Requiring recusal of members of zoning boards of adjustment and planning boards in certain circumstances.
Impact
If enacted, HB 92 will amend the state law regarding the membership conduct of zoning boards and planning boards. By enforcing recusal rules, the bill seeks to uphold the integrity of both types of boards, thereby fostering public trust in their decisions. This change may lead to fewer instances where perceived biases or conflicts arise from board members participating in decisions that affect their other roles, ultimately benefiting the affected communities and stakeholders.
Summary
House Bill 92 aims to establish a clear requirement for recusal among members of zoning boards of adjustment and planning boards in New Hampshire. Specifically, it mandates that individuals who serve on both boards must abstain from voting on matters that have been previously decided or are pending before the other board in a quasi-judicial capacity. This legislative move is intended to enhance transparency and prevent conflicts of interest within boards responsible for crucial zoning decisions.
Contention
The bill has generated discussions around its implications for local governance and operational efficiency. While supporters argue that such recusal measures are necessary to maintain fairness and accountability, opponents may raise concerns that these restrictions could hinder the functionality of boards by limiting available members, especially in smaller communities where board placements can be competitive. This highlights the balance that needs to be achieved between ethical governance and practical administration within local government structures.
Requiring health care providers to report certain information about abortions performed to their medical facility, and requiring those medical facilities to report the information to the department of health and human services.