Rep. Rebecca J. McWilliams, Esq., AIA lives in Concord.

We are at a pivotal moment in the history of legislative ethics in New Hampshire. The most significant change ever to NH legislator voting requirements, HB 1388 was signed into law in August and takes effect on January 1, 2025. The new law is intended to ensure that when a legislator votes, that vote is objective and based on the legislator’s conscience and for the benefit of their constituents, not influenced by personal or financial gain.

The Request for a Ruling from the Legislative Ethics Committee in the case of Democratic nominee for Senate District 15, Tara Reardon, is a very important case. It will set the standard for defining objective clarity on how a legislator must follow the new law.

House and Senate committees will begin hearing bills in January 2025, before the new Legislative Ethics Committee members are nominated, which is likely to be in February 2025 or later. Having a gap of over a month with no ethics guidance under the new statute would mean absolute chaos for our 424 House and Senate members, 1/3 of whom will be brand new to the legislature.

For continuity and guidance, the current Legislative Ethics Committee membership must provide a flow chart to help legislators determine their own personal “special interests;” define “recusal” to include removing oneself from all participation in hearings — both sitting on the committee side, and testifying to the committee — as well as voting on the bill in committee and session; and finally set the timing for recusal to be prior to the bill’s initial hearing.

The public will lose confidence in the legislature if a subjective standard is applied, such as leaving final recusal decisions up to the Senate President or House Speaker; or allowing recusal after the fact when the legislator has already testified, participated in the hearing, or voted in committee.

Ethics is an issue that transcends party, geography, age, and means. Updating NH’s legislative ethics statute to include recusal truly was a team effort. HB 1388 Prime Sponsor Vanessa Sheehan noted that the bill represents three years of Legislative Administration Committee and Legislative Ethics Committee bi-partisan wordsmithing. Until now, New Hampshire was one of the few states that did not require recusal for financial conflicts of interest, despite the fact that our Constitution Part 11 Article 7 states:

“No member of the general court shall take fees, be of counsel, or act as an advocate, in any cause before either branch of the Legislature: and upon proof thereof, such member shall forfeit his seat in the Legislature.”

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Shamir Darjee immigrated to Concord knowing no English. Now the 20-year-old just bought his family a house.

Squirrels, magic mushrooms and cat claws: A look at New Hampshire’s offbeat bills

Opinion: Let’s keep our forests as forests

‘Woefully unprepared’ hiker refused to leave Sno-Cat atop Mt. Washington

Update: Man arrested in Pleasant Street barricade incident in Concord

Thorne’s of Concord to close storefront, shift toward intimacy coaching and education

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

Rep. Sheehan testified: “The committee unanimously supported amending the legislation to raise the standard of integrity and the faith New Hampshire voters have in their elected officials.”

As part of the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee Hearing on HB 1388, Rep. Greg Hill created a flow chart to assist in determining whether a legislator should recuse from legislative duties. The intent of the new law is to err on the side of recusal for substantial financial conflicts of interest, such as owner/employee relationships and lobbying, affecting the legislator or their household member, except for voting on the state budget. Rep. Hill’s principal rule is that if a legislator thinks they may have a reason to recuse from legislative duties, they probably should, and the term “legislator” is now synonymous with “household member.”

The goal should be objective consistency, to provide clarity and guidance and therefore apply the new statute in the same manner across all legislators’ situations.

To be clear, there is no dispute that a member of the public has standing to request a ruling from the Legislative Ethics Committee. In fact, the public relies on our ethics statutes to ensure transparency and accountability.

With 24 volunteer members in the Senate, the new recusal process will have an outsized role in achieving majority votes next session. It is imperative that ethics rules be enforced consistently. To that end, the Legislative Ethics Committee must put Ms. Reardon’s household member’s lobbying client list on record. Any time her husband’s firm, Dennehy and Bouley works on a bill during the current legislative year, for or against, Ms. Reardon must fully recuse before the initial hearing. Full recusal must include not sitting on the committee hearing the bill, not testifying for or against the bill, as well as not voting. To try to enforce and catch these conflicts of interest while bills are being heard is to invite undue influence on legislative colleagues.

This is a very important case as it sets the standard for how to determine a special interest for a household member, how to completely recuse, and the timing of recusal. In issuing a ruling setting forth guidance on this situation, the Legislative Ethics Committee is doing the right thing to secure public trust in the legislative process.

This is a test case to see if we can get legislators who should recuse themselves fully from participating in the legislative process on a bill to do so, and provide transparency to the public so they can fully assess candidates in the future with full knowledge of what issues they might or might not be able to vote on.