Kim Lawrence

Chairman and Members of the Committee, My name is Kim Lawrence, and I am a New Hampshire resident. I am writing to respectfully urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1788-FN. This bill is not a modest procurement reform. It is a sweeping and punitive measure that would create significant legal risk and uncertainty for state and local government operations, increase taxpayer exposure to costly litigation, and undermine the ability of municipalities, school districts, and state agencies to responsibly manage contracts and compliance. 1. HB 1788 turns routine contracting into a legal and administrative trap HB 1788 prohibits agencies and political subdivisions from entering into or renewing contracts that include “DEI-related provisions,” then declares any contract made in violation “void as a matter of law,” requiring courts to order full rescission. This approach is extreme and destabilizing. Government contracting is already governed by procurement standards, contract law, and oversight. This bill would introduce automatic invalidation of contracts based on disputed interpretations of language, even when services are already being delivered. In practice, this invites disruption, delays, rebidding, and increased costs—especially for towns, school districts, and smaller agencies with limited staff and legal capacity. 2. It incentivizes taxpayer-funded lawsuits, not accountability HB 1788 creates an expansive taxpayer cause of action against state agencies, political subdivisions, public schools, school districts, school administrative units, and even the Department of Education. The bill allows a taxpayer to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and it mandates payment of “reasonable attorney’s fees” if the taxpayer prevails. That provision is a direct incentive to litigate. It encourages outside groups and individuals to file enforcement lawsuits, knowing that if they win, taxpayers will fund their legal costs. This model converts disagreement over contract language into a litigation pipeline and diverts public resources away from services and into legal defense. 3. The DEI definition is overly broad and invites politicized enforcement HB 1788 defines “DEI” as any policy, program, training, or initiative that classifies individuals based on characteristics identified under RSA 354-A:1 for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes. This language is vague and subject to dispute. Modern contracts often include compliance language regarding nondiscrimination, workforce practices, harassment prevention, accessibility, vendor policies, and training requirements—especially in education, healthcare, and public safety settings. Under HB 1788, such routine provisions could become litigation targets. This bill does not create clarity. It creates uncertainty. It will encourage public entities to avoid even lawful and helpful practices because the penalty is severe and the risk of lawsuits is high. 4. DEI is not a weakness; DEI is a strength in public service Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts—when done responsibly—strengthen institutions. They improve outcomes, reduce conflict, increase retention, and increase public trust. In public contracting and government workplaces, DEI-related practices often function as practical tools, such as: harassment prevention and professional conduct training equal opportunity hiring and workforce retention practices ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities creating respectful workplaces where employees can do their jobs effectively improving service delivery to the full public, including veterans, seniors, rural communities, immigrants, and people with disabilities Good DEI practices do not replace equal treatment—they support it. They help ensure that public services are delivered efficiently, that employees can work in healthy environments, and that taxpayer-funded institutions are effective and accountable. HB 1788 treats those practices as something inherently suspect and makes them legally dangerous to reference in contracts, even when such provisions reflect best practices and reduce liability. 5. It increases pressure and politicization in public schools The bill extends beyond state contracting into public education governance. It links alleged DEI contract violations to educator discipline under the educator code of conduct and creates a taxpayer enforcement system against public schools and school districts. This will increase politicized complaints, force schools into unnecessary investigations, and strain limited administrative resources. Schools should be focused on teaching and student safety—not navigating legal threats over disputed contract language. 6. The bill imposes costs without providing funding HB 1788 does not provide funding. The fiscal note indicates indeterminable costs, and the Department of Justice acknowledged a potential fiscal impact in the range of $10,000 to $100,000. Local government impacts are similarly indeterminable. This is an unfunded mandate that shifts the burden to towns, cities, and school districts. Even if some contract language has been changed at the state level, HB 1788 creates new enforcement mechanisms that will generate costs through litigation, compliance work, procurement revisions, and investigations. Conclusion HB 1788-FN replaces effective governance with automatic contract invalidation and incentivized litigation. It undermines stable contracting, increases taxpayer liability, politicizes education administration, and discourages best practices that improve workplace culture and public service delivery. DEI, when used responsibly, strengthens institutions and communities. This bill does not improve equal treatment—it creates legal risk, confusion, and costly conflict. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1788-FN. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Kim Lawrence