Speaker O'Brien Chooses Corporations Over NH House Rules, Traditions

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 20:25:41 PM EST

While reviewing the roll call vote and videotapes from last week's House session, we were appalled to discover that the Speaker had voted on the right to work for less bill, HB 474, while still presiding over the session.

For those unaware, NH House rules regarding duties of the speaker clearly state that "The Speaker shall not be called on to vote unless the vote would be decisive." Additionally, the House website description of the Speaker's duties includes the line:

"The only time the Speaker votes is to break a tie."

O'Brien's decision to cast a vote while presiding - and without even informing the rest of the House he was doing so - shows a complete and total disrespect for the institution and position which he is supposed to represent.

Speakers can, and sometimes do, decide that they are so moved to vote on an issue that they will step down from the rostrum and have another member preside over the vote so that they can participate as a regular member of the House. But O'Brien's break from tradition and rule once again calls into question his ability to serve in the role of Speaker properly, effectively and, most importantly, impartially.

What's also interesting here is that O'Brien's last-minute decision to cast a vote on HB 474 shows how desperate he was to pass the anti-worker ALEC model legislation that he had promised his corporate funders. I'm told the Speaker's podium can see a tally of the vote counts in real time; one has to wonder at exactly what moment did O'Brien decide to push the button and try to sway the outcome of NH's decisive rejection of this legislation?

Also interesting and which, frankly, we hate to admit: this wasn't the first time O'Brien has done this.

The idea of a Speaker casting a vote while presiding is so unheard of, it never occurred to us to check O'Brien's record on this before. It wasn't until the HB 474 vote that we realized O'Brien appears to have also broken House rules when voting while presiding on CACR 12 (education funding) earlier this year. Granite State Progress has no idea what the recourse is for this behavior, but we certainly hope it is a topic of discussion come January 4th.

ALEC Exposed Voter ID Bill in NH

by: Matt.Murray

Sat Nov 05, 2011 at 08:27:59 AM EDT

One of the biggest legislation arguments around the country are states pushing a new "Voter ID bill".  As I reported in previous blog entries, "Voter ID Bills" are set up to lower voter turnout.  This in conjunction with "Same Day voter registration" take strikes at the elderly and students living in New Hampshire.  I have included a video from the NH Democratic Committee, where Speaker O'Brien is talking about these two pieces of legislation (at the time only proposals).  While the video is a little hard to hear but this is what he said:

"In towns like Plymouth, there are something like 900 same day registrations...which kids are coming out of the school....foolish voting as a liberal....takes away the towns to govern themselves."

(http://youtu.be/zHLkeEoaMQI Link to video, because I cannot seem to embed it here)

Even former President Clinton voiced his disapproval of these new "Voter Id and Registration laws". Now how does this all tie into "ALEC".  "ALEC" used their influence to help lawmakers craft these bills by creating sample bills for legislator to submit in their states.  Here is an excerpt from ALEC's Voter ID bill:

SUMMARY
This legislation requires any United States citizen[i] desiring to vote in a state to provide proof of identity at the polls, outlines permissible provisional ballots, and optionally[ii] provides for a free ID to those who do not have a driver's license.

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
(a) "Proof of identity" means a document or identification card that: (1) Shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued; (2) Shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued; (3) Contains an expiration date, and is not expired. (4) Is issued by the United States or the State of Arkansas.

This bill requires that a voter present a valid photo identification to vote in person. Voters without photo identification may vote by provisional ballot, provided that they subsequently appear in person before the city or town clerk and present a valid photo identification, official documentation of driver's license suspension or revocation, a waiver issued by the secretary of state, or an affidavit of religious exemption. This bill also requires that the secretary of state pay the cost for a nondriver's picture identification card upon presentation of a voucher to the division of motor vehicles.
While the wording may not be exactly the same the intentions are identical. It does even refer to providing a "Provisional Ballot" for those who do not have identification.

You be the judge, is someone outside of New Hampshire pushing our legislators to create laws that seem to be pointed at helping the GOP and lowering voter turnout of those "Foolish voting liberals"?

House Petition 14: the Dionne Diary

by: TimothyHorrigan

Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 20:02:22 PM EDT

Rep. Baldasaro Should Step Down After Troubling Comments About Those Serving the Nation

by: JeffBallardforSenate

Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 20:44:52 PM EDT

"Rep. Baldasaro should have immediately apologized for his shameful comments after the Republican Presidential Debate. As a veteran and a New Hampshire citizen, I found his applauding the booing of an Iraq War Veteran appalling. Rep. Baldasaro may have freedom of speech, but it exists because Stephen Hill, the veteran he called a 'disgrace,' risked his own life to protect it. It is no excuse for his inappropriate comments."

Rep. Baldasaro uses his credentials as a retired Marine Corps First Sargent to speak as a subject matter expert on Military Affairs. With such statements he is bringing discredit on our Military's Senior Non-Commissioned Officers whose role is not to make policy, but rather to enforce it and maintain order within the ranks. It is also the Senior NCO's role to protect soldiers like SGT Hill who is exercising his lawful right as an American Soldier. Rep Baldasaro's statements undermine his fellow Senior NCO's who are trying to maintain good order and military readiness during our ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and contingency operations around the globe.

"Republican House Speaker Bill O'Brien should immediately call for him to resign and remove him as Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the State House. Rep. Baldasaro is clearly incapable of being an advocate for all veterans. Republican State Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley should also call on Rep. Baldasaro to resign; he should make clear that this kind of language is not the official position of New Hampshire Republican Party."

Please visit my Facebook page to be kept up to date on the campaign

http://www.facebook.com/pages/...

Why Does DJ Bettencourt Disrespect NH Law Enforcement?

by: Legal Beagle

Wed Sep 14, 2011 at 20:56:59 PM EDT

Manchester police Chief David Mara made three points in favor of Lynch's veto yesterday. First, the current self-defense law works and no data has been presented showing otherwise, he said. Second, the Republican bill is opposed by a host of law enforcement professionals, including state police Maj. Russell Conte, Department of Safety Commissioner John Barthelmes, Attorney General Michael Delaney, and police chiefs and sheriffs throughout the state. Thirdly, Mara said, the bill would take away a person's duty to retreat from deadly force in a public place, creating more risk of innocent people being shot.

"If this bill passes into law, we're just going to be putting people into danger," Mara said. "Manchester, being a city, is a compact area."

 House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said Mara's opposition to the bill is "not a novel position . . . law enforcement bureaucrats traditionally are in favor of disarming the public."  

DJ immediately leapt up and ran to House Legal Counsel Ed Mosca and the Speaker for comfort. As we all must realize by now, young Bettencourt doesn't care for his irresponsible words to ever be thrown back at him. Apparently he can say what he wants and if say a Concord Monitor reporter quotes him, well that's not what I meant, I was misquoted.

The House went into a ten minute recess after taking up the veto that the Speaker's office denied for the last week would
happen. What commenced next was hilarious to those of us
observing. The House Policy Director came down, followed by
the House Information officer and the huddle began. Head shaking and pacing followed by the Honorable member from
Salem. DJ then noticed the NPR reporter waiting for him.
Should be fun to see him wiggle out of this one.

My question is this, given Rep. Tasker and his comments and now Rep. Bettencourt, why does the NH GOP not renounce this type of rhetoric? Do they really have such little respect for our state's law enforcement? Also, will law enforcement continue to support these "tough" on crime pols?

Speaker William O'Brien Mainstreams Hatred

by: Caitlin Rollo

Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 15:04:08 PM EDT

For the third time since William O'Brien became Speaker of the NH House, another member of his caucus is making national news for an outrageous and downright hate-filled statement.  In fact, two of the House members highlighted below are part of his leadership team!  

This mainstreaming of hate began earlier when now former Rep. Martin Harty (R-Barrington) said

"funding for the mentally ill should be cut because he doesn't support state funding for "the crazy people" who should be sent to 'Siberia.'"

Even worse than what Rep. Harty said was Speaker O'Brien's response to the situation,

"I would certainly hope that in the future Rep. Harty will choose his comments more carefully, and I will talk with him about how he represents the House. While at age 92 and with the amount of time and effort he has given us all, he has earned the right to say what he thinks, he needs to appreciate that, as a representative, he will be held to a higher standard."

The quarterly Intelligence Report by theSouthern Poverty Law Center put this whole issue into perspective.  This is the organization that took down the Ku Klux Klan by getting financial judgments against them.

Outside Special Interest Group Wrote NH's Right to Work for Less Legislation, and Much, Much More

by: Caitlin Rollo

Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 13:11:56 PM EDT

The idea of outside special interests having a hand in writing some of New Hampshire laws is not a new one, especially after what has happened over the past seven months under the reign of Speaker Bill O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon).  We know for a fact that he panders to the needs of big corporations like ExxonMobil and Philip Morris - passing more than $80 million dollars of corporate tax giveaways in one day alone - all while he never listened to the call of NH's most vulnerable and their needs.

The Nation this week highlights an article series entitled ALEC Exposed which caught our attention.  While reading the segment of this series, ALEC Exposed: Rigging Elections, we held hope that New Hampshire would not be mentioned.  But we were.  In fact, we were sort of highlighted as a potential bright spot because, unlike the states of

"Wisconsin, Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee...Only a veto by Democratic Governor John Lynch prevented New Hampshire from enacting a law the Republican House Speaker (Bill O'Brien) admitted was advanced to make it harder for "liberal" students to cast ballots, and that one state representative described as "directly attributable to ALEC."

HB 474--The Vote Not Taken, Again

by: Lucy Weber

Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:30:24 AM EDT

Yesterday, another effort was made to bring the veto vote on HB 474 to the House floor.   This time, the motion was made immediately after a more recent veto message was acted upon by the House.  The Speaker again denied the motion, saying again that the motion could not be brought forward because HB 474 was "not on the agenda."   The Speaker also referred to his ruling of two weeks ago when he stated (erroneously, as we have seen) that Speaker Norelli refused to bring forward a veto vote in response to his motion.

A second representative asked the Speaker to explain the ruling to the House.  Our House Rules make no mention of any "agenda."  The Governor's veto message has been published in the House Calendar for weeks.  This "agenda" is not distributed to all the members of the House, nor is it made available on-line or in print to members of the public.  The question was by what authority  did this little-known "agenda" control the actions of the House?

The Speaker replied that it was practice and precedent of the House to follow the "agenda."

A third member rose, and challenged the Ruling of the Speaker.  In support of the challenge, it was pointed out, once again, that Speaker Norelli had not, on May 19 2010, refused Rep. O'Brien's motion, she had allowed it.  With respect to practice and precedent, Speaker O'Brien himself rewrote our House Rules just this year, reducing the authority of practice and precedent, making it subordinate not only to Constitutional provisions and the House Rules, but also to Mason's Manual. The Constitution, Part II, Article 44, states that when the Governor sends a veto message, the house originating the bill "...shall enter such objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it;"

Reference was also made to Part I, Article 8 of the NH Constitution, which requires that '[g]overnment, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive."  How does following an unpublished script serve the public's need to know what their Government is doing?

The inevitable happened.  All those Constitutional experts upheld the ruling of the Speaker, voting against open government, against following the Rules they adopted at the beginning of the session, and against the Constitution.

As a matter of editorial comment, I do not recall the "agenda" ever being referred to as a controlling document (or, indeed, at all) in any of the time I have been in the House, but this is only my fifth year serving.  The only agenda I know of is a script, essentially a prompt for the Speaker, prepared just before the session.  The Clerk and the minority office have copies.  I assume that it is prepared by the Speaker's office, probably in consultation with Clerk, as a way of ensuring that no piece of business gets overlooked.  And does anyone believe for even a moment that if the attendance of HB 474 opponents had been low, the veto vote would have been taken no matter what was on the "agenda?"

Two Videos of the NH Budget Process

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 17:24:06 PM EDT

And a true story about Speaker Bill O'Brien and his priorities that everyone should know:

Created by the Granite State Progress State House Monitoring Project

NH House Leadership Continues to Hide from Public: "We don't need to hear them again."

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 23:50:04 PM EDT

House Rule 43 and RSA 91:A both call for such. But the leadership of the NH House and Senate moved forward today despite little to no public notice about legislative meetings that will ultimately shape the future of our state. A meeting about one bill this afternoon still did not have an official posting by the time the committee had wrapped up business for the day.

Committees of conference, of course, are seen by many as inside baseball. But for consumer advocacy groups and any Granite Stater seeking to be involved in setting (and protecting) strong public policy, they are a critical piece of the legislative process.

THE committee of conference - the one to hash out HB 1 and HB 2, New Hampshire's state budget - was among those that convened today even though notification was only given mere hours before it began.

Rep. Ken Weyler opened the hearing with a little speech that nicely summed up the lack of notice:

"We all had many hours of public testimony. We heard many of the travails of the public. We don't need to hear them again."

Weyler also gave direction that the common practice of standing against the wall when seats are all filled would not be allowed, and took a pre-emptive blow against any activity from the crowd:

"Our chief of security is going to make sure we don't have any disturbances and any, anything that's going to interrupt. We also appreciate the state troopers for being here to keep order because we don't have the time for any disturbances or any demonstrations."

Weyler, of course, is the same legislator who presided over a cowboy amendment to the budget bill earlier this spring that would have made workers at-will employees at the close of their contract. When hundreds turned out for the committee vote, Weyler and House Leadership refused to move to a larger room and instead forced people to line the halls and staircases in crowded masses.

It's hard to decide whether its shame or uncaring that most drives Speaker O'Brien and his extreme leadership team to avoid public transparency.

From moving the original House vote on the budget in hopes of circumventing the 5,000 strong public rally to ignoring their own House rules, this session has been an incredible display of secret meetings, misguided policy priorities and questionable ethics.

Ironically, just a day earlier thousands of petitions were delivered to the Speaker's office, calling on him to give at least 48 hours advance notice before the House veto vote on the right to work for less bill. If O'Brien can't manage 24 hours public notice, 48 must seem like an eternity to him. All the same, the petition can be found here.

Granite State Progress got word early in the day that something was amiss and began to print periodic, time-stamped listings from the General Court website as well as actual photos of the "official" board of announcements in the Clerk's office concerning the committees of conference. More information can be found in our press statement, located here.

Is Speaker O'Brien Plotting a Surprise Veto Vote on Thursday?

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Fri May 27, 2011 at 11:49:20 AM EDT

Reeling from his devastating and public setback in a House Special Election last week and his inability to find enough votes to support his extreme anti-worker agenda this week, NH House Speaker Bill O'Brien may be relying on another tactic: secrecy.

The House calendar released yesterday has a curious listing for a committee meeting on Thursday. The Redress of Grievances - a favored committee of Speaker O'Brien and one chaired by his most ardent supporters - scheduled a work session for "10:00 am Or fifteen minutes after the House session, should there be any." [Bold included in House calendar.]

Nowhere else in the House Calendar does it reference the possibility of a House Session on Thursday, though it does note that the last day for the House to act on Senate bills is Thursday, June 2nd. The phrase was not included in the Redress listings last week, so it is obvious it was not a simple error of reposting an old committee announcement.

This raises questions about whether Speaker Bill O'Brien is plotting for a surprise - and low turnout - House session on Thursday in an attempt to pass anti-worker legislation HB 474, the right to work for less bill.

Threats, Bribes - Still No Override

by: susanthe

Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:49:36 AM EDT

The battle over the so-called right to work law has been going on for months now.  If you read Mark Hounsell's editorial piece, you know that that right to work legislation has been coming back to haunt NH since the 1980's when it first appeared. In 1985, Nackey Loeb wrote an editorial opposing RTW, calling it the "right to low pay" bill. It has been voted down every single time, but it keeps on coming back. The out of state special interest group behind the law is relentless and well financed.

Let's be clear. Right to work is not a NH initiative. Both Governor Lynch and Labor Commissioner George Copadis state emphatically that no business has ever suggested that NH enact right to work legislation. No company interested in locating in NH has ever mentioned it as a concern.
So, if business doesn't want it - what is this all about? Who does want it?

The Veto Vote That Wasn't

by: Caitlin Rollo

Thu May 26, 2011 at 18:05:53 PM EDT

Towards the end of the legislative session though, it became increasingly apparent that NH House Speaker Bill O'Brien did not have the votes to override the Governor's veto and he decided to postpone the vote rather than face the rejection of his extreme partisan agenda.

When it became obvious that the NH House would not be acting on HB 474, both pro-worker and open transparency advocates in the State House became agitated with Speaker O'Brien's inaction and his constant back peddling on this issue. In protest, Rep. Tony Soltani (R-Epsom) rose during the third reading - the formal act that generally concludes the legislative activities for the day - and  voiced his opposition of postponing the vote.

With a record high turnout of state legislators - and thus an extremely representative cross-section of public opinion - it was the perfect time to take the vote. But Speaker O'Brien would hear nothing of it - when Rep. Soltani began to voice his concerns, the Speaker tried to stifle him. When Soltani persisted, the Speaker ruled him out of order and directed the Sergeant-At-Arms to escort him back to his seat.

Rep. Neal Kurk Apologizes to Committee for Not Reading Bill

by: Caitlin Rollo

Tue May 24, 2011 at 18:12:12 PM EDT

Only in their rush, as reported by Lucy last week, the House committee mistakenly replaced the bill with the Senate version of the bill instead of the House position. The Senate version passed on the Senate floor just last week and is currently awaiting review by the Senate Finance Committee; it does not include a full repeal.

Today the House Republican Leadership had to publicly admit that they had not even bothered to read the amendment before they submitted it last week and only learned about the error because a reporter called them with questions.

This is yet another example of the extreme antics that are occurring in Concord under Speaker O'Brien's watch.  The complete disregard for the legislative process and transparency is absolutely amazing.  Speaker O'Brien and the House Republican Leadership continue to offer cowboy amendments and circumvent Senate involvement by any means possible. Only this time they didn't cross their t's and dot their i's.  

(Full disclosure: I'm the new Political and Research Director for Granite State Progress.)

Rep. Bates on Voter Suppression: "It's Working"

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Mon May 23, 2011 at 17:15:31 PM EDT

That sign was quickly removed after a complaint was filed, but the questions it raised led a few of us to review our tapes of the House Finance Committee hearing on SB 129 from that day, and we were absolutely stunned by what we saw.

During the public hearing, Rep. Sharon Nordgren (D-Hanover) poses questions about the true intent of the legislation to supporters Representatives David Bates (R-Windham) and Shawn Jasper (R-Hudson). In her final question, Rep. Nordgren brings up the sign that has been placed at the polling location in New Boston - and Bates' reaction is incredible:

Bates, with a smirk and a deceptive raise of his eyebrows, turns to Jasper and whispers,"It's working."

Of course, Bates made this comment thinking no one would hear him -- and he's almost right since it's quite difficult to hear. But, unfortunately for him, we got it on tape. And so we ask: what's working?

Is it working when voters go home, thinking they couldn't vote? Or when an illegal sign is posted directing them to do so? Just what is "working" that got Rep. Bates so excited?

The House Finance Committee will vote on this legislation tomorrow. We should call them and remind them that it's not working when New Hampshire voters are turned away at the polls.

Portsmouth Raly Video--May 16, 2011

by: hannah

Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:44:07 AM EDT

Will Brendan O'Brien Vote in Tomorrow's Special Election?

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Mon May 16, 2011 at 16:43:08 PM EDT

Brendan O'Brien is a college senior at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine and chair of the Maine College Republicans. Last year, Brendan was also a State Representative candidate for Maine House District 73 - just months before he voted in the New Hampshire General Election.

According to the New Hampshire voter file, Brendan O'Brien voted in the New Hampshire Primary and General Election in 2008 from a home address in Mont Vernon, NH. He voted in the Maine General Election in 2009 from his college address in Lewiston, ME. In 2010 he secured a nomination as a State Representative primary candidate in Maine, then withdrew his name shortly after to allow the Republican Party to replace him with a more senior Republican. (Maine has a straw poll system that allows the Party to place a name on the ballot then replace it at a later date.)

Brendan went on to vote in New Hampshire's General Election in 2010 - in his father's district.

Now before the trolls go wild, I'll be quick to note that Brendan has every right to vote in Maine or New Hampshire or anywhere else he is living at the time. There does seem to be a significant question around whether he should have submitted his name for office - and the Maine State Constitution states a candidate must be resident of the state for 1 year - but we'll leave that to Maine pols to discuss.

But curiosity remains - will he vote in the New Hampshire special election this week, in the district he grew up in? Based on his voting history, it seems young O'Brien goes wherever he thinks he will have the most impact. I heard James Pindell was on the news this morning saying that if the vote is even close it'll be a blow to O'Brien; Fergus Cullen just posted on Red Hampshire that we need to "keep special elections in perspective."

Given this hype, will all of the O'Briens be making their way home to vote?

SB 129 Follies: You Didn't Really Want to Vote, Did You?

by: Tim Ashwell

Mon May 02, 2011 at 09:53:30 AM EDT

He's about to accomplish this through his usual route of no public hearings on bills, substituting committee members at voting sessions to ensure his chosen outcome and sending Representatives running crying from the room.

His plan to prevent college students from voting in New Hampshire was well publicized but since the courts ruled on the issue 40 years ago, there was little chance it would survive a legal challenge. His real effort has been to force through a much more insidious photo ID bill (SB129). This week's version of SB129 requires already-registered voters to produce a government-issued ID in order to get a ballot. The Secretary of State estimates 50,000 to 75,000 voters in next year's presidential primary and even more in the general election won't have the required ID.

O'Brien's version of SB129 is so extreme in its details that no other photo ID bill being pushed anywhere else in the country even begins to compare to it.

Speaker O'Brien's "Financial Limits" - and His Mercedes-Benz

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 14:57:19 PM EDT

For at least the second time this month, Speaker O'Brien himself has introduced an amendment to strip the language and intent of a bill in full and replace it with his own version of reality. The gas tax mayhem amendment was introduced during the public hearing on Tuesday morning and passed through executive session of the House Finance Committee just a few hours later. Again, no public hearing was held on this bill - only those who were there in the room would have even had a chance to respond to it, and they would have been there to testify on a completely different (and largely settled) issue altogether.

Less than twenty-four hours after Speaker O'Brien introduced this cowboy amendment, it passed the floor of the House. How's that for the open and transparent process in Concord.

But I digress, because the topic we really want to highlight is one statement in particular that Speaker O'Brien made when defending the legislation. When pressed that the bill will amount to little savings for individuals while producing a $7 million deficit to the highway fund (and boon to big oil companies), O'Brien said:

"Perhaps they (opponents to the bill) are not living up against financial limits the way some of us do."

Interesting, because according to Granite State Progress research, Speaker O'Brien isn't exactly hurting. In fact, last year he was able to afford an addition to his home, and his vehicle of choice for the daily commute to Concord? A Mercedes-Benz:

If Speaker O'Brien really knew anything about "financial limits" he would know that this reckless measure will cause more trouble for New Hampshire families, not less.