The House, Thursday, April 8, 2021

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. I speak in opposition to CACR 3. CACR 3 would amend the New Hampshire Constitution by deleting provisions that are critical to protecting the freedom of religion and the fundamental principles of separation of church and state. These provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution were specifically crafted to preserve our freedom to live in a state where the government is not entangled with matters of faith. Matters of faith are personal, private decisions and are properly reserved for individuals, families and religious communities. The New Hampshire Constitution rightly protects these decisions from government interference and intervention. In fact, CACR 3 would break down the walls separating our state government from our religious practices by allowing public funds to be used for religious education. Moreover, CACR 3 would, in conjunction with other legislation, have significant financial costs to our state. For example, it would allow a school voucher program to pay for students education at religious schools, where such funds can be used for religious instruction. Today, families already have the choice to attend a religious school without state involvement. You'll hear the argument that CACR 3 abolishes the Blaine Amendment. In New Hampshire we don't have that. We have something called the "No-aid" clause that predates the Blaine attempt to amend the US Constitution in the mid-1880s. Further, you'll hear arguments that CACR 3 is relevant due to US Supreme Court cases in Espinoza, which had to do with tax credit vouchers and is not about the requirement for public funding of religious education and you also might hear about the Trinity Lutheran decision which uses public funds for playground equipment. Both of these supreme court rulings are very, very narrow. The "No-aid" clause in our state constitution ensures that public schools would be secular and therefore open to all. It protects the fundamental religious freedom principles that no citizen should be forced to fund someone else's religious activities or religious instruction. It is an important part of America's history of religious freedom. Like New Hampshire, 47 states have constitutional provisions that explicitly prohibit the government from funding religious activities and religious education. If you agree that the state government should not be financially supporting religious decisions and practices, then I urge you to support our existing New Hampshire Constitution and vote no on CACR 3. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Cordelli to speak in favor of the majority committee report.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. CACR 3 is a constitutional amendment to repeal the so called Blaine Amendment from our constitution. This 1877 amendment to our constitution needs to be repealed for two reasons. First, it is unconstitutional. Last June, the US Supreme Court ruled in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case that it is a violation of the establishment clause to exclude religious schools while allowing non-religious private schools. The committee minority would have you ignore this ruling and also the 2017 ruling by the supreme court in the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer case that said, "That denying a generally available benefit solely on the count of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion" and that is exactly what our Blaine Amendment does. To cite our Blaine Amendment as an objection to school choice programs is clearly unconstitutional therefore shortly you will hear several other bills on school choice that will not require this repeal because of the Espinoza ruling. This amendment is also a relic of anti-Catholic bigotry. It was placed in our constitution as a reaction to that bigotry. Public schools of the era were Protestant schools, reading from Protestant bibles. The influx of Catholic immigrants primarily from Ireland and Germany arrived here and found that their children were being taught religious concepts that were contrary to their own. This discrimination led to violence. In Philadelphia there were riots over which version of the bible was to be used in schools. In Maine a Catholic church was burned and a priest tarred and feathered and these were not isolated incidents. An amendment to the US Constitution to maintain the Protestant control of schools and deny funding to Catholic schools was put forward by Congressman Blaine of Maine who wanted to ride the anti-Catholic bigotry to the US Presidency and succeed President Grant. His amendment passed the US House, but was defeated by just 2 votes in the US Senate. The anti-Catholic movement did not end there. States began adopting their own Blaine Amendments. The New Hampshire Constitution was amended just two years later in 1877 to include a so-called Blaine Amendment and was clearly modeled after the failed US Constitution. I will add that these anti-religious school efforts continued until at least the 1920s, aided in part by the Ku Klux Klan. The minority report talks about separation of church and state. That language is nowhere in our US Constitution, yet it was mentioned in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, but the minority cherry-picks one phrase and ignores the context of that letter. The New Hampshire Blaine Amendment was an attempt to preserve the Protestant monopoly, monopoly on education and school funding. Blaine Amendments were borne of bigotry. Religious bigotry is no better than racial bigotry. We have seen the tearing down of statues around the country, but what needs to be torn down are the statutes that promote that bigotry to this day. New Hampshire needs to repeal this amendment now as an unconstitutional remnant of that anti-Catholic bigotry. It is a stain upon our constitution. As the supreme court said of Blaine Amendments in the Mitchell v. Helms decision, "It was borne of bigotry and should be buried now." Today, you can help to bury our Blaine Amendment and let the voters have a say by pressing the green button. And, Mister Speaker, I request a division vote.

Speaker PackardA division has already been requested. Will the member yield to question? The member does not yield. I heard a request for a roll call. Yes, Representative. Representative Almy.

Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 13)Yes, Mister Speaker. I wanted to ask a question of Rep. Luneau or someone from the committee.

Speaker PackardDoes someone from the committee accede to questions?

Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 13)Thank you. I'm reading in the minority blurb that, sorry report, that this section that we are talking about was passed on June 2, 1784. That is well before any Blaine Amendments. It is in line with the Jeffersonian position. So, could you tell me is there a problem with that statement?

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)No. Thank you very much for the question. That statement is something that our founding fathers put in the constitution early on back in 1784 and has been in our constitution and it reads in part, "But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools for any sect or denomination."

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to a further question?

Speaker PackardA roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. Just to be clear Representative, it is 3/5th of the entire membership, not those voting and present. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ley for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker if I know that since 1784 the New Hampshire Constitution has wisely contained the clause, "But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination" thereby establishing a separation in education between church and state. And, if I know this language long predates the so-called Blaine Amendment put forth by a Republican legislature and named after a Republican Presidential candidate in the mid late 19th century. And, if I know that recent US Supreme Court cases were narrow rulings and do not necessarily apply in a direct manner, as asserted, to the language of the New Hampshire Constitution, would I now vote against adoption of CACR 3 and vote no by pressing the red button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the legislation before this body now has nothing to do with changing the provision of the constitution that was enacted in 1784. And, if I know that the Blaine Amendment, which is the subject of this legislation, is an unfortunate relic of 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry that thankfully has been rendered toothless by recent US Supreme Court decisions, which negate a similar provision in the Montana Constitution. And, if I know that the Blaine Amendment serves no useful purpose today other than to offer a last ditch effort by the teachers' unions and those beholden to them to prevent parents of ordinary means as opposed to wealthy parents from exercising freedom of choice in educating their children, would I press the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThis is a roll call vote. The question is on majority report of Ought to Pass on CACR 3. 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. 197 voting Yea, 175 voting Nay, it does not meet the requirement of 239 so the motion, committee report fails.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The intent behind this bill is a laudable one. To improve the level of civics knowledge amongst graduates of our community colleges and the university system. I've taught US history for over 30 years at a university. I've also taught the occasional course in political science and I can attest to the low level of civic knowledge and unfortunately civic engagement that frequently characterizes many of our college and university students. It's kind of depressing. Having said all this though, there are some questions and points that need to be raised. I think a good question can be posed right off the bat. Is it advisable for the legislature to dictate what should be taught in a higher education context? I fear it could be a slippery slope if we require a test administered by the Customs and Naturalization Service, as it is proposed here. What would prevent a future legislature from requiring the teaching of divisive concepts, for example? But I want to focus more on pedagogy. The bill will do virtually nothing, I'm afraid, to begin solving the problem of civics, lack of civics knowledge and engagement and it might even worsen it. Handwringing over the lack of civics knowledge has been with us for well over 100 years. We have surveys and concerns about it leading back to the 19-teens. Along with dire predictions that the younger generation are doomed to fail and run the country aground due to their civic ignorance. Sorry all you younger people. Oddly though we've managed to survive. Moreover, I think what's truly embarrassing is that the lack of civic knowledge is widespread. It crosses all age groups and educational levels. I hate to mention this, but a colleague on the Education Committee at one point, randomly selected 7 questions. It was either 7 or 8 questions from the proposed test and he threw them at the members of the committee in quick fashion and members were not exactly racing to shout out the answers. I'll just leave it at that. I know the bill's prime sponsor scored well and I did as well but you know we have an unfair advantage. We've taught this stuff for a long time. It's kind of our bread and butter. But, let's face it. Is knowing why Dwight Eisenhower was famous or being able to name 5 of the 13 colonies; is that knowledge really important to student's lives today? We have a thing called the Internet. Look it up, okay. And, that gets to the heart of the problem here. You know if we seek a quick feel-good solution to low levels of civics knowledge. Fine, we can pass the bill. We can brag about how we're addressing this problem when we talk to our constituents. But, the fact of the matter is it will do no good. The bill requires students to pass the 128 question exam previously administered by the USCIS. I will note that the USCIS, the Customs and Immigration only choose 10 questions but here it would be the entire 128. I'd also note that the USCIS has now returned to the older 100 question, not the 128 that's currently, I believe, named here. But more important, the exam will have no attachment to anything in the college or university curriculum. It's a standalone. It's a standalone exam. In my years of teaching asking students to memorize facts without embedding them into some sort of larger narrative or program, is frankly a waste of time. In one ear and out the other. But most egregious, you know the student need not even memorize the facts. Why? Because the answers are all over the Internet. I have them. They are right here. You can just go to the USCIS site and you can get them. They are right there. Do we really think this is how you would teach civics and civic engagement? I would surmise and offer that this will have an opposite effect. It will turn students off from US history, from politics, from civics. Gee, got to get this exam out of the way so I can get on with my college life and my major, my career and graduate. So for all these reasons, if we want to improve civics education and civics knowledge, let's take the time to truly think through how to do it in a manner that is effective and lasting in its impact. Don't' do it this way. I caution if we all had to sit here right now and take this test, I dare say there are some amongst us who might not pass. But does that mean we are bad legislators? Does it mean we are bad citizens? No, not at all. It just means that our civic knowledge is personalized. It is part of our lives. It is not a set of facts laid out in a 128 question exam. So for that reason I urge you to vote no on the current motion by pressing the red button so that an alternative motion can be offered. I ask for a division vote and just as a last point by the way in case you were wondering. Here's why they say Dwight Eisenhower was famous. He was a General during WWII. Makes no mention of D-Day. He was President at the end of the Korean War. I'm not sure how many people would cite that as a point of fame. I mean it's true. He was the 34th President of the United States. Okay. I like this one. His major accomplishment apparently as President was that he signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, the Interstate. So thank you, President Eisenhower and I know that all of you, your civic knowledge has been enhanced. Thank you.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairDoes the member yield for a question? You may inquire.

Rep. Timothy Smith (D - Hills 17)Thank you for taking my question. As you know, Representative, due to the highly prestigious nature of New Hampshire's universities, we have a healthy population of international students who come to New Hampshire from all over the world to seek a higher education. I'm curious if there is an exemption in this bill for those foreign students because I can imagine the State of New Hampshire getting involved in proctoring the naturalization examination to foreign students could create a significant amount of confusion for those students, never mind a little bit of friction with the US State Department?

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you for the question. I don't have a copy of the amended bill in front of me. I actually believe that we may have taken care of that, but you should ask the prime sponsor that about the international students. What is interesting with the way the bill is structured, if you are a New Hampshire student, graduating from a New Hampshire high school, you're already required by a law we previously have passed, statute that we have passed in this body, to take this test. So you would be able to just certify that you've taken the test. It wouldn't even apply to New Hampshire raised students, coming from New Hampshire schools and attending the university system or community college. So basically who it affects are out of state students and that's it. And again there is nothing in the bill that proscribes how the test is administered other than that it has to be done and they have to certify some sort of results so it could just be the university could say okay here is the online test, it's an open book exam, take it. Guess what the score is going to be? Hopefully they all get 100 at that point because they can have the answers right in front of them. Thank you for the question.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairDoes the member yield for a further question? You may inquire.

Rep. Rosemarie Rung (D - Hills 21)Thank you for taking my question. Administering this test to the thousands and thousands of students in our university and college system, would this cost anything of them and if so, is the legislature prepared to provide that funding or would this be an unfunded mandate?

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you for the question. My understanding, again recalling from the hearing we had on the bill is that we would not be asking any sort of direct expenditure or funds. Obviously, there would be some sort of indirect expenditure in that somebody had to record and certify the results. Somehow the exam has to be administered. If somebody is proctoring it, then that's part of their workday, things like that, but it's a very vague sort of bill in that it doesn't connect at all to anything in the curriculum, it doesn't require any connection to the curriculum. It's literally, just take this exam where all the answers are available online.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairDoes the member yield for another question?

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Yeah, I'll go for the record today. Why not?

Rep. Peter Bixby (D - Straf 17)So another consideration that I'm not sure if it was taken into account in the committee, but a very large proportion of the university system comes from tuition and a lot of that tuition is, a lot of that comes from people who are recruited from out of the country and I was wondering if this would have any effect on international students wanting to come to UNH and provide funding for our university?

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you for the question. That would be purely speculative. I don't know if it would or not. It depends on how, let's say, widespread the university system advertised this requirement as part of the graduation requirements. And, again if there is an exemption and I concede to the prime sponsor who can perhaps answer this, if there is an exemption for international students. The other part where it would have potentially an impact would be on out of state students. Again, the university system relies very much on non-New Hampshire based students, the out of state students and by adding this sort of requirement for graduation, it could have a chilling effect upon recruitment. It's quite possible.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairRep. Ley, I have a note that says you requested a roll call, but I thought I heard you say division.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Well if the note says roll call, we will go with a roll call.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairFair enough. The member from Loudon, Rep. Moffett is recognized to speak in support of the committee report.

Rep. Michael Moffett (R - Merr 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. For the record I am a big fan of President Eisenhower and to my colleague's question with regard to foreign students, they are exempt. That was a good question and is a good answer, yes, they are exempt. So honorable colleagues I ask you, do your constituents know who you are? Should they know who you are? Most of them probably do not and in fact most of them probably do not know who their congressperson is and that's a problem for some us. I appreciate my distinguished colleague agreeing that there is a real deficit of civics knowledge that we are dealing with here. A recent report called America's Knowledge Crisis, a survey on civic literacy found shortfalls in American's knowledge of history and how our country operates. A poll of over 1,000 people, mostly college graduates, found that 63% of respondents did not know the term lengths of US Senators. These are college graduates and I have taught at the university system and I have taught in the community college system and I've taught at a private college. The lack of civics knowledge has always disturbed me if not horrified me. That's not okay with me or with many others and there is something we can do about it. Requiring that New Hampshire public college students pass the 128 question citizenship test would create a broad knowledge base, a foundation of information common to all college graduates. It would increase the value of a college diploma and it would increase public support for a public institution. This is not unusual. Several other states have put this exact statute into effect already, most recently Florida and Missouri. So this is something that is increasingly common and popular across the country in addressing what my colleague acknowledged was a very disturbing problem. I disagree that it would be an issue or problem in any way a serious problem to implement this initiative and there are some folks that say these are factoids and it will be quickly forgotten. Well I think there are sometimes we do need to remember stuff whether it is multiplication tables, anatomy or the name of your state rep. Many of us think college graduates should actually learn and remember material and actually be tested on it. Why is it okay to know about climate change and not the constitution? Some will say that a civics requirement is best satisfied by encouraging activism. Have the students go to a town meeting which is fine, but shouldn't they know what a warrant article is or what a quorum is before they go to a town meeting? Some will say this is an unnecessary requirement and I say really? The test can be taken online in one's pajamas. Students can take it as many times as they need to pass has already been said. At the end of the day they will know this stuff or they won't and they will know it. The questions are out there in the public domain. Yes, we had an impromptu quiz in the Education Committee which actually was fun. I should point out as has already been pointed out that this body, this House of Representatives, has already passed HB 320. That's the high school civic test requirement currently moving forward in the Senate. So if HB 320 does become law, most of our New Hampshire and Granite State college students will have already satisfied this requirement in high school. No problemo. So if you are comfortable with, well, I hate to say it, but ignorant low information college graduates who can't name their US Senator, much less know who their state rep. is, then press the red button. But if you want smarter college grads and more knowledgeable citizens, then press the green button for OTP, Oscar Tango Papa, Ought to Pass, so New Hampshire can join other states in actually expecting college graduates to know things. Thank you, Mister Speaker and to keep things moving I will not take any questions. Thank you. Speaker Steven Smith: Thank you. The question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Ley has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? Yep, it's sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 319. Rep. Ellison is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Arthur Ellison (D - Merr 28)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that educated citizens are vital to a functioning democracy. And if I know that answering questions on an open book test such as what the name of the current Speaker of the US House is or who becomes President when the President or Vice President cannot serve does nothing to indicate that a person has a working understanding of our political system. And Mister Speaker if I believe that nothing in this bill will produce active knowledgeable citizens, would I now push the red button so another bill can be brought forward? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. Rep. Ford is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Oliver Ford (R - Rock 3)Mister Speaker, as a former university president and English professor, native speakers and ESL speakers of English, I understand that it is difficult for many students to remember the fundamental facts and ideas of complex subjects like civics. And, if I know that having a compulsory final exam in the subject, such as the civics exam taken online by naturalized citizens is an effective way to help them organize and retain what they already understand and have learned, would I then push the green button in the hope that they also learn not to say I graduated college, but instead I graduated from college? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor of the committee report, you'll press the green 1-A button. If you are opposed, you will press the red 2-B button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 188 voting in the affirmative, 187 voting in the negative, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise against the Ought to Pass motion on HB 458. I voted with the other party last Session on this bill and I took some flack for it and was even publicly criticized in the media and some of the independent pages and whatnot. The reason I thought differently on this bill was I viewed it as a public safety or children's safety bill. The reason is, you know, when we had sports medicine when I was in track and field, we would also fall down and bleed all over the place and I didn't want to have as a kid, I kind of wanted to show off that I was getting cut and bleeding all over, but as taxpayers, we pay for sports medicine and bandages and whatnot to protect the safety of the other schools. The bigger issue that was brought up on this bill is that girls at that age, 12, 13, 14, have been skipping classes. It's not a large number of them, but it has been a few and taxpayers end up having to foot the bill for remedial classes and summer classes when girls fall behind. That's a critical age for math and science and similar STEM courses and a lot of girls have actually fallen behind, especially those from low income backgrounds. So the public schools cost taxpayers on the Seacoast $22,000 per year, per student and the high school cost $27,000 per year per student. I felt that this was a, because this was a safety issue and is an educational issue if taxpayers are going to pay to subsidize formal schooling that safety should be included in that just as it would be with any other issue. I would ask members to press the red button.

Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D - Carr 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill is often referred to as period poverty. For those of you that weren't here last year and don't recall, period poverty is the term because it impacts primarily those young women in grades 7 through 12 that can't afford the necessary feminine hygiene products. In 2019, the House of Representatives, that would be the majority of this body sitting here today, just two years ago approved a bill-created and which was brought forward by a student from Rochester, NH. The bill was SB 142. The Senate had previously approved the bill and the Governor signed it into law July 17. The new law provided that in all New Hampshire middle and high school female and gender neutral bathrooms free menstrual products would be available. This law applies to all but was focused on students who were and continue to be financially unable to purchase these basic necessities. You may ask yourself why would a school do such a thing? Could it be compared to providing toilet paper in the bathroom? Yes, as there is no requirement to provide toilet paper, but they do. Could it be compared to providing paper towels in the bathroom? Yes, as there is no requirement that schools provide paper towels in the bathroom, but they do. So what's the issue? That's actually a pretty good question. You'll hear that this law is just another in a long line of unfunded mandates and that the sponsors of the bill will say that they believe in the law's intent and they value it, but just not how it's funded. They will tell you it's just another unfunded mandate and it needs to be corrected. Yet, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held in a recent case, City of Concord vs. The State, "A local subdivision," this would be the schools, "Has historically had responsibility for the subject matter of the mandate, some change in the scope of that responsibility, including an increased financial responsibility, does not violate Article 28-a." I would suggest to you that the supreme court ruling does apply to this bill, HB 458 and we asked that because school districts currently provide a limited amount of feminine hygiene products with the often distributed to the nurses office or women's phys-ed department. This ongoing purchase aligns with the supreme court's ruling. We know that under the current law, schools can accept donations for female products and some do. We also know that under the current law, schools can seek grants for feminine hygiene products and yes, some communities do. We also know that under the current law, schools can partner with non-profits and community-based organizations to meet this obligation and yes, some do. We also know under the current law, schools can simply just choose to purchase the products as they do with other school-base supplies and yes, some often do. There is no requirement for schools to purchase an expensive machine to distribute these products, although some do. Each school district is allowed to determine the manner of acquisition and distribution whichever they feel is best for their community. Why are there so many ways in the law to fulfill this need? Because everyone understands the lifelong hidden costs if we don't step up and help. The New Hampshire School Board Association provided in testimony that the intent was to put in place to mitigate the stigma and disruption experienced by women and girls who can't afford menstrual products, many of whom without access to these products will forego attending school, as Mr. Abramson just indicated. That is exactly the point of the law. This bill was not created to give a handout, it is about giving a hand up. The bill was designed to maximize the student's education, all student's education, especially those from low income families. Those that may have to decide which do we buy, milk, bread or tampons? Now you may say that sounds absurd to many sitting here today in this million dollar sports complex, many of us who never, ever contemplated not buying feminine products for our wives or our daughters or perhaps for yourself, but that's us. We are not as a group in the demographic of the typical low income, economically and/or food insecure family every school district sees every single day of the week. We know that student free reduced lunch applications decline in high school although nothing financially significant had changed from grade 8 to grade 9. The need has not been reduced, but the student free reduced lunch enrollment has declined. Why? Because these young adults are still adolescents and they do not want to be singled out, identified, embarrassed or look differently than their peers. That's just part of adolescence. The issue today that we are really discussing, the funding of feminine hygiene products in the high school has exactly the same root, stigma and embarrassment. So often the choice for these young women is to stay away from the school for 3 or 4 days and then return when their period or their heaviest flow has gone by. Well, on the face of it, doesn't sound like a bad solution, except this isn't just a one and done situation. The same strategy is used every month so do the math, 3 days per month times 10 school months equals 30 school days lost per year. That's 1/6 of the school year lost of instruction for a student that stays home just 2 or 3 days per month because they don't have access to the needed feminine hygiene products. Over the course of their middle and high school experience, those young women will lose over one full year of schooling not being present for that reason. How much does one full year of schooling cost the student in your city or town? Usually around the state average that is about $14,000 for the minimum not to mention the academic and social impact on the student. What a blow to a developing young woman's self-confidence and education and future. For those of us who are or were teachers we understand also that the academic loss, the time diverted to reteach, the time lost for other students in the classroom while you are reteaching or to provide individual tutoring, just to watch these students fail and fall further behind. These issues far exceed that small cost of providing the necessary products. How much do you think that academic loss of education costs your school resources? Unintended, yes, yet expense required. How much will it cost and impact your city and towns as years go by to your future citizens, these future young ladies? During the first year of the COVID, that was the first year of the law. The law was already in place and it was doing exactly what it was supposed to do, provide support to students in need and improve attendance. On July 17, the Governor signed a law and he said at that time, "This legislation is about equality and dignity to help ensure young women in New Hampshire public schools will have the freedom to learn without the disruption, fear of shame or fear of stigma." That fellow legislators is exactly what this law has done. We all know the old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The same concept stands here. The law is working and doing exactly as intended. Please don't break it. We heard this morning from the chairman of the education department, education committee who said the bottom line is this is good for kids. I agree with him this is good for kids. We heard from the vice chairman of the education committee a few minutes ago. We want what is right for kids. This is right for kids. So when you leave today, if you really want to feel good about yourself, you can do something right and make it a better life for a young woman. Thank you and please push the red button.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Does the speaker yield to a question? The speaker does not yield. The Chair recognizes Alicia Lekas.

Rep. Alicia Lekas (R - Hills 38)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I received in the mail not long ago a sanitary napkin from an organization pushing for this passed law and in red letters on the appropriate part of the sanitary napkin, it said shame on you. Shame on me? I made an oath to uphold the constitution of New Hampshire. Shame on Me? I believe in keeping my word. The constitution says, Article 1 28-a, Mandated Programs. "The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision." Last term, we passed a law that violated that. Shame on us. Now, you heard they said it doesn't really because the school already provides some of these things. But as you also heard the state never mandated that the school provide those things, the school does it because it makes sense. I also testified on this bill last time. I pointed out that it was a 28-a violation but for those of you who remember that speech, I started out with the sounds of silence. I never disputed that this was not needed. I talked about the need and I asked every one of us, since in this body we represent every school district in this state. I asked us to figure out how to do this without violating our constitution and I ask again. Let's take this unconstitutional law out and let's, each one of us, go to the districts which we represent and figure out how to do this without this unfunded mandate. We can figure out someway of having a charity do this. We can just ask the school board to put it in their operating budget. We have all kinds of options as you heard, but we shouldn't be doing it because of a mandate, we should be doing it because it's a good idea. Thank you.

Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight (D - Hills 11)Thank you, Representative. A 13-year old girl is going to use the bathroom. She just finds out she has a heavy period. The school nurse is all the way across the other building. They have no drop offs of any sanitary products. Nobody has come to donate. What do you tell that 13-year old girl that is alone in the bathroom bleeding profusely?

Rep. Alicia Lekas (R - Hills 38)I will return that question to you because as I said each one of us as reps represent districts and you can ask your school district to make sure that it is indeed provided, which might mean putting it in the operating budget. Thank you.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to another question?

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative for taking my question. Is there anything in state law today that prohibits any school district, any public school district in the State of New Hampshire from voluntarily providing these materials to students from their own budget just like they do for toilet paper and paper towels?

Rep. Alicia Lekas (R - Hills 38)No there is not and taking this, pressing green on this bill does not change that.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to another question? No, the member does not yield. Representative Woodcock has asked for a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ellison for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Arthur Ellison (D - Merr 28)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that some female students in our middle and high schools do not attend school up to 3 days a month because they cannot afford the necessary female menstrual products. And if I know that this body and the body on the other side of the wall back in Concord and the Governor 2 years ago overwhelmingly approved the bill that provides menstrual products to a New Hampshire female student in need. Mister Speaker, if I believe that our schools should provide basic necessities like toilet paper, paper towels and menstrual products, would I now push the red button to defeat this motion? Thank you.

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

Rep. Judy Aron (R - Sull 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill seeks to repeal an unconstitutional unfunded mandate in our statute and replace it with legislation that is in line with our constitutional oath and duty, yet still accommodates female students in need to be provided with menstrual products in New Hampshire schools. And if I also know that this bill is supported by the New Hampshire School Board Association who supports the constitutionally sound and flexible legislation which addresses the associated costs of providing menstrual products in our schools. And, Mister Speaker, if I further know that our school administrators are totally aware of the issues of period poverty and that this bill will still allow them to provide products, but leaves the decisions regarding availability up to the school administration and not state mandates, would I now press the green button to support the committee recommendation of Ought to Pass? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 458. 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. 183 voting Yea, 193 voting Nay, the motion fails. The House will be in order. Representative Luneau.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)Mister Speaker, thank you very much. I'd like to move ITL and request a roll call vote. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 458. Why does the member rise?

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Mister Speaker, I'd like to make a motion to table.

Speaker PackardThat is a higher priority motion. Rep. Altschiller has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. The motion before us is to table HB 458. Would you give me a minute to finish? The motion before us is to table HB 458. Why does the member rise?

Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight (D - Hills 11)I rise to make a motion to Indefinitely Postpone.

Speaker PackardTabling is a higher motion. The motion on the floor is tabling. Rep. Ley.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Mister Speaker, if the bill is tabled, how can it be removed from the table? What would be the procedure for that?

Speaker PackardIt takes a majority to put it on. It take a majority to take it off. But after tomorrow, it will take 2/3.

Speaker PackardThe motion is to table HB 458. I'm assuming we will have parliamentary inquiries. Rep. Weber. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I want to have a vote on this very important matter and ensure that young women get all the days in school that they can possibly have, would I now vote no on the tabling motion?

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

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that I am proud each and every time that I have taken the oath to support the constitution of New Hampshire and the United States, then would I vote green and table this bill so you do not go against your oath? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the motion to table HB 458. 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. 192 voting Yea, 184 voting Nay, the motion to table passes.

Rep. Rebecca McBeath (D - Rock 28)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm here and I rise to speak for the minority on this bill opposed to Ought to Pass on HB 206. This bill makes significant changes in the exceptions to the right to know law. When the law was written, there were very narrow exceptions that were included and one of them was the exception that negotiations and strategy discussions regarding collective bargaining would not be considered a public meeting and therefore under the right to know. Another one of these very narrow exceptions is one that we all enjoy. It's the right for us to caucus as elected officials as members of our caucuses. I think that we all can imagine what it would be like if we weren't able to caucus in private, to ask questions, to have open dialogue and to king of nudge our members to think about things in a different way. The other very important issue why collective bargaining needs to be contained, included in the exclusions, is just the whole process of what negotiation is. There are books written on it. There are treatises. It's a multi-stage process and while some part of the stages of the process are important to be public, some of it needs to be done in private and that would be in the beginning collecting information and getting your range of offers together. So I ask you all to consider collective bargaining and to go, this was a very close vote in our committee. Some of the affects if this is public, is it creates posturing of people and the inability to move from one side to the other. I think we can all understand that so it would make collective bargaining longer and more expensive and it also has the possibility of disclosing private information of personnel. I ask you all to consider to vote against the committee recommendation, the majority recommendation so that another motion can be offered. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Wuelper to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Kurt Wuelper (R - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, the majority believes that we the people who pay the salaries of everybody at the negotiating tables and who pay the cost of the negotiated agreement should be able to know what our elected officials are actually during the negotiations. We believe, we heard testimony from people involved in negotiations for national unions that is what they do. There are many states in the country that have partial or fully open negotiations and it works just fine for them. Those people who think this is going to delay the process or lead to showboating or things like that obviously don't have much respect for their representatives. I believe it would be far different. If it were open, if they were on television, it would be very similar to what we do right here and people would be much more respectful and be much more serious and negotiations would not be any longer. There is no evidence presented that opening these negotiations would in fact lengthen the process. It would just be whoa, it would be terrible. No it wouldn't. It's a great bill. We deserve, we have a right to know. Please support the committee.

Speaker PackardWhy does the member rise? Will the speaker yield to a question? You may inquire.

Rep. Len Turcotte (R - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, speaker. Would I be correct in that this bill would not change the ability of either side to caucus in private?

Rep. Kurt Wuelper (R - Straf 4)Oh, yeah that's absolutely right. Strategy sessions are perfectly, can still be done in private, outside the public view as it should. It's only the actual negotiations that would occur in public.

Speaker PackardDid you call for a roll call? Roll call has been called for. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. DiLorenzo for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)I believe one my colleagues on the other side has asked to do the PI. Is that not true?

Speaker PackardThat's not what I have on my sheet, Representative.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Well, I can understand that because I have been confused too. If no one else is rising.

Rep. Charlotte DiLorenzo (D - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that were this bill to pass, it would have a detrimental impact on the collective bargaining process. And, if I know that public negotiations would increase posturing on both sides of the negotiating table and cause delays in reaching a contract agreement. And, finally, if I know that public negotiations could reveal personal employee confidential information, then I would press the red button so that a new motion could be introduced?

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

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker if I know that personal information is not discussed in a union contract negotiation. And, if I know that the principle parties to negotiations are excluded from observing the actions of their agents under the current law. And, if I know that our constitution demands transparency in government actions, then would I press the green button?

Speaker PackardThe question is on the majority Ought to Pass report on HB 206. 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 will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 168 voting Yea, 187 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. McBeath.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I move ITL on HB 206.

Speaker PackardThat is a higher motion. The motion is to table HB 206. A division has been requested. Have we any PI's?

Speaker PackardThis is a division vote. If you wish to do a PI, representative.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)I would like to do a PI on the division. Thank you. Rep. McBeath will do the PI.

Speaker PackardOkay. The Chair recognizes Rep. McBeath for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Rebecca McBeath (D - Rock 28)Thank you very much. If I know that this bill only adds 7 words to the statute and the 7 words are, "That strategy with respect to collective bargaining where only one member of the negotiating party is present can be private." So despite what we heard earlier, we know that if this bill passes.

Rep. Rebecca McBeath (D - Rock 28)I apologize. If I know that this bill would have a chilling affect on collective bargaining, would I now vote to not table this bill, against this motion so that another motion can be brought?

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

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that sunlight is the best sanitizer and that the best results come from negotiations that are made when all parties know what's going on, would I now push the green button to table this bill?

Speaker PackardThe motion is to table HB 206. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are against, you'll press the red button. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 174 voting Yea, 178 voting Nay, the motion to table fails. We are back to the ITL motion.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Mister Speaker, with your indulgence, I would move ITL. Since the House has just demonstrated its opposition to this bill, I would think a very quick voice vote could confirm that fact that we want to ITL this bill. Thank you very much, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardI heard roll call. Is roll call sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Are there PI's that are going to be done?

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Well not wanting to miss. Oh wait, the other side goes first.

Speaker PackardYes. The Chair recognizes Rep. Sylvia for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that transparency is one of the foundations of the state government. Article 8 of our constitution demands transparency. Our people demand transparency. If I understand that it is my job to support that, would I then press the red button?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Smith. I'm sorry.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)That's okay. I don't wear my name badge so how can I expect you to remember?

Speaker PackardI think we've been here too long today, but unfortunately; we have to continue. The Chair recognizes Rep. Marjorie Smith for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you very much and I share with you the desire to move appropriately through the calendar and say if I recognize that this body has voted not to pass this bill and in order to complete the process, we would have to vote yes on an ITL motion. And if I understand that transparency in all situations is not necessarily appropriate in order to have us have the best possible government. If I understand for example that we're all dressed in clothes because it wouldn't be appropriate for us to be here transparently showing us without clothes, would I in fact vote yes on the ITL motion and support the earlier vote of this body? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the ITL motion for HB 206. 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 will be 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, 163 voting Nay, the committee report of ITL is adopted. REGULAR CALENDAR PART II CONT'D HB 227, relative to termination of tenancy at the expiration of the tenancy or lease term. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Edward Gordon for the Majority of Judiciary. This bill, as amended, adjusts the eviction process to allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy when a defined lease period expires without having to prove some other cause. The amendment provides that written notice that the lease will not be renewed must be given to the tenant at least 30 days prior to the end of the lease term. Tenants are still entitled to judicial process prior to any eviction and the landlord will still have to show cause for an eviction if there is no defined lease term or if the tenant is in hold over status. Vote 12-9. Rep. Charlotte DiLorenzo for the Minority of Judiciary. The minority of the committee feel that this bill in effect negates the need for and use of lease agreements. The amended version of this bill requires the landlord to give the tenant a written notice 30 days in advance of the termination date and orders the tenant to vacate the apartment at the end of the lease term. This bill is essentially a no-fault eviction. The timing of this bill could not have been worse given that we have a housing crisis with rents out of reach for the average renter, and with a historically low vacancy rate. The New Hampshire Housing Finance Agency's December 2020 Rental Market Report shows the median monthly gross rent for a 2-bedroom apartment to be $1,413 with an average state wide vacancy rate of only 1.8%. This bill creates bad policy and will increase housing insecurity and homelessness for our low-and moderate-income families who rent. Majority Amendment (0361h) Amend the bill by replacing section 1 with the following: 1 New Subparagraph; Termination of Tenancy; Expiration of Term. Amend RSA 540:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (g) the following new subparagraph: (h) For a lease or tenancy the original term of which is 6 months or longer, or for a lease or tenancy the term of which is less than 6 months but which has been renewed for a total period of 6 months or longer, the expiration of the term of the lease or tenancy, provided that the landlord has provided the tenant with written notice at least 30 days in advance of the termination date of the lease term that the lease will not be renewed and that the tenant must vacate the rental property at the end of the lease term. Majority committee amendment adopted. The question now being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. DiLorenzo spoke against. Rep. Gordon spoke in favor. Rep. Harrington requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 202 - NAYS 147 Aldrich, Glen Bean, Harry YEAS - 202 Comtois, Barbara Harvey-Bolia, Juliet Hough, Gregg BELKNAP Johnson, Dawn Lang, Timothy Littlefield, Richard O'Hara, Travis Ploszaj, Tom Silber, Norman Bordes, Mike Terry, Paul Trottier, Douglas Howard, Raymond Cordelli, Glenn Mackie, Jonathan Deshaies, Brodie Avellani, Lino Smith, Jonathan Sylvia, Michael McConkey, Mark MacDonald, John Umberger, Karen Hunt, John CARROLL Rhodes, Jennifer Gomarlo, Jennie Davis, Arnold Crawford, Karel Santonastaso, Matthew Marsh, William Craig, Kevin CHESHIRE Qualey, James COOS Merner, Troy Alliegro, Mark Berezhny, Lex GRAFTON Depalma IV, Joseph Folsom, Beth Sanborn, Gail Greeson, Jeffrey Ham, Bonnie Ladd, Rick Binford, David Simon, Matthew Gordon, Edward Massimilla, Linda Lekas, Alicia Alexander, Joe HILLSBOROUGH Griffin, Barbara King, Bill Baroody, Benjamin Boehm, Ralph Burt, John Connors, Erika Ammon, Keith Cushman, Leah Kelley, Diane Smith, Denise Blasek, Melissa Erf, Keith Foster, William Griffin, Gerald Creighton, Jim Gorski, Ted DiSilvestro, Linda Gagne, Larry Gould, Linda Graham, John Greene, Bob Gunski, Michael Harriott-Gathright, Linda Healey, Robert Homola, Susan Hopper, Gary Kelsey, Niki Kofalt, Jim Ober, Lynne Sanborn, Laurie Lanzara, Tom Lascelles, Richard Leishman, Peter Lewicke, John Marston, Dick Mayville, Mary McLean, Mark Mooney, Maureen Notter, Jeanine Nunez, Hershel Pauer, Diane Petrigno, Peter Plett, Fred Post, Lisa Prout, Andrew Ober, Russell Renzullo, Andrew Rice, Kimberly Rouillard, Claire Rung, Rosemarie Sheehan, Vanessa Somero, Paul Lekas, Tony Ulery, Jordan Warden, Mark Andrus, Louise MERRIMACK Cambrils, Jose Allard, James Klose, John McGuire, Carol Hill, Gregory Pearl, Howard Boyd, Stephen Schamberg, Thomas Moffett, Michael Soucy, Timothy Mason, James Walsh, Thomas Seaworth, Brian White, Nick Pitaro, Matthew Yakubovich, Michael Wells, Natalie Testerman, Dave Abrami, Patrick Wolf, Dan Acton, Dennis Abbas, Daryl Katherine Baldasaro, Al Bernardy, JD Ayer, Paul Copp, Anne ROCKINGHAM Dodge, Dustin Bershtein, Alan Doucette, Fred Elliott, Robert Dolan, Tom Gay, Betty Abramson, Max Harb, Robert Ford, Oliver Hobson, Deborah Belanger, Cody Katsakiores, Phyllis Harley, Tina Layon, Erica DeSimone, Debra Love, David Khan, Aboul Griffin, Mary Edwards, Jess McBeath, Rebecca Lynn, Bob McMahon, Charles Grote, Jaci Milz, David McBride, Everett Piemonte, Tony Janigian, John Pratt, Kevin Osborne, Jason Roy, Terry Litchfield, Melissa Soti, Julius Prudhomme-O'Brien, Sweeney, Joe Pearson, Mark Thomas, Douglas Spillane, James Tripp, Richard Melvin, Charles Tudor, Paul Torosian, Peter MacDonald, Wayne Potucek, John Welch, David Verville, Kevin Yokela, Josh Pearson, Stephen Weyler, Kenneth Sytek, John Fontneau, Timothy Bailey, Glenn True, Chris Horgan, James Ankarberg, Aidan Harrington, Michael Wallace, Scott Pitre, Joseph Groen, Fenton Kittredge, Mac Kaczynski, Thomas Vincent, Kenneth STRAFFORD Spilsbury, Walter Turcotte, Leonard Callum, John DeLemus, Susan McAleer, Chris Aron, Judy Smith, Steven Hayward, Peter Stapleton, Walter Newton, Clifford Bordenet, John Burroughs, Anita Wuelper, Kurt Fox, Dru Buco, Thomas Parshall, Lucius Woodcock, Stephen SULLIVAN Welkowitz, Lawrence Abbott, Michael Rollins, Skip Dontonville, Roger Eaton, Daniel Muirhead, Russell Harvey, Cathryn NAYS - 147 Sykes, George Schapiro, Joe CARROLL Bergeron, Paul Laflamme, Larry Knirk, Jerry Cohen, Bruce Freitas, Mary Abel, Richard Ames, Richard CHESHIRE Heath, Mary Egan, Timothy Faulkner, Barry Klee, Patricia Murphy, James Ley, Douglas Berch, Paul Weston, Joyce Toll, Amanda Fenton, Donovan Mann, John Bouldin, Amanda Tucker, Edith Weber, Lucy Bouchard, Donald Cornell, Patricia Adjutant, Joshua COOS Goley, Jeffrey Fellows, Sallie Hyland, Stephanie Stavis, Laurel GRAFTON Almy, Susan Hakken-Phillips, Mary Smith, Suzanne Bouldin, Andrew HILLSBOROUGH Bradley, Amy Dutzy, Sherry Beaulieu, Jane Griffith, Willis Chretien, Jacqueline Schmidt, Janice Espitia, Manny Hamer, Heidi Jack, Martin Klein-Knight, Nicole Labranche, Tony Langley, Diane Laughton, Stacie-Marie Long, Patrick King, Mark Murray, Megan Mangipudi, Latha McGhee, Kat Moran, Melbourne Mullen, Sue Nutting-Wong, Allison O'Brien, Michael Pedersen, Michael Perez, Maria Piedra, Israel Porter, Marjorie Query, Joshua Newman, Ray Newman, Sue Shaw, Barbara Snow, Kendall Stevens, Deb Telerski, Laura Toomey, Dan Vail, Suzanne Van Houten, Constance Vann, Ivy Veilleux, Daniel Wilhelm, Matthew Bartlett, Christy Caplan, Tony MERRIMACK Ellison, Arthur Gallager, Eric Lane, Connie McWilliams, Rebecca Pimentel, Roderick Richards, Beth Ebel, Karen Schuett, Dianne Schultz, Kristina Shurtleff, Steve MacKay, James Walz, Mary Beth Wazir, Safiya Woods, Gary Rogers, Katherine Wallner, Mary Jane Altschiller, Debra Bunker, Lisa ROCKINGHAM Cali-Pitts, Jacqueline Cushing, Robert Renny DiLorenzo, Charlotte Gilman, Julie Grossman, Gaby Hamblet, Joan Cahill, Michael Loughman, Tom Maggiore, Jim Malloy, Dennis Edgar, Michael Paige, Mark Read, Ellen Simpson, Alexis Murray, Kate Ward, Gerald Meuse, David Somssich, Peter Bixby, Peter Cannon, Gerri STRAFFORD Conley, Casey Ellis, Donna Fargo, Kristina Horrigan, Timothy Kenney, Cam Levesque, Cassandra Chase, Wendy Schmidt, Peter Rich, Cecilia Southworth, Thomas Grassie, Chuck Treleaven, Susan Wall, Janet Smith, Marjorie Spang, Judith