House GOP leaders back recusal standard for lawmakers
Jan. 30—CONCORD — A group of House Republican leaders seeks to close a gap in the state's ethics laws and spell out when lawmakers must recuse themselves from voting due to a conflict of interest.
New Hampshire has a state law regarding conflict of interest and legislators get a lengthy booklet on the state laws on the topic that includes ethics guidelines and a ban on gifts to legislators.
There is no legal template for when a legislator must abstain from voting due to a conflict, however.
House Legislative Administration Committee Chairman Greg Hill, R-Northfield, testified before his own committee Monday on his proposal (HB 301) to create that recusal standard.
"We don't seem to have given direction to any of our colleagues what they should be doing or how they should be thinking," Hill said.
"Our goal was always to try to create some kind of guideline."
Four House committee chairs and two Republican state senators have signed onto Hill's bill.
Hill stressed this proposal needs to be refined and should attract bipartisan support.
"It became clear to me that ultimately we would end up with some kind of compromise or committee amendment," Hill said.
The state's current law spells out a conflict of interest for legislators is an issue on which a legislator has a "special interest" that is "distinct from and greater than the interests of the public at large."
Legislators are free to disclose any such conflict and still vote on legislation, however.
Ethics panel identified gap in state law
Hill's bill would require legislators to recuse themselves if they are getting paid from an employer with a conflict, are acting as the lawyer for any party or are serving in any official capacity in a nonprofit or for-profit organization that is the subject of legislative activity.
Former Rep. Ned Gordon, chairman of the Legislative Ethics Committee, had urged the Legislature to address this matter and in the past authored his own proposed solution.
"We do need to put in place a system where people have a direct conflict that needs to be recognized and addressed," Gordon wrote last year.
Gordon did not seek reelection in 2022.
In 2019, the ethics panel ruled that the late former House Majority Leader Doug Ley had violated ethics guidelines by testifying and voting on several bills relevant to his work as paid president of the state chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, an education union.
Ley received no punishment, but was advised to stop testifying on his union's behalf before legislative committees and to cease from voting on bills his employer endorsed or opposed.
During the rest of the term, Ley complied with the committee's suggestion.
This legislation would also add actions taken on behalf of "someone the legislator cares about to the definition of a potential conflict.
"There are people in my life I would do anything for," Hill said.
Under the bill, these individuals could include "family members, friends or business associates."
No one else testified on the legislation Monday.
Among those who registered opposition to the bill online were AFL-CIO President Glenn Brackett, NH Labor Unity Table State Director Alan Raff and Sebastian Fuentes, movement politics director with the Rights and Democracy Project.
