-
My committee (MCG) is in Executive Session today; hopefully we get through our bills in a relatively reasonable fashion... (thread starts here)
-
"2/22/22" doesn't sound as cool if you pronounce it "two twenty-two twenty-two" instead of "two-two-two-two-two"
-
first bill: HB1026, which... well, since the "may" seems to be staying "may" (instead of switching to "shall"), seems fine
-
HB1026 OTPs unanimously; goes on the consent calendar
-
HB1055 up now; it's always confusing with bills with amendments whether to talk about the amendment or the bill as a whole...
-
HB1055 and its amendment both pass along party lines, 10-9. Onto HB1056, another one of these tax credit tweaks.
-
oh right I forgot to include the #NHPolitics hashtag at the top of this thread; doing that once here and then forgetting about it again...
-
we probably should have raised this point about needing a Fiscal Note on the previous bill, too...
-
HB1056 passes along party lines, 10-9; hope we can get the FN request in quicker on the next one...
-
gah process is confusing; @nhhouseclerk come help us out in LOB 301-303 here
-
looks like we have to do a motion to reconsider first in order to get Fiscal Notes on the bills we already voted on?
-
this is like one of the first motions to reconsider I've heard where we're actually reconsidering something
-
motion to reconsider HB1055 passes unanimously
-
process is still confusing
-
maybe @NHSpeaker can give us some process guidance if @nhhouseclerk can't? Current status is that the motion to reconsider on HB1055 just passed; I think that puts us back in the state of reconsidering the previous OTP/A motion?
-
uh... moving on to HB1069 I guess?
-
Rep. Rung has an amendment to change HB1069 from just being about Belknap County to be about all counties.
-
wish we could have had more discussion on HB1069 before voting on it, but anyways, both the amendment and the bill itself passed unanimously, 10-9. Anyways now the clerk is here to help us with our Fiscal Notes questions...
-
sounds like the process going forward could kind of depend on how the results of the Fiscal Note come out... (i.e. whether it goes to another committee or not could depend on whether the Fiscal Note says it'll affect state revenues or appropriations, or just shift local burdens)
-
second time around with OTP/A, the motion fails, 17-2... and apparently we're going straight to ITL instead of requesting a Fiscal Note?
-
motion of ITL passes 18-1
-
reconsidering HB1056 next
-
motion to reconsider HB1056 passes 18-1... If only @nhrepPorter were still on this committee to keep everyone in line on process...
-
after reconsidering, have to go back to the original motion, so the second OTP motion for 1056 (after reconsideration) passes, 18-1... onto the ITL motion...
-
ITL for HB1056 passes by the same margin, too
-
apologies to the sponsors of these bills for our procedural mess; it's not really *their* fault the bills didn't get Fiscal Notes, but rather that of the Fiscal Note assigner...
-
HB1057 we didn't even take a first vote on, so no need to reconsider here, we can just go straight to ITL (it's the 3rd and final of the 3 tax bills that were part of this bundle)
-
HB1057 is ITL-ed unanimously; onto HB1078, the @Gunstockmtn bill
-
there's an amendment to HB1078 that we're waiting to be printed
-
amendment pretty much guts the bill, replacing it with a single sentence, which seems... better? But no one heard the amendment, though; all the commentary was on the underlying bill, so... idk if the amendment would satisfy all of them...
-
Amendment passes along party lines, 10-9; even though I thought the amendment was an improvement, I voted against it anyways, on the grounds that it wasn't enough of a fix, and hadn't received enough attention as the underlying bill; assuming other Dems reasoned similarly
-
anyways the amendment is moot now, since we voted to ITL it even with the amendment, unanimously, 19-0.
-
skipping ahead to HB1087, about single-family zoning. I oppose single-family zoning, and this bill would restrict it, so I support this bill!
-
HB1087 is ITL-ed mostly along party lines, 11-8 (Rep. Klee voted with the Republicans, I'm guessing probably because her part of Nashua has a lot of single-family zoning)... lunch break now.
-
Lunch break is over; back for HB1098... there's an amendment that basically just inserts the word "on-street" before "parking"
-
wait make that "off-street" not "on-street"
-
amendment to HB1098 fails 16-2
-
apparently you "adopt" amendments, instead of "passing" them
-
HB1098 is ITL-ed 17-1; I was the "1" but won't object to it going on the consent calendar
-
Next: HB1070, on default budgets for official ballot jurisdictions... there's an amendment to this one, too; it just un-strikes-out a portion that wasn't supposed to be stricken
-
amendment to HB1070 gets a tie vote, 9-9 (Rep.MacDonald, the usual comments clerk has left, creating an absence; Rep. Maggiore is taking over clerking for him)... which I guess means the amendment is failed to be adopted...
-
motion to ITL HB1070 passes, 10-8, which I guess means we got a GOP Rep. to join us? Missed who it was, though.
-
Next is HB1119, to allow municipalities to regulate single-use plastic bags. Rep. Rung has an amendment to replace "to customers" with "at point of sale"
-
(either that or allow "and/or" as a valid legislative term)
-
distributive property of English language sentence construction: @cooljeanius/1493616968724852737
-
I think we're still supposed to be talking about the amendment, even though the conversation has shifted to the bill as a whole...
-
props to Rep. Pauer for limiting her remarks to just the amendment, even when the rest of the committee has moved on to discussing the bill as a whole...
-
Amendment to HB1119 fails along party lines, 10-9; I guess the whole bill will go that way, too, then... (Rep. MacDonald is back to resume clerking, btw)
-
HB1119 as a whole is ITL-ed by the same margin, 10-9.
-
HB1081 is being moved until tomorrow, so that we can adjourn now.