HB1184

I don't think it should be this hard to keep creeps off school property.

This bill endangers the lives of children, teachers and municipal employees

NHSBA is in opposition to this bill. We will submit written testimony to the committee, given there are multiple hearings scheduled at the same time today. Thank you.

I support this bill on principle for the good of NH voters.

Honorable Chair and Committee Members, I am writing on behalf of my constituents, in particular, children, teachers and municipal employees whose safety would be jeopardized by this bill. Please vote ITL on HB 1184. Respectfully, Rep. Janet Lucas Grafton County District 7

I believe the proposed changes contain multiple procedural ambiguities, including timeframes that don't meet current requirements (for public meeting notice). These proposed procedures do not contemplate that NTOs are often issued due to rapidly developing circumstances in which the safety of municipal employees or the general public is at risk.

This bill is another power grab by problem causing State Representatives. This will allow problem causing people to go into schools and public buildings to cause disruption of those locations, without any recourse for the people in charge of those buildings to bring order back to the building or keep their employees safe. We do not need a change to the current New Hampshire RSA for Trespassing.

I am very opposed to this bill. As a public librarian who deals face-to-face daily with unhoused, mentally ill, or people suffering with substance abuse challenges, losing the ability to remove an unsafe person from the building immediately is a huge safety issue for staff and the public. I have personally be harassed and threatened by library visitors in the past, and do not want to make it easier for my safety and the safety of others to be compromised by this bill. I vehemently opposed this bill last year and hope that common sense will prevail to see this bill killed.

To: Members of The New Hampshire House of Representatives and especially to Members of the House Municipal and County Government Committee January 21, 2026 RE: Opposition to HB 1184 – No Trespass Orders on Public Property Act Chairman and Honorable Committee Members, I write as a New Hampshire resident to respectfully urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1184, the “No Trespass Orders on Public Property Act.” This bill’s procedures, though well intended, would seriously compromise the safety of municipal and school employees while imposing unworkable requirements on local governments. First, the bill’s 24 hour limit on emergency no trespass orders creates a dangerous gap in protection for facilities that operate on weekends or extended hours, such as libraries and recreation centers. If a staff member is threatened late in the week, the order would expire before a governing body could lawfully notice and hold a meeting under RSA 91 A, leaving employees exposed to renewed contact without effective legal protection. Second, the requirement for a unanimous vote of the governing body to issue a no trespass order sets an unrealistic standard that a single absence, vacancy, or dissenting member can defeat. In small New Hampshire towns with 3 or 5 member boards, this gives one person the power to block basic safety measures and creates legal uncertainty when other sections of the bill refer to majority votes, inviting confusion and potential litigation. Finally, HB 1184 would transform part time and largely volunteer boards into emergency quasi judicial bodies with strict notice and hearing obligations that are not feasible on a 24 hour timeline, particularly over weekends and holidays. The additional requirement to seek Superior Court restraining orders for longer bans would drive up legal costs for taxpayers and burden the courts with matters that local officials are better positioned to manage. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1184 and to preserve practical tools that protect public employees and the public they serve. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the people of New Hampshire. Sincerely, Paul Henkel 81 Wyman Road Unit 202 Keene NH 03431

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