HB562

This is not appropriate. If the runner up was rejected by a large number of voters, it makes no sense to offer the position. Let the voters independently decide who the replacement should be and not force the community to abide by a State law that does not allow the electorate to participate freely.

This is not the way to fill vacancies. Please oppose this.

Positions should not be given to candidates who lost in prior elections as this is a deceptive tactic.

This bill takes away voters' right to elect their own municipal and school district elected officials when an elected official is no longer able to serve. Many of these elected positions are for multiple years and anything can happen between the original election and a vacancy of am elected position. While this bill has the potential to reduce the number of special elections needed to fill vacant elected positions and thus reduce costs, it takes the choice of who fills the vacant elected position from the voters. Being a runner up in an election does not necessarily equate to being the voters choice to fill the vacant elected position at the time of the vacancy.

School boards are town elected officials and such rules should be made individually by the town. There are current standards for filling vacancies already with intern appointed members who then have the opportunity to be officially elected. This law tries to circumvent the decisions of the board and all of the voters in that town.

School boards are town elected officials and such rules should be made individually by the town. There are current standards for filling vacancies already with intern appointed members who then have the opportunity to be officially elected. This law tries to circumvent the decisions of the board and all of the voters in that town.

I oppose this bill because in the event of a vacancy on one of the named boards, the board must in some circumstances essentially offer the position to the person who lost the prior election.

"This bill requires vacancies on elected municipal boards and school boards to be first offered to the runner up in the most recent prior election if the appointing authority chooses to fill the vacancy with an applicant who ran in any of the least 3 elections for the office."--------- Filling vacancies with failed candidates from a previous election is ridiculous thinking! These candidates lost for a reason and why would one write a law to install them into municipal/board positions without having a special election. The operative word here is election not installation.. What kind of nonsensical thinking is this?

Dear House Municipal and County Government Committee Members, I am writing to express my opposition to HB562, which proposes to first offer unexpected vacancies on municipal and school boards to former candidates who received the second-most votes in the previous election. While this bill may appear to address concerns over specific political outcomes, it undermines the principles of fair representation and flexibility in the process. Currently, when an unexpected vacancy occurs between elections, the school administrative unit (SAU) interviews potential candidates and hires the most qualified individual to fill the vacancy until the next election cycle. This process allows for the selection of the best candidate based on the current needs of the community, without being limited by a prior election’s results. This flexibility is crucial, as it allows school boards to respond to changes in the community or to the specific skills needed for the position at that time. Additionally, this bill appears to be a reaction to specific partisan frustration in Goffstown, where a liberal-leaning individual who ran for School Board in the previous election, was interviewed and chosen to fill a mid-term vacancy, over the conservative-leaning individual, who ran for School Board in the previous election, was the runner-up, and also had interviewed. Using a partisan politics to change the law could have unintended consequences for localities across New Hampshire, forcing rigid and potentially harmful restrictions on how vacancies are filled. Instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all approach, we should preserve the current process, which allows local school boards and communities the ability to appoint the most qualified individual to fill unexpected vacancies in a fair and transparent manner. I urge you to vote against HB562. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Theresa Vaillancourt Goffstown, NH

For an elected position, voters should decide.

Why was this bill introduced? By reviewing the list of sponsors and some online local social media posts, it's clear that HB562 was proposed expressly as a retaliatory measure because a particular candidate was selected to fill a vacancy on a local board in Goffstown. Is that how this state governs, by revenge legislation? I hope not. NH is better than that. We have an established, legal process in place in NH for filling vacancies. This amendment, "If the committee chooses to fill a vacancy with an applicant who ran in any of the last 3 elections for the office they must first extend an offer to the runner up in the most recent prior election" is absurd. A right of first refusal to a runnerup in a past election? Ridiculous. We entrust our local boards with making legally compliant, appropriate choices for the current needs of that board and to select the best current person for that role.

How absurd to automatically fill a municipal or school board vacancy with someone who lost an election. There could have been a very legitimate reason this person lost.

We need to be kind to all of God's creatures!

I am opposed to having the board offer a vacant position to a person who lost the prior election.

Elected officials should be holding re-elections or special elections for vacant public positions with no exceptions. Runners up or prior elected officials cannot be eligible unless they win in a free and fair election. The constituents must always have a voice.

When there's a vacancy on one of the named boards, it makes no sense that the board must in some circumstances essentially offer the position to the person who lost the prior election. It could put in place someone that lost a prior election.

The agency involved knows best what need they have to fill a vacancy. There is a period where all people interested can apply. The term is not permanent, and the position is allowed up for town vote at the next election. I see no reason to interfere further with town policies.

Someone who lost an election should not be the first runner up unless they are 100% qualified for such a position. A business wouldn't hire an employee if they do not have the experience or qualified skills for the job, much like most of our current "President's" cabinet picks. A lot of them are NOT qualified for their positions. Do NOT left NH follow in those disgraceful footsteps. Have a legitimate job interview and select the individual who is actually qualified to take on that role. NH residents are absolutely tired of this blatant disregard of the simple rules of the hiring process, in our own state government and in Your Dear Leader's unqualified cabinet.

Oppose

This is a bad policy. Everyone needs to run for election.

As a mother I feel strongly that decisions related to pregnancy are personal between a women and her partner and her doctor. Not every pregnancy goes as hoped for or when the woman is ready. It is presumptuous for anyone else to think they know the right answers to difficult questions without knowing the circumstances involved. Voters are not looking for politicians to help them make difficult choices for them or treat women as 2nd class citizens.

This bill makes no sense to me. Why would someone who lost an election be chosen to fill a vacant spot on a municipal or school board? I served two terms on the Northwood School Board and know first hand how disruptive some people can be to the work of town boards. Please oppose this bill.

When a committee, board, or commission fills a vacant position, it should select the most qualified applicant from the pool of applicants for the position. The mere fact that an applicant ran in the most recent prior election does not make them more qualified than an applicant who ran in the two elections previous to that one. Further, even if two applicants ran against each other in a prior election, with neither candidate receiving a sufficient number of votes to be elected to the position, the fact that one of them received more votes than the other does not mean that the same candidate would receive more votes than the other in a head-to-head election. If voters had been allowed to vote for an alternate, one of those candidates may well have received far greater votes than the other, but no such election took place and the voters did not have an opportunity to weigh in on who the runner up should be. Do not elevate the position of runner up to something more than it is.

I oppose this bill. It appears to be a retaliatory action by the Goffstown Republican delegation. The bill was introduced after their preferred Republican candidate was not selected to fill a vacant seat on the school board. Instead of accepting this outcome, they are attempting to change the law.

If there is a vacant position- there should be an additional election not given to runner up of old election.