Martine Fiske

Chairman and Honorable Committee Members, While the intent to ensure due process for citizens is worthy, the administrative framework HB1184 proposes creates severe safety risks for municipal employees and introduces logistical requirements that are functionally impossible for local governing bodies to meet. There are three primary areas of concern: 1. The "24-Hour Expiration" Safety Gap Section I(c) allows an emergency No Trespass Order (NTO) to be issued without a board vote, but it limits that order to only 24 hours. This creates a dangerous "gap" for facilities open on weekends or extended hours, such as libraries and recreation centers. If a staff member is threatened or harassed by an individual on a Friday evening, an emergency order would expire by Saturday evening. Because a board cannot legally notice and hold a meeting within that 24-hour window under RSA 91-A (which requires a 24-hour public posting period), the staff would be forced to confront that same individual on Sunday morning without any legal protection. This puts workers in understaffed buildings at direct physical risk. 2. The Statistical Impossibility of the Unanimous Requirement While Section V mentions a majority, Section I(a) explicitly mandates a "unanimous vote" to issue an NTO. This requirement is statistically and logistically destined to fail in a municipal setting: • Quorum vs. Unanimity: In many New Hampshire towns, boards consist of only 3 or 5 members. Under this bill, a single absence due to illness, vacation, or professional conflict makes a "unanimous" vote of the governing body impossible to achieve. • The Power of One: This threshold grants a single board member, or even a single vacancy, the power to veto a safety measure regardless of the evidence or the recommendations of law enforcement. • Legal Ambiguity: The internal contradiction between Section I(a) (unanimous) and Section V (majority) creates a "litigation trap." Any NTO issued by a majority vote would be immediately vulnerable to a court challenge based on the stricter language in Section I, paralyzing the town’s ability to maintain order. 3. Logistical and Financial Burdens HB 1184 transforms volunteer boards into quasi-judicial courts on an emergency basis: • Notice Requirements: Coordinating a public hearing, providing the required 7-point written notice to the subject, and holding a vote within a 24-hour window is an administrative impossibility for part-time boards, particularly over weekends. • Mandatory Court Action: Section IV requires municipalities to seek a Superior Court restraining order for any ban exceeding 90 days. This will significantly increase legal fees for taxpayers and shift the burden of property management onto an already backlogged court system. HB 1184 prioritizes a rigid, and currently contradictory, procedural process over the immediate safety of public employees. A 24-hour window is insufficient to convene a board, and the "unanimous" requirement in Section I(a) creates a standard that few boards can reliably meet on short notice. I urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1184. Martine Fiske Keene, NH