Aylward: Wow! What A Day In Concord And Beyond ...

Letter to the Editor/Andover Beacon, April Issue

There are times when public officials, representatives, and voters just have to say ’NO’, such as when a proposal is not sound, reasonable, or affordable. They must be firm in their convictions for the ‘common good’, and base their decisions not on personalities or popularity, but instead on the use of good judgment to advance public policy based on sound principles and values. When I was asked to make a motion to ITL (Inexpediate to Legislate) HB 1001 (relative to property tax exemptions for Mason Lodges and Mason Associations) that was introduced by Sherman Packard, Speaker of the House, I agreed to do so because the proposal would cause a loss of property tax revenue and an increase to taxpayers. Without knowing the consensus of the other 19 members of the committee, as a freshman lawmaker, it felt as if falling into the abyss — because what if ALL the other members voted against my motion and I was left standing alone and in a position adverse to one of the most powerful political figures/personalities in the state? To my relief, the measure passed 19-1 in overwhelming favor of ITL. Standing firm in one’s convictions can be HARD to do --but it is always the RIGHT thing to do.

###

Municipal and County Government Committee, 3/11/24, Executive Session: HB 1284, ITL 16-0.

Rep. Deborah Aylward for the Majority. Sponsored by Rep. Jordan Ulery (Hudson), the bill attempts to mandate a uniform ‘Code of Ethical Conduct’ for Planning Board members that is well-intended, and in some cases, its essence may be necessary for towns or cities having Planning Board members who, for lack of training, self-educating, or otherwise, require more stringent rules governing their conduct.

The bill also attempts to clarify "the quasi-judicial nature of the office”, seeks to restate the authority of Planning Boards, and adds more authority. However, some of the language is somewhat confusing, such as the use of the term ‘quasi-judicial administrative agency’. A variety of terms describing Planning Boards' powers are found scattered among various local rules of procedure, such as ‘administrative’, and ‘legislative’.

Whereas the terms ‘judicial' and 'quasi-judicial' are used in statute, with the terms painstakingly examined by the NH Supreme Court in Winslow v. Town of Holderness, on the other hand, the "Planning Board Handbook", published by the Dept. of Business and Economic Affairs, describes the authority as ‘regulatory’ and 'non-regulatory'. It is felt that until the statute aptly defines and succinctly describes the board’s authority and that language is consistent throughout the planning and zoning chapter and published guidance, there will continue to be much confusion, that could provide an excuse for disregarding laws and rules altogether.

To protect abutters and applicants, the measure notably provides them with the ability to request the recusal or disqualification of specific board members but does not specify any grounds for making such requests. Moreover, the disqualification of planning board members is already addressed in RSA 673:14. (Note: Removal of members is addressed in RSA 673:13). There is a provision addressing ‘conflict of interest’ when having a ‘direct interest’ that is vague. Furthermore, towns are enabled to adopt "Conflict of Interest Ordinances” per RSA 31:39-a, with which, the bill’s language may conflict with local control, and cause confusion.

Introduced: HB 1284-LOCAL: https://www.gencourt.state.nh....

RSA 673:13 - Disqualification of Member: https://www.gencourt.state.nh....
RSA 673:14 - Removal of Members: https://www.gencourt.state.nh....
Winslow v. Holderness: https://casetext.com/case/wins...