Prohibits town managers, administrators, and school superintendents from being compensated under more than one municipal contract simultaneously and establishes criminal penalties for violations.
relative to preventing municipal employees from being paid under multiple municipal contracts simultaneously.
North Hampton currently lacks both a fire chief and a police chief while our Town Administrator decides his time between North Hampton and Newcastle. Three police chiefs have resigned in the last 4 years. The Town is poorly managed and clearly needs the full time attention of the Town Administrator.
The ability for small school districts in our state to hire a part-time superintendent provides a more cost-effective approach to SAU services. Many part-time superintendents serve multiple districts, helping to reduce expenses and save taxpayers money in each town.
I hope to testify in person, but am submitting as written testimony as well. I appreciate your consideration of my written testimony in support of HB 512. As a resident of North Hampton, NH, I am deeply concerned about a decision made over a year ago by our Select Board members. They approved our full-time Town Administrator to simultaneously hold a part-time position in Newcastle, NH, without public consultation. This decision was made in a non-public meeting, denying residents and taxpayers the opportunity to express their concerns. When residents later questioned why our town should continue paying a full-time salary for a Town Administrator now dividing his week between two towns, they were dismissed out of hand. The Select Board argued that as long as there was no scheduling conflict, it wasn't an issue. However, as a taxpayer, I find it illogical to compensate an employee for full-time work when they are serving another town two days a week, especially without any public hearing or input from residents. Over the past year, while sharing a Town Administrator, we've experienced the resignation of a police chief, a police force operating at half capacity, and most recently, the resignation of a highly respected fire chief. These events indicate that duties are not being fulfilled effectively. Further, upon submitting a 91a request to both the Towns of North Hampton and Newcastle as to the time sheets and billed hours committed, I was denied the right to the information. I ask this committee, what recourse residents have when it appears that the Select Board is being directed by the Town Administrator rather than providing oversight on issues such as this? Opponents may argue that such decisions should remain local and that legislation is unnecessary. However, as New Hampshire is a Dillon rule state, and whereas this law would impact multiple municipalities, I urge the legislature to address this issue to ensure NH taxpayers have recourse. Additionally, in order to advance this bill to the House floor, I ask that you amend it to remove the the following sentences, “Any person who fails to report acceptance of a new town manager or administrator employment offer while under contract as a town manager or administrator shall be guilty of a felony” in both Section 1, III and Section 2, III. Passing the bill without the language related to criminality would still offer New Hampshire taxpayers essential recourse and could improve this legislations chances of approval in both the House and Senate. I urge you to put forth an amendment outlined above and vote Ought to Pass as Amended on this needed legislation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Larsen Schultz North Hampton, NH
I am a resident of North Hampton NH and a member of the Budget Committee. I 100% support HB512 . We have a Town Administrator that comes in the office and is available to the public 2 1/2 days a week (22 hours -Mon, Wed and 1/2 day Friday) at full salary as if he were in the office 4 1/2 days/40 hours a week. He works 2 days a week for the town of Newcastle as their part-time Town Administrator. When he presented this 2nd job opportunity to the town Select Board that was chaired by Jim Maggiore at the time, it was represented as a temporary position to "help the town of Newcastle out". In that spirit, Jim recommended that we "help our neighbors out" and that other town workers have second jobs. Thats fine but the Newcatle should be paying North Hampton and not the TA directly. When questioned about this approved arrangement at a Budget Committee meeting the Select Board said our TA would be working on his off hours, free time - ie. nights and weekends. That has absolutely not been the case. And I would argue that the Select Board would not allow any town employee to work 2 days a week out of the office at a 2nd job. The Town of Newcastle is paying our TA directly. Another justification by our Select Board to allow it. All of these Select Board and Budget Committee comments and decisions can be found on the town website under meeting videos. We lost our police chief a few months ago and the Town of Rye allowed their police chief to take a leave of absence and work temporarily for the Town of North Hampton. When we are short of police or fire we share with the other towns and pay the towns directly. That is the way it should be done. This arrangement with the North Hampton TA which was supposed to be "temporary" is now going on its second year and the Select Board continues to defend this arrangement on the taxpayers dime. If the TA can hold down TWO paying TA jobs then perhaps the Town of North Hampton does not need a full-time TA but could save taxpayer money with a part-time TA. The Select Board has argued that our TA is getting the job done but I would suggest the opposite when we have a woefully understaffed police department and a fire police chiefs that resigned within a week of each other last December. All this said, Jim Maggiore as chair of the North Hampton Select Board when they approved the TA sharing arrangement and current Vice Chair and who has continued to strongly support the activity, clearly has a conflict of interest and should be recused from voting on this bill in the C0mmittee.
I urge you to SUPPORT HB512 as this bill will guarantee that a municipal employee has employment, and focus, upon one municipality.
I am fortunate to work as a building administrator in public education and to work closely with town administrators in both the town in which I work and the one in which I live. While I appreciate the author's intention with the bill, this bill should not pass for two reasons: 1. New Hampshire simply does not have enough individuals with the skills and knowledge to be effective town managers, administrators, and school superintendents. We are fortunate that some of the people who possess the needed qualities are willing to serve the needs of more than one community. If they were not, many smaller communities would find themselves having to hire unqualified individuals or individuals who have had difficulty finding work due to poor references or poor reputations. 2. Many towns simply cannot afford to pay a full-time employee for some of these roles. It is not uncommon, for example, for a superintendent in the North Country to piece together a living by working for more than one community. If they were not allowed to do this, they would not be able to live in the North Country and serve these communities. Rather, they would need to remain in the more populated regions of the state. Another possibility would be forcing these small communities to employ full-time employees in order to recruit someone to fill them. This has a budgetary impact that in untenable for already struggling tax payers. Simply put, our small communities would be punished by the passage of this bill.
I oppose this bill because it makes no sense to stranglehold small towns and communities from sharing resources where they see fit. There are many case in NH where resources are shared effectively for the benefit for the residents and tax payers. I see no benefit in this legislation. Allow towns, on their own, to decide if such an arrangement is effective for them. Why over legislate? Let New Hampshire be New Hampshire. Do not create unnecessary legislation that simply gives towns less options for managing their own affairs.
This bill is over reach by the state to direct the running of municipalities. Select Boards and School Boards have authority over who they hire. They don't need the state restricting their options. If a Select Board or School Board is comfortable hiring an individual who also works for another municipality, that is and should continue to be their decision.
This bill unnecessarily hinders government efficiency and cost savings, costing taxpayers money. This penalizes small towns and school districts in particular, because their positions often need less than full-time work and often jobs internally cannot be combined because of the unique set of skills each job might require. In forcing school districts and municipalities to hire employees who only work for one town or district, taxpayers will pay more in the following ways: searching for candidates who can afford to work only part-time jobs, potentially hiring less-than-qualified candidates for positions that combine multiple unrelated responsibilities requiring additional training and time, and foregoing the opportunity for economies-of-scale. This also ignores the realities of the New Hampshire work force; there aren't enough people to fill jobs. This is a nonsensical proposal and is the opposite of good government.
This bill will address the conflict of interest that exists. You work for one municipality and only draw pay from one.
I am in support of this legislation. These positions are full-time positions with associated compensation coming from town tax dollars. We are currently in this position in North Hampton and it has negatively impacted our town and there presently is no remedy for the towns people to stop this from happening. We deserve to have the full-time attention of any town manager, administrator, and school superintendent. I urge the committee to support this legislation. Thank you.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.