The House, Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Rep. Michael O'Brien (D - Hills 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. My fellow colleagues, I rise today to offer support for an Ought to Pass motion on HB 274. But, before I start, please let me give you the usual caveats. I spent 35 years as a firefighter for the City of Nashua, rising to the rant of Deputy Fire Chief, but at the same time, when I turned in and retired my helmet, I accepted the hat as an Alderman for the City of Nashua and I currently serve as Vice President of the Nashua Board of Aldermen. Having these two positions, being a member of the New Hampshire Retirement System, plus working for a municipality that comes up and does the financing of all, gives me a very unique aspect in looking at this particular bill. This bill will require the state to pay 5% of the normal contributions back into the Group I and the Group II pension system. Now, this was done in the past. If you look at the history, in 1967 when the pension system was formed by the State of New Hampshire, they took four groups. They took the state employees, they took the teachers and formed Group I. They took the police and they took the firefighters and formed Group II. Merging the two groups together that's come into the New Hampshire Retirement System. In its inception, the State of New Hampshire paid 40% contributions for each employee. It was later modified, very quickly by the time we got into the 70s to drop down to 35%. That 35% existed until about the year of 2010. Now, we all heard problems with the pension system, but can somebody explain to me how if there is a problem, legitimate, with the pension system, how do we go from the state paying 35% down to the current zero? The math doesn't work to me, okay. But where did the 35% that is needed for the employee contributions come from? Well, it came from your city and town so if your city or town has one cop, one teacher or one firefighter that belongs to the New Hampshire Retirement System, your taxpayers are paying 35% of that cost that used to be borne by the state. Now, this bill, if you go with the Ought to Pass motion, asks that the state pay a prudent compromise of only 5%. Now, we have to realize that our cities and towns, particularly in Nashua, are dealing with the other elephant in the room and that is the COVID. This would definitely help out municipalities deal with that type of pandemic. There is some opposition that people have brought up that it would go that if the state made the contributions, that the state would not have any say in the matter. It would be left up to the localities, but that already exists. If you go to your county budget, does your taxpayers really have a say at the county budget. No, they go and they have you as their representative to that. That's why I am asking you now for the Ought to Pass motion because you are the representative for your taxpayer to help them alleviate the burden that was thrusted 10-years ago back the individual communities. They are saying people will try to get more raise or this would encourage cities to go out and hire more cops or fireman. Well, if you ever heard of the NFPA, the NFPA makes recommendations to, and I can speak from experience, of how many firefighters should be on duty. This has nothing to do with the state. When you have a fire in a ranch house, NFPA standards 1710 says you need 14 firefighters to fight that fire. So, it has nothing to do or any demands on the pension system. The other thing, let me introduce you to my favorite subject, math. I hated math, but the thing is, it is the law of percentages. If one community is paying more for their police and firefighters or teachers, does that put a drain on the system? No, because by percentages, it's all equal to what the percentage of what another community puts in. Now, I don't want to say this is just a Nashua bill. It's not. This is a bill that is going to affect every single community from the Canadian border to the Massachusetts border, from the great Atlantic Ocean to the Vermont border. Your cities and towns have felt this burden. This bill has the support of the New Hampshire Municipal Association and I hope you read the blurb and perhaps did a little bit of your homework and went to talk to your town fathers because they, through the New Hampshire Municipal Association, are in favor of this bill. So, I kindly ask you all to take a quick look at the blurb. I wrote it like a true Irishman. It's a little wordy, but I did kiss the Blarney Stone when I was over there last. So, please look at the blurb, make the educated decision and support your taxpayers by the prudent, not 35%. I could have asked for even halves, go Dutch, 17%. I came up with a number of a prudent 5%. So, please support me in the endeavor and support the Ought to Pass motion. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Kingston, Rep. Weyler, to speak against the Ought to Pass motion.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The previous speaker neglected to mention the time that it was brought down to 25% and it wasn't a whisper. Then we came up with trying to balance a budget and look out 2-years in advance and realized that we had a very tight budget and if some town decided to give 6% pay raises to everybody, we would have to begin chipping in. It could happen all over. They could create new jobs. When these things were first passed back in the 60s, there were very few full-time firefighters or full-time policemen in most of these towns so a lot of that has been added since. A lot of these places, when the state first began chipping in, there were a lot fewer employees, so when we had to do a budget back in 2011, and we looked at how these retirement contributions had been growing. They'd been burgeoning, they'd been growing every year, not only because of large pay raises, but because people were added to payrolls and we had no control over that. So, we decided to make up for the difference if we didn't contribute the 25%, which it was at the time, by making the employees pay more. So, we added 2% to the teachers and they were about 60% of the group. The police and firemen were only about 40% total or less. So, everybody added 2% to the teachers, 2.25% to the police and 2.45% to the firemen, so they were adding more. I was confronted by fireman saying this was a new tax and I said wait a minute. Do you realize where this money is going to? It's not going to anybody but you or your family or your heirs. This is your money. It is in forced savings so you are paying a little bit more than you would normally, but it's all your money. So, to get all this talk about what's happening in the town and the property taxes and all that, when we first did it, that extra payment that went in took care of the extra money that would have cost the towns. Since then, the retirement system hasn't done a very good job in investing so that more money has been required to be paid in, but it probably should be paid in by those that are gaining the most. So, I hope you vote against this proposal and vote ITL. Of course I believe the motion that will come before us is Ought to Pass. I hope you vote against that and vote red because we have taken care of this and the fair way to do this is the retirement system is keeping lousy investments, would be to share the cost of going up between the employee and the employer to be really fair and that's the way most companies do it. They don't make the employer pay more. Thank you. Please vote red.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Two speakers ago, I want to know if it is appropriate for the use of language that I heard on the House floor two speakers ago when the speaker referred to going Dutch as a means of financial division? And, I would say that language is grossly inappropriate for the floor of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Seriously.

Speaker PackardUsually you make the point of order right at the time it is happening.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)I apologize, Mister Speaker, but the representative that just spoke was very quick to the microphone and I am seated way over there so to get to the microphone takes time. It's not the House floor so I apologize it took me a little time, but it's still language that should not be tolerated on the House floor.

Speaker PackardThe question before the House is the Ought to Pass motion on HB 274. Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested by Rep. Cushing. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. McGuire for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that due to local control, the number in pay of all municipal employees is due totally under the control of the employer and the state has no input to that. If I know that the increase in retirement pay that so concerns some members is due not to a change in the state contribution, which went from zero to zero, but due to paying back with interest almost 20-years of artificially low employer contributions to a cost of living increase we granted last session without paying for it and downshifted to the local employers to the demographics, where the teachers in particular are living longer, which is wonderful for them. Not so good since we are committed to paying them a lifetime pension. Due to poor investment results at the retirement system and their changed assumptions. And, if I know that I have seen and many others have seen, cases where extra money given to municipalities for property tax relief actually resulted in higher spending and not in property tax relief, would I press the red button and not impose these unfair subsidies to local employees? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Cushing for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Mister Speaker, if I know a half century ago, this legislature and the state government made a promise to the municipalities that it would support a portion of their retirement costs for teachers, firefighters and police officers. And, if I know that a decade ago, we broke that promise and the consequence was the largest single impact across the board in property taxes in the history of the State of New Hampshire. And, if I know what we have before us is a very modest attempt to have the legislature keep its promise to municipalities to help relieve the property tax burden that we are responsible for imposing in large part upon them, would I now press the green button and vote yes on the Ought to Pass motion? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the Ought to Pass motion on HB 274. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House attend to the state of the vote. 172 voting Yea, 186 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Osborne offers the motion of ITL. Are you ready for the question? Rep. Conley requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The question is on the motion of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 274. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 189 voting Yea, 168 voting Nay, the ITL motion passed.