate is basically if they the federal
government comes in and audits the
state, if you overpaid or underpaid, you
take basically the absolute value of
both. So if you overpay somebody by $1
and you underpay somebody by $2, your
error rate is $3. And um and so your New
Hampshire's error rate is relatively low
compared to other states. Um I I know
some states are in the mid 20%
and anything over seven and a half% is
going to have to be reimbursed to the
federal government. So that's going to
be very expensive for some states. for
New Hampshire. Um, we are concerned
about that. Um, and
you know, the the Department of Health
and Human Services assured us that they
were working on the problem. So, um,
despite pushing for some more stringent
oversight, um, we we didn't succeed in
getting that passed, uh, unfortunately
the the error rate went in the wrong
direction. So, we're actually more at
risk than we were before. So, um, you
know, our concern there is just to make
sure that we're we're maintaining
program integrity, making sure that the
funds go to who really truly needs it.
And, um,
yeah, so that's those are some of the
federal changes that have have been um
creating a, you know, a lot of extra
work we've had to do to try to
accommodate that. So, how much do you
know roughly how much we get New
Hampshire gets in the SNAP program?
>> Um,
I I don't recall off the top of my head.
I think we're
we're potentially on the hook for
about $13 million if we if we don't get
our error rate back down. And so, that's
a big concern. But I I don't remember
what the what the total number is that
we're getting.
>> Is that
in any way tied to the minimum wage that
New Hampshire has as opposed to other
states?
no, it's really not tied to the minimum
wage. And I don't think I mean I don't
think anybody I mean I I haven't no I
when I was got my first job in middle
school I was making minimum wage but I
don't know that there's very many people
actually making minimum wage these days.
>> I'm sure it hasn't changed since you
were in school.
>> Probably probably has.
>> It's still 750 now. I think it was four
and a quarter or something like that
when I was in starting to work.
question.
>> So, there's some other things I know
that came up last time people were had
questions or concerns about some of the
discussions on zoning and housing and I
think uh
that that conversation has kind of died
down because the the bills that I think
were kind of being pushed hard on
looking looking at
let's say
you could describe it two different ways
but basically trying to scale scale back
what cities and towns could do in terms
of zoning. Um,
a lot of that has has kind of been been
scaled back and some I I think there was
a realization that there were bills
being brought forward that went too far
in that direction
>> like giving the state too much authority
over the local
So, um I think those are not likely to
come back up. I think uh it was just it
was heard pretty loud and clear that
people want their local control.
But we did end up with um
the
the name's slipping me the auxiliary
auxiliary
>> ADU accessory dwelling
>> accessory dwelling units
>> is now
put
>> so it was one by right I think you could
have one previously you could have one
ADU by right
>> and that is now two ads by right.
>> It's two.
>> I'm pretty sure it is.
>> No, it's from
>> I think it's one
>> from zero by right to one by right and
the second is by
>> by special exception.
>> So that's a planning board member.
>> Okay.
>> Um so yeah I mean I think
>> yeah that was passed. Yeah. So now if
somebody wants an ADU, they just apply
for a normal building permit. They don't
have to go before
um zoning board any longer, which was I
think helpful.
And then there was also last time we
were sitting here was the motor vehicle
inspections.
Motor vehicle inspections I would say
depends on who you There's some people
generally people are pretty happy that
they don't have to have their vehicle
inspected.
>> Um there are a few people who are
unhappy. Um a lot of those folks are,
you know, in the business and and I I
understand their concerns.
My own uh place I take my car, they are
fantastic people, wonderful, you know,
very honest. and they said, "We're
concerned that there's going to be
unsafe vehicles on the road." And my
response was, you know, if I come in and
you tell me there's something unsafe
above my vehicle, I'm going to get it
fixed. And I said, "Well, yeah, that's
you, but that's not other people."
>> And and so I I I guess, you know, what I
would fall back on is that there are um
I'm not sure about the number. I want to
say it's something at least 26 other
states. There are a number of other
states where that do not have
>> I remember the discussion.
>> Um and so uh you can still get ticketed
if you you know if you get if your
vehicle stopped and you and something is
unsafe, you can still get cited for a
violation. You can still be told that
your car is not roadw worthy and it can
be towed. Um, but I think, you know,
we're,
you know, we we were dealing with a
number of situations. I think you
brought up, uh, in one of our previous
discussions, you brought up the fact
that, um, you know, you you've seen
people fail for having a little one in
bus spot. my kids and um
>> who can't afford a new the reality is
that there there have been this kind of
back and forth debate between the
legislature and the department of safety
for quite a few years where the
legislature was trying to clarify what
is or is not a violation and what you
described was not a violation and yet it
was still in the in the inspection
manual and people were still being
failed for it. And so I think that was
creating that that's part of what led to
the frustration that kind of finally had
people say enough. We're we just want to
eliminate inspections. The the OBD
scanner uh issues had also come up. And
I've heard some stories that um I I I
haven't
I I I think are from pretty credible
people um about you know a you know car
being failed because cylinder 7 is is
not firing and they say but it's a V6 so
how how is it coming up that cylinder 7?
There is no cylinder 7. Um but but
people would people would have perfectly
roadw worthy, perfectly safe cars that
were failing um for things that were not
a safety issue and were not an
environmental issue.
>> So those are the big concerns. But one
thing that I looked at when the prime
sponsor brought it to me and said, "Hey,
what do you think of this bill?" And I,
you know, repealing of the vehicle
inspections, I said, "I'm all for it."
But I wanted to check one thing. And so
what I did was I did research on town on
the states that repealed their motor
vehicle inspections and what happened
afterwards. So there were several states
that did did a followup on that. So
there was a federal follow-up
investigation. There was a state and
then in some
cases there was a third party as well
that did said okay was there any
increase in motor vehicle accidents due
to mechanical failure and there was not.
There was no increase whatsoever and
none of those states that did those
follow-ups.
>> You would think insurance companies Most
of those states have mandatory
insurance.
>> So, I mean, there's trucks in this town
that you could see where the bed is
literally held on by ratchet straps.
>> I had one I watched one guy attach it to
his axle because the ratchet strap snap.
So, he reattached it with to the axle.
I'm going the other direction.
>> I I I No. So with mandatory insurance,
I'm
>> sced out,
>> but I was I was meaning that insurance
companies I'm sure have records of
whether there was an increase of
accidents, whether there's a correlation
>> and like you said, there was they found
nothing in all the all the followup that
they did um that there was no increase.
I mean, there was still vehicle
accidents, but there was there was no
increase um that they found.
>> But if you want to stop unsafe vehicles
in the road, you'd have to stop those 26
other states from driving in here
because they're going to have the unsafe
vehicles that are going to be hitting us
and doing things to us, right? So, you'd
have to stop them from driving in New
Hampshire to make it really safe.
>> But I think
Shane's point was it doesn't it doesn't
impact the safety of
>> today's cars are much different than
they were in the 40s. You know what I
mean? So, I had one mechanic um ask me,
he was about he says, he goes, "You know
what happens when your brake pad's bad?
Your car actually stops quicker, you
know, because they've been all metal. It
like grinds, you know, but to the point
like cops can still tick you. They see
sparks flying out of your your brake,
you know, your wheels there, they can
tick you and uh so so you can go and get
a motor vehicle inspection. Um, you
know, these stations aren't going to
give you a sticker anymore, but you can
still go and get a safety inspection.
>> The same thing.
>> Yeah. It's still available for people
who
>> would like that, but now it ended up in
court.
>> What is the stat?
>> So, so Gordon Derby is the company that
makes the the equipment, the the
scanning equipment, and they sued the
state. Um,
basically that
those lawsuits are going to ultimately
come to nothing. The the EPA the the the
issue really the the outstanding issue
was that the federal government needed
to
to give an approval based on the Clean
Air Act and EPA standards. And um
they've they've essentially fasttracked
that and said they're they're going to I
don't think they've issued it yet.
They've said that they're going to issue
it.
>> Well, my son told me I think it was
yesterday that it passed the federal
maybe maybe I don't know but he said
that the federal is changing it so that
New Hampshire is I mean it's in approval
without the inspection from the Kentucky
company or whatever.
>> Right. So, the approval is coming and as
of a couple of weeks ago, it was they
the EPA affirmed that the approval is
coming and it's going to be it's going
to be here soon. So, I just don't know
if it's if it's a rad kit or not. But,
>> we've already proven that there's going
to be no impact on the on the
requirements of the of the Clean Air
Act. And so, that was one of the things,
you know, before this bill was actually
introduced was, you know, we need to
look at that. and that was proven that
it's not going to have a a negative
impact on on the requirements of the
Clean Air Act. So,
>> I I should also mention that, you know,
commercial vehicles still do have to go
through an inspection. And I know people
who run businesses and they have a lot
of commercial vehicles and, you know,
they can pretty much be stopped at any
time and, you know, and uh
>> Yeah. The random dot.
>> Yep. Exactly.
>> They had it today on 93. state police,
you know, on the rest area going over
the truck.
>> So, it only impacted the private private
personal vehicles.
>> I'm curious to hear what question
>> I got a couple questions. I got another
meeting I'm supposed to be ask. So, can
I go first? I don't usually like to go
first.
>> You can go first.
>> There's two things somebody else wanted
me to bring up at the meeting.
probably justformational things that you
can kind of put in the back of your
mind. Maybe someday you'll do you know
it'll come up again. One thing was um
about building inspections. Um he said
what what he wanted was so that a
building inspector couldn't fault. He
wants something that's been approved by
the manufacturer. And what what he was
telling me about they have a a thing
where there's a house wrap that is a R
six value. So it's a new came out. The
manufacturers um tested it. It went
through the court. It tested out. Okay.
But the building inspector, she said,
"I'm not passing it."
>> So, if you had a thing that would have
an easy way for the for the um
contractor to go and override that that
thing that might be a personal issue
that inspector has against something, if
they can say, "Look, it proved um I six
is okay." And then have them accept it.
maybe something like that.
>> So I would encourage you to have them
reach out to me directly. So this is one
of those. So as as legislators, we we
tend to get focused on one area or
another. So what I've been largely
focused on because committee work is
education funding and health and human
services. Um and then I also I I look a
lot of a lot of issues around family
court and DCF.
Um, so what you're talking about is is
building codes and um sort of what what
are the what are the what is the
authority of of a building inspector?
Um, that's not an area of expertise for
me. You might know something about that
from the DNA.
>> Do you have a card?
>> Do you have a card I could give him? Um
I I will I actually
probably do in the car.
>> Um
>> if you want to leave it Jason, I can get
it later.
>> Okay. I I this is my contact
information. So
>> that's fine. So what I what I generally
do under those circumstances is I look
for somebody who does have expertise in
that area. And so the executive
departments and administration which was
committee Shane sat on deals with things
like you know will we adopt the building
code and we updated the building code um
was a year and a half ago I think but we
we upd we we only accepted parts of it.
There were parts of it also that were
kind of driven by these green
initiatives out of California
>> that were um would have added
average of something like 20,000 to the
average home um and the cost of an
average home.
>> Um so we rejected that part but we
accepted the update to the general
update to everything else in the
building.
>> And not only that, it might play into
what you're asking too was with their
house wrap. And so it was the
breathability of a house. Um and that
would play into to this. of this bill
that you're talking about, it had had to
do um it would actually increase uh or
decrease the the the
ability for the house to process clean
air. So, you have you you have to have a
certain percent that that runs through
your house, otherwise it's musty and it
has to breathe a little bit. And so,
this new bill was going to cost a lot
more money to build uh a home. It was
going to decrease that breathability to
like one 2% or something like that. Um,
and so I think what you're asking it
could fall into that category because if
it's a house wrap, it it could play into
that. So that that's something that
would go through EDNA like he said,
executive departments administration.
>> He wasn't saying about changing the code
or anything like that. What he was
saying was the ability to um if an
inspector says something, I'm not
approving that because I don't like that
color. uh as long as it proves the
manufacturer specs on everything and
it's comes into the code to have it so
that you can kind of override the the
building inspector. An easy way instead
of going to court in Boston or or
Manchester or something like that
because a lot of these buildings they
don't have time to go to court, you
know, uh over over one one building
inspection or one house. And and the
other issue is he said to um if you're
going to buy a vehicle in New Hampshire,
if you could have an easy way to
transport to your house without going
through uh you know, Friday night you go
and and like I said, it's a lot
different than it used to be because a
lot of things are done online. Friday
you might go home from work and and you
look online, there's a vehicle, you go
pick it up and oh, I can't do anything
till Monday or Tuesday or whenever the
DOT opens or whatever. Is there a way
you could maybe have a a two-day thing
where you give you a bill of sale and
you could have two days to get it home
or something like that? A simple system
>> that came up last time with trailers.
Yeah.
>> So, that's something we can
>> I have a question about that. So, I
bought a vehicle last year on Friday,
but I
we called my insurance company and
I was covered
basically uh for the weekend till I
could go into well I didn't go in but I
called the office on Monday. It it was a
very easy process
>> but it's not insurance isn't required
anyway. It's not the registration he's
talking about somebody without I got
It's the temporary registration thing
where you have
>> easy to get whe you don't have to have,
you know, and this is only within the
state. I'm not talking about buying
something from Mass or Vermont or Maine
or just within New Hampshire if you'd
have maybe a 48 hour period to get it
home an easy way.
>> Yeah. Why can't you print it online and
say this is the thing?
>> However they do it,
>> print a
not a pending legislation in that
direction.
And uh I did bring it up with the head
of the transportation committee because
somebody from Newsw brought up the issue
with me around trailers
>> specifically. So you're talking about
any vehicle.
>> Yeah,
>> it does make sense.
>> Um yeah, in this case it was, you know,
if I go buy a trailer
and I want to bring it home, that that
was his issue.
>> So we can we can revisit that and
we'll have new people in transportation.
So I like to try to in fact I know
exactly who I take it to now and he
wasn't he wasn't in transportation at
the time. Um
so somebody else has has contacted me
about youth driver penalties because
youth driver penalties are pretty
severe. Um and
um you know they're suggesting that
maybe we should lighten it up or had a
little bit of forgiveness in and in in
that process and um yeah, so I
approached the this guy I was just
thinking of who is now very active on
the transportation committee and uh so
he's going to introduce that bill this
year to to try to lessen the the very
very harsh penalties that we have for
youth youth operators. Um so I usually
will try to work with somebody who has
expertise and you know seen a lot of
bills in that
That's only on transportation bills,
right? I mean, violations cuz somebody's
just telling me today somebody got in
jail for some a year. It wasn't even New
Hampshire, but a year for um violations
of motor vehicle and somebody else at
the same time got three months for
selling drugs
>> in the jail. So, they thought it was
kind of not really
>> didn't weigh out the same.
Okay, I only have one one other issue
and this is my own issue and then I got
to leave. Um,
is there any possibility of having a
legislature session that all you do is
get rid of bills and not make new?
I think there's a lot of bills out there
that could be taken away.
>> We we had about 1,200 bills between the
House and the Senate this year and it
was quite a lot. Um
I
there there are some like I mentioned a
couple of them today that I introduced
the foster home vaccine bill and the
vaccine rulemaking bill. Those were
examples of where we're actually taking
things out of the law. Um
>> I'm talking about getting rid of laws
completely. Oh, the IRS has one that I'd
like to see them give and it's um if you
steal a a tractor or something from your
neighbor, you have to file it on your
income taxes income. I mean, that is one
that probably
Anyway, I got to go. Thank you.
>> All right. Um on on the uh I have a
question about the vaccine bill on
measles and rebella
polio. Um Is has the incidents changed
at all with uh giving more
uh option to the
uh person that has custody or the parent
uh in terms of their uh being able to
elect not to.
>> So if when has have the statistics
changed at all because I know in
Rockland County where I come from
there's a very and I'm not doing saying
this to be at all um racist
but uh there's a high number of acidic
Jews who uh live in an area uh where uh
now
measles and polio have risen in Robert
County in New York. Um, and I'm just
wondering whether those kinds of
uh statistics
epidemiologically
have been
shown to be occurring here in this state
as well. So, I have never heard of
anything in this state pointing to that.
New Hampshire actually has a low
number of vaccines that are mandatory.
there's six whereas the CDC list of
recommended vaccines and some states
require a large portion or all of them.
Um it's a much much longer list.
there are there have been so there was a
measles outbreak in Texas that was sort
of largely used as a reason why we have
to have mandatory measles vaccination.
And it was interesting that the numbers
that were provided there was, you know,
x number of cases. Um, and these cases
came from people who were unvaccinated
or unknown status.
>> And so there there I guess what I'm
saying is I think that there are
um seemingly deliberate attempts to
to distort the facts rather than just
presenting the facts. So that that's a
concern for me. Um
I would also point out that in there
there are a lot of countries where
you know Japan and Sweden for example
where there are no vaccine mandates
whatsoever
and voluntary vaccination rates are
quite high in the you know 90 to 95%
range. And so
>> are you talking are you saying that her
immunity would work in all cases?
not necessarily.
Um I'm I'm saying I think it should be
an individual choice and the parent
should have the right to make that
choice for their children. Um
there's a fascinating book by a guy
named Erin Siri I r i called vaccines.
men and he really outlines um a lot of
the a lot of the science behind vaccines
and it's not his science, it's actually
the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies
what they're providing as science and um
he shoots a lot of holes in in the
arguments. There are, you know, one of
the bills we had this year was to
eliminate the hepatitis B vaccine
requirement for newborns.
The CDC in fact did change their
recommendation from recommending it for
all newborns to recommending it for
high-risisk situations because hepatitis
B is generally speaking it's a lifestyle
disease. So it's it it generally applies
to people who are having very
promiscuous sex or who are um
intravenous drug users. And so um you
can imagine there would be some
circumstances where it would be a
high-risisk situation where it would
make sense to do that. Um
but for a lot of births, it's not it's
not necessary. It's not called for. Um
and so the CDC changed their
recommendation. We're still requiring
that. So, one of the bills that was
introduced this year was to try to get
rid of that. So, the ones that are still
required in New Hampshire are tetanus,
polio,
um, measles,
um, chickenpox,
B.
>> Are any of these?
>> There's one other that I can't
recommend. You really recommend a series
book. Are you serious?
>> Is it Reubella that you trying to find?
Rebella.
>> Rebella.
>> The one that you were missing.
>> Uh, no. I mean, I was missing. It's um
>> same as autism.
>> I'm I'm blanking on the name.
>> That's a um HI um
and I'm trying to remember what HIP
stands for. Um
but Hib is I had one one doctor who came
in to testify. He said, "Oh, yeah. I
haven't seen a case of HIP in 30 years.
So, and but it's a required
>> immunization. So, how many of these
>> are you talking?
>> No. Um, hemophilus influenza
I think is
>> how many of these vaccines are um mRNA
based?
>> None of them.
>> None of them are.
>> That was only the COVID vaccine.
>> It's a newer thing.
None of the ones that are mandated by
mRNA vaccines.
>> Oh yeah.
>> And then the chickenpox one,
>> isn't it true that that was has been
banned in most European countries?
>> I don't know about that.
>> Oh,
good question.
in terms of uh the impact of
uh
uh budgets on educators.
have you noticed uh this year that there
have been more layoffs of teachers in
the state?
Um not that I'm aware of. I think the
only the only school district There were
layoffs was Claremont, which Claremont
>> essentially lost five $5 million. They
weren't keeping books. Um so they
weren't recording the bills that they
owed as they owed them, including
retirement uh retirement
fund contributions.
So
>> there have been layoffs in both Jeffrey
and as well.
>> Okay. I was not
Um so I think uh you know the the
the education funding question is is an
ongoing conversation. We have
increased every every two years with the
state budget we increase the the
adequacy aid. Um there are some who want
to see a much bigger portion of that
shifted to the state. If we were to do
that, we would have to raise those taxes
somewhere. And right now, we have
business taxes that are essentially
competitive with our neighbors. Um, but
we would have to raise those taxes
somewhere. So,
it's it's not I mean,
>> we still got to we still got to raise
the money. It's got to come from
somewhere. I've always been of the of
the mind that, you know, sending sending
money from local communities to conquer
or from
states like New Hampshire to Washington
DC and then expecting it to come back,
you know, without some having been spent
elsewhere is is
not a it's not a reasonable expectation.
So I think uh rather than sending it
upstream and then having it go back
downstream, I think it's better to
You have been nice and quiet tonight, so
I'm not I'm thrifting at you. What's
your opinion on RAM BNH?
>> Oh, what?
>> Ran versus NH.
I'm not feeling too well tonight. So,
>> I got a thyroid thing going on. That's
why representative speak more.
>> Well, maybe you know because you're on
the education committee. Um yeah, I
think the
um all of the education funding lawsuits
>> this one specifically.
I haven't read your opinion.
>> Lawsuit from lower property value towns
about how property taxes are being used
to fund education.
so far since 09 to current
our the statewide on average property
taxes towards education have gone up by
over 9%. The adequacy aid is now taking
up 9% less towards school funding. You
may have increased the dollar amount.
You're not including increasing the
percentage. Uh the state filed an appeal
on the verdict and it said quote asked
the court to quote overrule Claremont
school district versus governor and his
progyny and to hold that part two
article 83 of the New York New Hampshire
constitution does not mandate a
qualitative standard of education and
does not impose the financial obligation
on the state to fund it. It also asked
the court to determine that local
property taxes would constitute
part of the state's overall requirement
for funding education.
So it would increase our property
requirements
to fund education which is now being
shunted off to these education freedom
accounts instead of the local school
districts which is where our property
taxes for schools go. And
the state wants to erase
any chance of having a standard
what a qualitative standard for
education is
really.
So the so the key there is I think the
key phrase in there is saying that
article 83 does not specifically so
article 83 uses the word cherish and
says this the the state cherishes
education
and that has been I think very broadly
interpreted to mean that we have to
raise taxes at a state level to for
local schools.
So, I can tell you right now that if the
state if we if we have the state raise
money for local schools
at a at a significantly higher
proportion than we do now, then I'm
going to say the state will,
and I'm not saying it's me, I'm saying
somebody somewhere along the way is
going to dictate a lot more about what
schools are doing with that money and
exactly how they teach it. In other
words, there will be a loss of local
control.
>> Not necessarily. Not if we actually
stick with, you know, basic good
governance. Our school districts are
able to control what they're doing and
what their curriculum is. Locals are
able to put that in. I'm talking about
the funding that the state has not kept
up their portion now wants to remove
their portion. Has removed ways and
means taxes. Has move capital gains
taxes. We are not funding the way we're
supposed to. The funds that we had are
now being siphoned off into these
educational freedom accounts. Of course,
our school districts are going to have
layoffs. We can't pay for people
anymore. Our contracts with our parents
are not passing because the taxes are
going to have to go up to pay for it
because the state is not meeting its
minimum. And now the state is going to
court saying, "It's fine. We don't have
a minimum. We're good.
>> The the the state is in in what you just
read, the state is arguing that the word
cherish is not a mandate to raise taxes
at the state level.
>> Um no obligation funded minimum
education.
>> If you look at the at the total per
pupil spent expenditures on education
since the Claremont decision, that graph
goes way up.
>> Yeah. goes a lot higher with those
education freedom funds too, especially
for, you know, ski resort passes. And
>> no, this all this all started before and
you that we could we could cut those
correlated with those correlated with
inflation.
>> Honestly, they correlated with
inflation, recessions, the fact that
everything else went up in cost.
>> I'm talking about an inflation adjusted
graph. Costs go like this, performance
goes like this. That's a problem.
But it's not it it's not the problem
that you're that you're saying it is.
>> So the problem isn't the fact that the
state hasn't been contributing the same
amount percentage-wise that it had been
for 20 years. It's just
>> if the if the state increases its
spending and a district increases its
spending even more to maintain the same
percentages instead of having us kick in
another 9% of the annual budget for
>> I I'm I'm simply saying that costs are
going up and up and up because districts
are spending more a lot of districts are
spending more on administration. So the
amount that we that has been allocated
to administration has skyrocketed in
recent years and
at some point districts need to decide
what they want to focus on. I was the
chair of my school board. It we had
difficult decisions to make. We had to
dig into a lot of the line items that
were being proposed by the
administration and we very often found
things that were in there that seem to
be just in there because
we we have it up in
>> admin administrators for costs going up
>> when I just want to make sure that's
what you said. The reason that costs are
going up for property taxes and
education costs are going up is because
administration costs, nothing else.
>> Is that what you just
>> I don't believe I said that, but um
that's what you that's how it's coming
out.
>> Generally speaking, I think that is
responsible for a significant portion of
it
>> and nothing to do with your education
freedom accounts.
>> Education freedom accounts up until now.
the income caps
>> education freedom accounts and I've I've
heard this argument beve heard this
argument when they first started
education freedom accounts
were we were told well you're taking
money away from the local districts this
was this argument was made by people who
did not know about what's called the
hold harmless funds harmless funds are
being phased out but all of these costs
have been going up with or without
education freedom accounts, they're
going up
>> and and those being funded, those
education freedom accounts with property
taxes designed for education.
>> But I would like to point out one way or
another we pay.
>> We do
>> whether we pay you're asking for a
larger portion of the state.
>> not saying state property taxes. I was
saying that we have the state
legislators have removed
passive taxes
for high income earners, ways and means,
capital gains, which took up a large
chunk of of
what had been shunted into education.
They don't exist anymore.
Those funds got taken away
>> by taxes. the business taxes have been
shuffled around.
I'm not talking small business taxes.
I'm talking
>> but that's in the past. And right now,
all I'm pointing out is it seems to me
I'm either going to pay it
on my local
>> tax or it's going to be in that little
box that says state property tax.
>> But it wouldn't be the case if those
funding sources hadn't been removed. But
my point is is they have been
>> and new expenditure sections have been
opened up for spending. I am I I
appreciate the education freedom
accounts for people who are lower income
or middle class people who can't
necessarily scrape together everything
when they're homeschooling their child
as they see fit
to pay for the books, pay for the
education supplies. I have a problem
with this removal of the income level
cap for those funds. So now people who
can go to veil for 3 weeks and go skiing
can also tap into funds that would
normally go to my neighbor down the
street
and then in turn pull it away from
others in this district who need it.
So, I mean, I I've heard that argument
before and I've I've heard I mean I I
guess my question would be if we're
means testing education,
should we let those people who go to
veil on vacation use our public schools
without paying? We always have and
nobody's ever argued against it before.
And I'm not arguing against it. I'm just
saying there here's two different paths
for education.
One of them actually costs significantly
less. An EFA is, you know, significantly
less than the average per people
expenditure in the public school system.
we don't means means test the public
school system. So to me that is the
argument against means testing EFAS.
>> Then why don't you reinstate the taxes
that you erased?
>> So I think you're referring to the
dividends and interest. I'm referring to
multiple.
so the interest in dividends tax, you
you you refer to it as a tax for very
wealthy people with passive income.
I would argue that it's also um
adversely affecting a lot of people who
have retirement savings, you know,
shifted their retirement savings to
fixed income things like bond funds and
and such.
They they were being taxed on interest
and dividends. So,
>> yes.
>> Because that was their choice for how
they chose to retire.
It was there are other methods.
If they invested in those knowing those
taxes were there and they invested in
those with their advisor who they're
giving a cut to as well.
That is something that's disclosed to
them.
But there a number of retirees
as you put it on a fixed income who hit
the threshold for that tax without
exemption was
almost nothing.
>> So is your
>> I'm talking like Dean Cayman. I'm
talking
>> is your request here that they would
look into
um reinstating taxes that have been
repealed? Is that what I'm hearing? You
would like that,
>> but it would have to be earmarked
towards education.
>> That would be ideal because
>> But were they in the past?
>> Yes.
>> I mean, we have a a serious issue coming
with AI and technology anyway. What are
we going to do to deal with that?
>> That's a good question. I mean, what are
we going to do? I mean, seriously, it's
gone.
We don't want we have a lot of
communities that don't want to have
these servers in their community
and at the same time the country wants
it seems to go forward
strength. I think we there's got to be
more planning to this. I mean I don't
see it seems to be too willy-nilly. I
don't I don't see a planet
>> that's but back to the education I think
that that topic is very
>> complex
third rail and nobody wants to touch it
>> well and and I think what the
representative brought up is something
that people look at
what is our return on our investment and
it has been this path of less return
more investment there's been no
correlation between more money, more
money, more money, better, better,
better better, better better. It hasn't
happened. It's gone the other way. So
some there's a fundamental discussion to
be had
>> probably much bigger than us, but I
guess it starts here.
>> There's another thing that I saw too in
numbers. Now you guys can speak on this
if if you have any um thoughts. Um but I
saw numbers as far as like you were
saying layoffs with with educators. Um
now in some cases that I saw these
numbers where there was a small small
amount of layoffs in certain school
districts but there was a huge increase
in special educa specialy services.
>> Yep.
>> So they brought in like a lot more um
staff members for different reasons from
different but not actually not actual
teachers and educators. So, and that
drove drove up the cost of the operating
of the schools and which hurt um in some
cases cause um layoffs and and stuff.
So, I mean what caused this over the
last four years to all of a sudden spike
now all of a sudden we need all these
extra you know special services and I
have opinions on that I'm not going
there right now. I'm not going to go
there right now, but I have my I have my
thoughts on why that's happening. But I
think that's should be something that
gets looked at too because um and I say
this with this school district, but the
numbers are there. And actually, I did
see the numbers on the school district.
It wasn't as bad as say Bedford, but
they
>> most paras are
not required to have a minimum college
So, they're cheaper to hire.
>> So, they're used to fill and babysit
children.
And then they get I say babysit because
they're assigned to child A and B who
need the one-on-one help to get their
classwork done,
but then they get yanked off in three
different directions. So, somebody else
has to come in to fill and it becomes
>> I'll try to find the the thing I'm
talking about because um it it showed
that in some cases, you know, it was
costing the school district by by laying
off some teachers and hiring all these
extra specialy services. It was costing
the school district up to $300,000 more
a year. cervix. So it doesn't matter,
you know, what they're making, but
>> Jason's laughing at me.
>> Point is that they brought in a lot
more. Um, so
>> that that's an issue. I mean that's
something that
>> and something to keep in mind as well is
that as there's more school choice so
you you choose as a parent and you
choose as a parent and you all choose as
a parent to send your child to a school
that is a better fit
who's staying in the school. The school
here has increased their special ed
population because a lot they get
services and a lot of the specialized
schools do not offer those services. For
example, a lot of people have gone to
Lionhe Heart. Very classical um
education. I know a couple of people
that teach there. It's it's very well
organized and the kids are really
learning kind of what I did, Latin. and
and all of the the skills. But if your
child has a special need, let's say
they're on the spectrum or they have
ADHD or a reading problem, they're
probably going to stay in our school
system. And that's going to require a
lot more specialized help. And the
people that are the teachers that are
certified to work with those those kids
have add they they should have master's
degrees and special education. They
probably come at a higher premium and
you probably need more parents as well,
especially if you have autistic
children. And I think the point is uh
it's it's a bigger a much bigger picture
as you probably know from your your
work. And what I really worry about is
we have a wonderful community here. Um
we don't all agree politically, but I
think we really care about this town and
the school is a huge part of it. I I
mean the on turnpike and the parades
that come by, you know, when the kids
win championships or when something good
happens in the school. It really is a
community event and I really worry that
not getting adequate funding from the
state,
you know, as insurance costs are going
up and operating costs are going up.
Think about fuel oil. All those costs
going up.
If we are diluting
the kind of educational experience that
the kids who choose to stay in the
system are getting,
eventually people are going to go
elsewhere. We're not going to be able to
have our schools. And I think this is
going to have a really um dilitterious
effect on our on our community. Um so I
don't I don't envy your jobs. You know,
there's a lot to be thinking of, but
think about communities like Newford who
who don't have a whole we're a small
town and school is part of the heart of
the town.
>> So,
a couple things. One is special
education is the one area where I do
feel like the state should kick in more
money. And
I say that in part because
It's it's it's a mandated cost. It's um
a small district who has just even one
very very intensive needs student
>> is, you know, could could be paying
hundreds of thousands of dollars a year
or I have heard of a case of almost $2
million a year for one student.
So that is something where I think we
need to share the the risk so to speak
>> because it's a mandated
>> um it's it's mandated and because it is
um you know in society in general
there's a lot of areas where we do have
uncontrollable risks that we that we
share and I should I don't know if I
should burden is a better word I don't
know if that's a good word either
>> the responsibility
Okay, that's so it's it's sort of
spreading that responsibility
evenly.
Um the federal government has never paid
its part in that.
But to the point of schools being
community centers,
if we go back to a state funded model,
I'm going and I said this before. If you
if you fund chiefly from the state,
that does mean that decisions will be
made. The the the locus of of decision-
making power will transfer to the state.
If I look at the demographic trends in
New England over the past 30 years,
the the number of school age children
has has gone down, is continuing to go
down. That to me says that there, you
know, we we've
in Wilton Limeboro, we had
I think when I joined the school board,
we had around 515 students. we got up to
590 to 600 somewhere in that range.
Um, subsequently it's gone back down. I
think it hit 500. So, we've got three
school buildings for 500 students.
At what point do we say, you know, you
still got to you still got to heat the
building. You still got to pay a
superintendent. All the things that you
still need to do. Fewer students
sometimes means costs go down. If you
say, "Well, we have fewer students. We
don't need two fourth grades. We can do
one.
But in a lot of there's a lot of fixed
costs where there is no So what happens
when
somebody at the state level says
you don't have enough students in your
district. We need to close your schools
and combine them with somebody else.
That is what I know people
do not want because
they went to that school. the grand you
the parents the grandparents went to
that school it is a center of the
community so this is part of the I mean
I I understand what you're saying which
is you want the state to pay more for it
I am saying in in some respects be
careful what you wish for
>> because
there there are decisions that are made
where a community can say hey you know
we are at the point where we want to
tuition our students to another district
but that's the community deciding it
it's not
conquered the setting.
>> Well, it seems somewhat similar to
what's going on with the arch dasis. And
as a Catholic, I've seen many schools
closed
because of just that that uh the
population has gone down in certain
areas. Um and and I have a masters, but
I don't think that a master's is a
is is is something that gives someone a
cart blanch to teach um special needs
students. I think that what
the uh mandate is
uh when you have one to one or uh one to
two or three ratio that is supposed to
be maintained
and I'm talking about teacher to student
now for special need students
um some of that cost and I've taught at
both Crochet Mountain and public schools
Newampshire
and and I see that there are real
serious issues
of how and when they decide the state
decides to fund or the federal
government decides to fund these
programs. Kaja Mountain is almost a
thing of the past as it was. It's been
taken over by uh two different
organizations since I've been here.
so what I think is going on is is is not
your fault. I mean, I'm not pointing to
the state as the problem. I think it's
it's very complex issue and and you
combine that with the needs of
technology and even the needs of
technology for these students.
Some of these uh uh computer systems
or computers that are special needs
computers themselves cost tens of
thousands of dollars um with a
wheelchair
for a student to
be able to move his eyes and and read
something and uh or uh you know some
other type of new technology. It's it's
it's incredible and I think we want to
do the best all of our students. Can a
public school afford to do that?
>> In my own estimation,
no.
>> It sounds like it like
>> it would say one child costing a million
dollars.
>> True.
>> I look at my property tax bill and I
say,
>> "Wow, that's like a tiny drop in a
bucket for one child." But I think this
conversation is something sounds like
could better be served talking to the
school board. And
>> yeah, it's
>> a good thing to talk about, but I don't
know if we have all night this I mean
>> this is a really thorny issue. It's how
do we do this? Because we don't want to
shut down local schools and say you've
got to consolidate.
We
we don't want to raise taxes when people
are already paying a lot of taxes. Right
now,
this the solution, and I'm going to say
it doesn't work real great. But the
solution right now is it's your local
property taxes. And so people have the
power to
go ask questions, go to your school
board meetings, your school budget
committee meetings, and ask the tough
questions. And that requires a lot of
work. It's, you know, it's
>> my question is, especially the Wilton
School District because I know that too,
>> is five years ago versus now, what's the
ratio of the special needs students?
From what I see, there's more special
needs students now than there ever was.
>> There are.
>> And and because there are more special
needs students, the the rate goes up,
>> right?
>> So, how do you, you know, what's that
look like? And how can you to me
somebody said to me a long time ago the
school system the way we teach has not
changed in a hundred years. It it's
still the same. You sit at your desk you
get a lesson. But with more special
needs students now you're looking at a
lesson plan of a onetoone.
And maybe we just instead of revisiting
how we fund the current system, look at
more how do we fund a onetoone ratio and
would that be better for us in the long
run because we're doing it basically now
anyway and that's why our taxes are
higher.
>> I think that's kind of the point of the
EFA.
>> Revisit how we teach our students. And
yeah, you you are correct. That is one
way, but that's not fair for everybody.
>> That's true.
>> That's fair for a few, not everybody.
So, expand on that and see.
>> Yeah, that's a tall order right there.
>> It is. And it's a messy messy. I do not
like to get into the education. I've
already raised my kids. I've paid for my
kids.
>> I don't want to do this anymore. So I
will comment on that though because the
in in the area of special needs in
particular one of my
focus areas that I've been very
interested in
is autism and particularly people with
autism and araxia meaning that they
can't speak or they have very limited
unreliable speech
>> and there are
some developments that have mostly
happened at the grassroots level. So a
speech therapist from Virginia came up
with a letterboarding uh system for
teaching
teaching people to spell to communicate
and that has proven to be very
successful
and there are if you go out on YouTube
and just Google spellers the movie um
you can see it in action. Um I think we
need to there there are innovations that
we could you know we we need to we need
to look at innovation like that. And um
unfortunately and what what is very
noticeable with people who do learn to
spell is they're brilliant and they've
been doing advanced math since they were
three or four years old and they have
this vast
capability to contribute to do things.
They have limitations, but if we can
figure out how to teach to them, and
this was actually one of the last things
in the movie, one of the young men who
has autism, couldn't speak, is typing,
and he said, "If our if our teachers
only knew how to teach to us, we are the
innovators of tomorrow."
>> I think I saw that.
>> It's it's a So, I do think innovation is
important.
Um but it's easy to say innovation. It's
not necessarily easy to do it
>> to implement it. And I just I it always
comes back to you know maybe we are not
looking we're looking to what we know
rather than what we could know. And I
think all those conversations to that
point
we need to teach to each student because
everybody's individual and not to the
masses. And so maybe spending our money
individually rather than trying to
appease everyone is just make it fair
regardless of what you have wrong
whether you're autistic or maybe you're
just ADHD.
That's two different ways to learn. So
we need to teach to those what they have
rather than okay class today time.
>> We've been doing that for a hundred
years.
change it up.
>> How do we ensure that
how would you say the
use of services is appropriate because
obviously I don't I don't have numbers.
I don't know if anybody would have
numbers, but we've seen the usage of
special ed increasing. Um,
>> should I interject on that one?
My question is
I from everything that we've been
discussing so far, we're looking at
starting on the bottom and working the
way up.
And for education, teaching uh and you
know putting in it's and the the cost is
rises every year. The um what I question
is that there's a there's got to be a
number of how many students are in the
school and how many
gradu how many students graduate each
year versus the number of students in
the school.
And I think that um our daughter uh
graduated back in I believe it's 1997
>> And um
uh at that point I I kind of remember
that the school had five or 6 thousand
or five or 600 students and yet they
only graduated like 15.
And I wondered, I looked at it a number
of years later and noticed that um you
know the graduation number had um
increased to 24 and the next year 27 and
the number of of students that were in
the school um uh increased substantially
on top of that. So I you know I the
numbers are there. I don't understand
or I I haven't been able to I'm sitting
here trying to figure out a way of
finding where is the lapse that you've
only got a couple of percent of the
students that are or let's say 10%
students or whatever that actually
graduate and possibly
um make it into into the real world and
get a job that
that fixes. I mean, uh, you know, not to
to brag about it or anything, but, uh,
our daughter ended up I I was a
a physicist and
worked for a
um a manu manufacturer of medical
equipment. And my job was to um you know
build them um teach people how to use
them and everything was uh most of what
was was you know MRI CT scanners
um and the gamut of high-tech machines.
Um, I got to a point that uh I started
taking my daughter to uh uh to work with
me. And she was never a great student,
but you know, when she walked into the
hospital for the first time, she says,
"Wow, this place is nice and clean."
And um and she ended up uh going out and
getting a a physics degree out of uh
UMass Law. And At this moment she is um
radiation safety officer for the whole
Dartmouth uh
hospital system.
So you have to wonder what motivates
people and you know what students are
the ones that can actually
go further or get a better education
rather than seeing what the end result
was of the way the system is right now.
>> We could move on.
Everyone okay with moving on from
education?
a hot topic.
>> It was it was brought up
>> and I think it's a very pertinent issue
if if the representatives have a few
more minutes.
>> Um AI is there anything that is the
state is facing at this point with
>> so
>> like data centers or
>> Yeah. So I'll I'll talk about data
centers. Let me start with um
regulation of AI is generally, you know,
there's some who are for it, some are
against it. At the state level, there's
not a lot that we're going to do.
However, we did pass a bill
because um basically we had AIS that
were uh we had kids interacting with AIS
and sometimes those AIs
>> prompting them to do
>> I think we've all seen the news
>> really horrible things.
>> And u so we passed a bill that
criminalized that and might sound a
little bit extreme. There's we basically
said if you're you know, CEO of a
company that has an AI that's doing
that,
you have 90 days to fix it.
You need to you need to fix and if you
are if it's not if you don't fix it
within 90 days, that is you are subject
to criminal penalties.
>> So, this is law in New Hampshire.
>> Can you just restate that? I familiar
with that. If a company creates an AI,
and it was a friend of mine whose
11-year-old daughter was
some pretty horrible things were said to
her by the AI, okay, it was she she was
interacting with something that was
supposed to play a cartoon character.
Okay, her favorite cartoon character.
As soon as it found out that she was an
11-year-old girl, it started to say some
really horrible things to her. Um,
>> did not follow the script. And
>> so we we filed legislation that said if
you are running that company, you are
notified that your AI is
instructing children to do something
illegal,
>> or
um or or is doing something that would
be illegal if an adult were doing saying
it or doing it.
>> You have From the day you are informed,
you have 90 days to fix that so that it
does not happen anymore. And if after 90
days you have not fixed it, you can go
to jail,
which is a serious penalty, but it's a
serious problem.
>> And and who is the enforcer of this?
Like how how do you
>> the attorney general?
>> It's through the attorney general's
office.
Um so you know beyond that there have
been significant debates about who is
going to regulate AI. Can states do
could states even do it at all? Um based
on what I just said you know yes to some
extent. Um but you know there's there's
also been kind of an ongoing debate
about you know does that stifle
innovation? Should it be a federal
thing? I know the European Union is is
dealing with something they're calling
AI sovereignty right now.
so there's
so it's a complex topic and it's
changing and it's changing very very
fast.
Um so I think we need to keep looking at
it and
monitor it closely. data centers have
gotten quite a lot of um attention
and I think the
the first and foremost I'm going to say
that anybody who wants to build a data
center I I I think it's highly unlikely
that they're going to build it in
in an area where the cost of electricity
is as high as it is in New Hampshire.
>> Um what are we doing about that?
>> Let's just see what Let's leave that.
We'll leave one subject at a time.
>> Well, yeah.
>> Um so,
>> so unlikely but not impossible.
Um and given that there are certain
standards, for example, if they're if a
data center, somebody wants to build a
data center and they're going to require
a lot of water to cool the equipment,
that is now subject to a a uh dees um
review and permitting process which is a
public process. Um I've heard concerns
about noise and that is you know also
any any business that any new
construction that is going to generate
noise would be subject to similar um to
similar
review and concerns.
One of the that people have raised is
about the cost of electricity and will
it drive up electric costs for everybody
around.
>> And so um there is
currently a requirement that you know
basically somebody with intensive
electricity requirements
>> has to generate their own. Um,
so I guess I'm I'm going to say
I I feel like we have processes in place
and that it isn't and shouldn't be a
huge concern in New Hampshire. Having
said that, I think it's important for,
you know, for us to keep a watchful eye
on it and as we would on any
>> business. We had a and somebody wanted
to put an asphalt plant in in Wilton and
the surrounding neighbors were concerned
about the the odors associated with
that. So get approved. So we have
processes for dealing with those things
and we should let those processes work
but you know as with everything else it
requires people to be involved in.
Does anyone else have any
>> my I have a question on have you heard
of and I'm not familiar with it in New
Hampshire but I've seen it out in
western states
where companies will buy
um conservation easements for land
purchases to offset carbon.
Is that something in New Hampshire or
popular or
>> It it is. So,
um it's it's a big deal in the North
Country because you get
companies that are coming in and buying
up huge tracks of land and they're
saying we're going to lock up those
resources for 99 years is generally the
period because that's set in California
law.
>> That if you're going to buy carbon
offsets. They have to be 99 year
offsets.
um this is one of those difficult
questions where you want to give people
the freedom to do with their land what
they want to do with their land, but at
the same time, um you know, there's a
lot of people up in the north country
who are concerned about the the impact
on on jobs. And ironically,
you've got sawmills in northern New
Hampshire that are now getting lumber
from trucks
fueled by diesel fuel,
driving them in from upstate New York.
So,
somebody's buying the carbon credits,
but I think the diesel trucks driving
logs in from New York State is probably
generating more carbon than they're
offsetting.
>> So, these are the kinds of things that
What's that?
>> There may be a lot of irony similar to
>> So, so I think um I'm I'm not aware of
it happening in the southern tier of the
state, but in Kas County, it's a very
big deal.
>> So, could there be legislator
legislation made to curb some of that or
>> Well, um
>> it gets it gets very tricky because
again, It's it's a property rights
issue.
>> Um but
there is a commission. So we did pass
legislation to create a commission to
study
ways of of handling that. So in and in
the north country
there is there's a temp well every
everywhere in New Hampshire there's a
timber tax but timber tax is based on if
you cut trees
and it it it's kind of intended as a as
a replacement for property tax. So
you're not going to pay property tax on
the plot of land where you've got all
these trees growing. You're going to pay
it at the end when you harvest the
timber from it. Um,
so
based on the old model of of thinking
about timber, um, that makes some sense.
But if you think about, well, what if
what if I'm now making money off the
timber by not having it cut? Um and so
you get a lot of these cities and towns
that have relied on that revenue in the
same way that you know most cities and
towns rely on property taxes saying okay
well that revenue is drying up it's
disappearing because
>> as well as jobs
>> and the jobs and so you know some of the
solution could be to to sort of
acknowledge that there's two ways of
using the timber um that on first
attempt was like two years ago. I think
that didn't go well because everybody
said, "Well, it's a new tax. I don't
want to vote for a new tax." Um, I would
argue it's not, you know, it I I the
analogy I use is the electric vehicle
fee versus the gas tax. So, we fund
roads in New Hampshire with the gas tax
and suddenly there's a lot of electric
vehicles on the road. Well, they're not
paying a gas tax. should they be paying
some portion of the upkeep of the roads?
The answer to that was we'll we'll
create a a an electric vehicle vehicle
fee. Um
so that I think was before my time. Um
fact I know it was before my time but
that was sort of the the the logic
behind it was it's well you have new
technology or new ways of doing things
so it makes sense now to sort of adjust
the way we tax based on that.
That may be the solution here as well.
but you know
it it's a it's a difficult issue like I
said for the north country. It's it's
very it's a very hot topic.
on the gas tax real quick. Wasn't that
um was it Iceland that says
based on your mileage for the year is
what you pay in taxes.
>> So it's actual usage of the road.
>> I think that too excess tax.
>> I don't remember.
>> I don't think that's
>> anywhere here in the United States. I
haven't seen that. I I don't recall that
anywhere in the US. I I have heard of
>> Iceland.
>> I think there it may be. Um I think the
concern that I would have and that I
think a lot of people would have is that
it it starts to feel rather intrusive if
the government is watching sort of where
you're going and how far you're going.
>> And some would argue that that's
intrusive. Um,
>> among other things,
>> yes,
>> the phone on everyone's hip.
>> It's going to watch you go home tonight.
>> Speaking of intrusive, the the federal
mandate for the cameras that watch you.
>> Can we Well, not well, flock, but um
the they say by 2027, all the cars are
supposed to have cameras that watch you,
and if you're not paying enough
attention to the road, then they shut
the car down and stuff. Um, so yeah,
that's already the law that it's to go
into effect. They and the TSA has said
the technology is not there yet really
to do it, but um yeah, is there anything
we can do to hedge against these
intrusive things that are coming down
from the feds?
>> Um, I have one friend who says he won't
buy a car that was prior to 2025.
>> Because of the telematics.
>> Yep. Um, so that's a federal thing. I I
was concerned about it when it first
happened. I'm still concerned about it.
I'm concerned about the fly cameras.
I I don't Yeah, I don't know. I don't
know what we can do about it
necessarily. There is also something
called right to repair, which is um, you
know, do you can't fix your car? Do you
do you really own your car?
>> Yeah. Um and this applies to electronics
and other things as well. Um so um we've
had some push back on right to repair.
Um so it hasn't been a a hot topic
recently, but it may become a hotter
topic as as more of those vehicle as as
the vehicles that are on the road are
more and more um embedded with
telematics and other intrusive
technology.
>> Same for equipment.
uh equipment uh is there the right to
repair.
>> There's been a lot of issues with
technology in in different kind of all
different types of equipment machinery
>> and
I have a quick question. We talked about
energy costs and I think someone
mentioned Eversource.
When
Eversource or other energy companies
here apply for a rate increase, what
kind of oversight is there in the and
and questioning is there in the
legislature or is that not
>> it's the public utilities commission?
>> I I see.
>> Um so it's not the legislature and
talking to my colleagues on the um
on the science, technology, and energy
committee, their general sense is that
because we're basically we're we're on
the ISO New England network. So the
energy is essentially auction cost.
We're buying on the same market as other
New England states. Um where some of the
additional costs come in are with
some of the additional mandates that go
along with that. Um, and so the regional
greenhouse gas initiative or Reggie is
called for short um is something that we
got into some years ago.
Getting out of it is is unlikely, but
there are we can sort of scale back what
what we do as mandates. So I'll give you
a small example and it's not going to
you're not going to feel great about it.
It saved you a few cents.
>> Um the New Hampshire Saves is probably
remember getting these brochures with,
you know, energy efficient light bulbs
and things like that.
>> Um available at a rebate, lower cost.
>> Um so that
got scaled back significantly, which
means you're not paying for it on your
electric bill. Um
There are things like that. We can't
move the needle much. We really don't
have the power to move the needle much.
But if we if we mandate
particular kinds of energy or you know
there's there's a lot of restrictions on
interestingly somebody who has intensive
power requirements is required to
generate their own and yet we also have
restrictions on somebody generating
their own.
>> So
>> there's some of this kind of stuff where
it's it's
frustrating at the same time you you
kind of understand the nature of
utilities is that they all kind of
started out as monopolies. In some ways
they still are and in other ways they're
this complex network of different
players who are
running the wires and and fixing them
when there's a storm versus those that
are generating electricity versus those
that are sort of broken. Um, yeah, it's
very complex
>> and you know, we I can go on the
marketplace and, you know, shift around
and whatever, but
>> I would rather not and I don't.
>> You got to keep an eye on it if you do
because
>> you have to keep an eye on it if you do
because your rates could just
dramatically switch overnight.
>> And I I don't I don't
>> and so I stay with Eversource and it's
up and down right now.
>> I stay with
but Yeah, the point being the nature of
the market at the end of the day is
supply and demand. So every time new
generation tries to come to the state,
we shut it down. So all this clean green
power we could be getting from Canada
that we don't want to see power lines
come into our state, provide us with a
clean, cleanest, greenest, cheapest
power you can get. So I don't know. It's
just frustrating. I don't like if
somebody wants to complain about power
prices, but they're the same ones that
will shut down any power generation or
transmission project.
>> And this is the nature of a lot of
decisions we make, which is
>> people say, I don't want this.
>> And you say, okay, well, we won't, you
know, we won't have that. Then you say,
okay, well, you got to that results in
something else like higher electric
costs. Okay, well, I don't want that
either. Well, you got to have one or the
other.
>> So, it these are difficult choices. And
I mean, I guess my
bias is to try to, you know,
you know, give people as much freedom to
make their own decisions as possible.
But what we're talking about right now
is not not
>> there's not a whole lot of
>> we should be we should be picketing in
the streets to bring a pipeline through
town because that's what we need is
>> reopen to our state
>> or reopen Seabbrook.
>> Reopen Sebrook. Texas.
>> There's all kinds of lines.
>> We need supply of power.
>> Yeah, there there is a lot of
>> power. It's going to go dark.
>> Yeah, there is a lot of discussion about
some of these newer newer nuclear
technologies potentially going into
Cbrook at the second plant
>> generation.
>> One last thing from me. I might have
said that last time.
>> Any
news on the second amendment front?
Was there any items that came through
this year on the second amendment?
>> I there were two that got a lot of
attention.
One was um had to do with
the the right for colleges and public
colleges and universities to restrict
firearm firearms
on campus.
Um that did not succeed. there was a
version that said, "Okay, well, let's
not have it apply to students. Why don't
we have it apply to staff?" That staff,
you know, professors and such would be
free to
have a firearm on campus. Uh but there
were disagreements between those two
positions and it ultimately failed.
>> So, neither of them made it to the
table.
>> Correct. Um the other the other um bill
that got a lot of attention was
preeemption. Um the preeemption bill
basically said asserted that
it is the state and only the state that
has the right to
regulate firearms in any way. And the
the idea here is you had some
municipalities,
and I'm thinking of one in Hillsboro
County where they said, "Well, we're not
we're going to prohibit
um carrying a firearm on this sort of if
you go hiking on the town property,
you're going to be prohibited from
carrying a firearm there." And that um
seems to many of us to be an unnecessary
and unjustified infringement on the
Second Amendment. So um the preeemption
bill basically said no, it's not, you
know, municipalities can't create
gunfree zones and such.
The state has the authority to regulate
or not regulate firearms.
um that got caught up on a disagreement
over um
administrative rulemaking because there
were concerns about um certain positions
in state government that you know need
to carry a service firearm. We need to
check that the firearm.
There were sort of a bunch of concerns
about details that state agencies should
still need to create
administrative rules which have the
impact of law to regulate carrying of
firearms on state property by employees.
And there are a number of people who
were I think some safeguards were built
into that such that it was it would not
go too far but there were some people
who were very concerned about that. So,
we had what I would call a disagreement
among people who firmly believe in the
Second Amendment
um about
whether we should go with that bill that
would assert state preeemption but would
also allow administrative rulemaking
versus
a a pure bill that just says preeemption
only. So, um, there were different
pro-second amendment groups that had
differing positions on on that.
>> So, the NRA wanted that bill passed. The
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition wanted
it killed. Um,
and it ultimately died. So, that did not
go forward. It's something that I think
a lot of us have been wanting for years,
but that compromise left us in a
position where we just have enough
support to pass it.
>> So then how did the laws stand now for
this
>> town in Hillsboro County?
>> Well,
that that town is no longer restricting
the the carrying of firearms on on that
town property.
>> So I think essentially I think somebody
came in and said, "No, you can't." And
they they withdrew their their town
ordinance. Um
not actually not even sure if it was an
ordinance. It may have just been a a
policy that they passed, but um so so
it's not an issue in that town anymore.
At this point, I would say it's more of
a theoretical than a reality.
>> But now the state can restrict where you
can carry a firearm.
>> Um could but doesn't. So There there are
limited there are very limited scenarios
like you cannot carry a firearm into a
courthouse for example.
>> Um there are federal buildings you
cannot carry a firearm into a a
building with federal employees in it.
So if you carry a firearm into a post
office you are breaking federal law.
But I see in some of our um
flood control dams,
I believe it's the damn bureau puts a
sign up and it says no firearms.
>> And I don't
>> I'm not familiar with that, but I would
actually
>> take a picture of it and send it to you.
>> Please do.
>> All right. Because I've been like, wait
a minute. I thought we were a
constitutional carry in this state.
>> We are a constitutional carry state.
Yes.
I'll try and remember to take a picture
and send it to you
and you.
All right. Uh if either of you have any
closing thoughts you want to share, I
think we're
time is up and I really do appreciate
both of you giving up your time.
>> Can I bring up
>> and everybody else?
>> Yes. No,
>> what was that?
>> He was asking about talking campaigns
and I don't want to talk campaigns here.
>> I can appreciate that as well.
>> That I was late for this meeting, but uh
could you introduce yourselves again,
please?
>> I'm Representative Shane Sway. I live
here in New
>> and I'm Jim Kofalt. I live in Wilton.
And so the two of us plus a third
person, Diane Kelly, we she was in
Temple. We represent the three towns,
Wilson Temple and Switch.
>> Thank you.
>> Senator Avar um is senator for US among
other places and he sends his regrets.
He um had surgery yesterday. I
>> think he said yesterday,
>> I think it was yesterday, had surgery on
his knee. He left me a message earlier
this this afternoon. He said, "I'm so
sorry." He says, "I'm on these
painkillers and I'm just Yeah. He cannot
get around right now." And he um
apologizes that you can't be here
tonight.
>> And and our other representative, Diane
Kelly, had a family emergency out of
state and we had originally invited our
executive counselor, David Wheeler, and
that was a last minute cancellation as
well. So regrettably, we're going to
have a full table today,
>> but I am very appreciative and of the
people.
So any closing thoughts?
Um just if if you do have specific um