HB1337
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanVeto — override pendingRepeal autism spectrum disorders council
AI-generatedRepeals the New Hampshire council on autism spectrum disorders.
repealing the New Hampshire council on autism spectrum disorders.Official record
Division of testimonyComputed by this site
72 submissionsAll 29 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.
Status
Vetoed by the governor — the override vote has not been held yet · July 10, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- Governor
- Law
Argument analysis · complete record
AI-generatedall 29 hand-written submissions read in fullWritten testimony on HB 1337 is roughly evenly split, with many submissions coming from parents, family members, and current or former council participants. Supporters of repeal argue the council has become inactive, unaccountable, and non-transparent, and that its functions duplicate or belong with existing agencies. Opponents argue the council is the only state body representing all autistic residents regardless of service eligibility, point to concrete work such as the Blue Envelope Program and a resource-page subcommittee, and urge strengthening rather than eliminating it. Several submissions are labeled with one stance but argue the opposite, and one neutral submission asks for more information before any action.
- Council has produced no measurable outcomesSupport10 of 29 · 34%
Supporters argue the council has gone long periods without meaningful action and has not produced measurable improvements, reports, or accountability for families.
“The New Hampshire Autism Council has not functioned as intended for years. Families and autistic adults have not seen measurable outcomes, accountability, or meaningful improvements tied to this Council’s work.”
— Hannah Bouchard, Sandown · #637597 — read full submission →
“over the past several years there have been months and even years with literally no action from this group, and when they do meet they do not advertise their meetings for participants and do not promote any actions to assist this very important population”
— Jennifer Pike, Hanover · #639736 — read full submission →
- Only state body dedicated to autismOppose7 of 29 · 24%
Opponents argue the council is the only entity in state law focused specifically on autism, giving families and self-advocates a formal voice in policymaking.
“The Council is the only group in state law focused specifically on improving services and supports for people with autism and their families.”
— Amie Ruggles, Gilford · #646046 — read full submission →
“Advisory councils are not symbolic. They create a formal pathway for families, self advocates, clinicians, educators, and service providers to inform policy decisions and identify gaps before they become crises.”
— Adam Thompson, Nashua · #644197 — read full submission →
- A paper council creates a false appearance of oversightSupport4 of 29 · 14%
Testimony argues that a council existing largely on paper misleads families into believing advocacy and oversight exist, which is worse than having no council.
“A council that exists mostly on paper creates the appearance of oversight while failing to deliver results. That is worse than no council at all — it misleads families into believing there is a mechanism advocating for their needs when there is not.”
— Hannah Bouchard, Sandown · #637597 — read full submission →
“What it has done is create the appearance that the state is addressing autism — while families continue to struggle on their own.”
— Matthew Bouchard, Manchester · #644443 — read full submission →
- 2022 change let members select membersSupport4 of 29 · 14%
Supporters point to a 2022 statutory change to membership and quorum rules as concentrating authority in a small, unelected group that chooses its own members.
“In 2022, membership changed from gubernatorial appointments to members selecting members, concentrating authority in a small, unelected group.”
— Shannon Bouchard, Sandown · #651238 — read full submission →
“Despite a lack of consistent meetings, transparency, or annual reports, the Council was still able to influence legislation in 2022, changing its own membership and quorum requirements.”
— Hannah Bouchard, Sandown · #637597 — read full submission →
- Repeal does not cut services or protectionsSupport4 of 29 · 14%
Supporters emphasize that HB 1337 removes only the statutory body, not services, eligibility, or legal protections for autistic individuals.
“HB 1337 does not reduce services, eligibility, or legal protections for individuals with autism. It removes a dormant statutory body and clarifies that responsibility for policy development, service oversight, and system improvement rests with the agencies and councils that are actively functioning.”
— Tracy Walbridge, Rochester · #638266 — read full submission →
“Repeal is not a rejection of autism services or advocacy. It is an honest acknowledgment that this structure has failed and that continuing to fund a body that does not function as designed does not serve the public or the autism community.”
— Fredrick Royer, Hooksett · #644329 — read full submission →
- State funds not translating into benefitsSupport3 of 29 · 10%
Testimony argues the council continues to receive state funds without tangible benefit, and that money and time could be better used elsewhere.
“Despite this, the Council has continued to remain in statute and collect state funds.”
— Fredrick Royer, Hooksett · #644329 — read full submission →
“this group has not gotten anything done, picks its own members, and receives state funds that should be allocated elsewhere. Let the supporters of this group form their own non-profit/volunteer organization.”
— Tim Lenihan, Enfield · #639083 — read full submission →
- Coordination across education, health, housingOppose3 of 29 · 10%
Opponents argue autism policy spans many systems and a centralized advisory body prevents fragmentation and keeps state agencies informed of real-world needs.
“Autism policy touches education, healthcare, employment, housing, and developmental services. The council helps inform state agencies and legislative bodies so they understand the real world needs, service gaps, and policy impacts affecting autistic residents and their families.”
— Adam Thompson, Nashua · #644197 — read full submission →
“This Council brings together families, providers, educators, and state leaders to identify gaps, improve coordination, and services.”
— Barbara Spike, Plymouth · #651548 — read full submission →
- Fix or strengthen rather than eliminateOppose3 of 29 · 10%
Opponents argue that if the council needs improvement, restructuring should occur with stakeholders involved rather than eliminating the forum entirely.
“If improvements or restructuring are needed, those conversations should occur with stakeholders at the table, not through elimination of the forum itself.”
— Adam Thompson, Nashua · #644197 — read full submission →
“Instead of repeal, we should strengthen and renew this council so it can continue its important work.”
— Angela Fletcher, Stoddard · #651209 — read full submission →
- Should not be a state functionSupport2 of 29 · 7%
Brief testimony asserts this work does not belong to state government, with one suggesting supporters form a private nonprofit or volunteer organization instead.
- Public access and Right-to-Know concernsSupport2 of 29 · 7%
One supporter argues meetings, minutes, and remote-participation practices fail New Hampshire's Right-to-Know requirements and public access expectations.
- Quality Council is not a substituteOppose2 of 29 · 7%
Opponents, including a former Quality Council chair, argue the Quality Council covers only the developmental disabilities/Medicaid waiver system while the Autism Council serves all autistic people.
“The Quality Council concerns itself with issues within the Developmental Disabilities system. Some of those served have an Autism diagnosis. But there are a vast number of people with an Autism diagnosis who are NOT part of the DD system.”
— Catherine M Spinney, Pelham · #650546 — read full submission →
“The Quality Council only represents individuals who qualify for certain Medicaid waivers. Many autistic individuals in New Hampshire do not qualify for those waivers but still need representation.”
— Angela Fletcher, Stoddard · #651209 — read full submission →
- Council helped create the Blue Envelope ProgramOppose2 of 29 · 7%
Opponents cite the council's role in developing Blue Envelope Program materials as concrete productive work improving safety during law enforcement interactions.
“It played an instrumental role in developing materials for the state’s Blue Envelope Program, improving safety for individuals with autism and anxiety during interactions with law enforcement.”
— Angela Fletcher, Stoddard · #651209 — read full submission →
“I am very thankful that the council helped establish the blue envelope program. My son is working towards his drivers license and the blue envelope is going to give me peace as a parent that a police officer will know how to interact with my son”
— Amy Rheaume, Derry · #651371 — read full submission →
- Rising diagnoses increase need for supportsOppose2 of 29 · 7%
Opponents argue that growing demand for autism-related supports makes this the wrong time to remove a dedicated advisory mechanism.
“With diagnoses of autism and spectrum disorders on the rise, a decision to dismantle current support of individuals and families requiring developmental, educational and mental health services would have longterm damaging effects”
— Eve Hiatt, New London · #651444 — read full submission →
“Eliminating the council removes a consistent mechanism for that input at a time when demand for autism related supports continues to grow.”
— Adam Thompson, Nashua · #644197 — read full submission →
- Functions duplicate existing DHHS and other councilsSupport1 of 29 · 3%
Testimony argues New Hampshire already has active advisory and quality councils within DHHS handling developmental services and stakeholder input, making an autism-specific council a nominal extra layer.
- Dormant body obscures where authority residesSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A supporter argues that a council that exists in law but not in operation fragments responsibility and obscures where actual decision-making authority lies.
- Blue Envelope can be run by DMV aloneSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A supporter argues the Blue Envelope Program is already established in statute and administrable by DMV, so design input on it does not justify a standing council.
- Agenda centers only part of the spectrumSupport1 of 29 · 3%
One supporter argues the council's agenda focuses on the most severely disabled subset while ignoring the broader autistic population's needs, making it unrepresentative.
- Conflict-of-interest and capture by lobbyistsSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A supporter names specific members with ties to area agencies, lobbyists, and advocacy organizations, arguing the council has been captured and cannot be fixed with best practices.
- Move essential functions to accountable agenciesSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A supporter proposes placing any still-needed coordination functions with DHHS, DOE, and DMV, and requiring any future advisory group to be time-limited with public reporting.
- Promised post-COVID restart produced nothingSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A family member argues that despite promises the council would restart after COVID, waitlists, barriers, and service gaps remain unchanged.
- Council provides no services or enforcementSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A supporter notes the council does not deliver services, oversee implementation, or enforce policy, so its existence does not address waitlists or fragmentation.
- Quorum claims are misleading; appointments delayedOppose1 of 29 · 3%
An opponent argues the council has been meeting lawfully and that gubernatorial appointment delays, not the council, cause vacancy problems.
- Active subcommittee building state resource pageOppose1 of 29 · 3%
A council nominee describes a newly formed subcommittee creating a New Hampshire autism resource webpage that does not currently exist elsewhere in state government.
- Bill supporter accused of obstructing meetingsOppose1 of 29 · 3%
An opponent alleges that the individual who partnered on the bill consumes substantial meeting time each month with quorum and RSA questions, preventing agenda items from being addressed.
- Neurodivergent community newly gaining representationOppose1 of 29 · 3%
An adult recently screened for AUDHD argues the neurodivergent community has only recently gained acknowledgement and that dismantling this body is premature even absent proof of efficacy.
- Repealing the statute does not remove the needOppose1 of 29 · 3%
An opponent notes that removing autism from state law does not make autism or the associated needs disappear.
- Council has not had a fair chance yetOppose1 of 29 · 3%
An opponent argues the council should not be eliminated before it has had a genuine opportunity to carry out its work.
- Suspicion repeal precedes service reductionsOppose1 of 29 · 3%
An opponent questions whether the repeal signals plans to reduce or eliminate services and planning for autistic students.
- Request for records and answers before decidingNeutral1 of 29 · 3%
A parent asks for documentation of council membership, activities, and results, and questions whether individual members rather than the whole council should be replaced.
- Council is bureaucratic and no longer effectiveSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A parent of two autistic children argues the council may once have helped but is now bureaucratic and an ineffective voice for those who need it.
- Families need a voice, but not through this councilSupport1 of 29 · 3%
A parent argues that while autistic individuals and families need representation, this council cannot provide it and is wasting time and money.
Percentages are of the 29 individually-written submissions, every one of which was read in full — not a sample. A submission making several arguments is counted under each. 2 registered a position without giving a reason, so they count toward the total but under no argument.
Form-letter detection only groups a template once at least ten people send it, so smaller sets of submissions sharing near-identical wording are counted here as individual testimony. On bills where a handful of writers worked from the same talking points, a count may therefore run slightly ahead of the number of independently-written arguments.
Generated by anthropic/claude-opus-5 on Aug 10, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Argument groupings are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
The record · every submission as filed
72 submissions| Expand | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ST LU for Myself Merrimack As an adult recently screened for AUDHD this bill feels incredibly draconian. My life has been plagued by many struggles that I was not given the proper resources or care to manage, and have only recently been fortunate enough to take steps to address. I cannot speak for the complete efficacy of this council, but if it spares even one person from the difficult road I've walked it is worth its weight in gold. Members of the neurodivergent community have only just begun to receive acknowledgement and representation in the world. Now is not the time to dismantle what they have been given. I STRONGLY oppose this bill and recommend ITL. | Merrimack | Oppose | 639 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Barbara Spike for Myself Plymouth This Council brings together families, providers, educators, and state leaders to identify gaps, improve coordination, and services. It is essential to keep this New Hampshire Council on Autism Spectrum Disorders! | Plymouth | Oppose | 215 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Moira Ryan for Myself Londonderry To: House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee Re: HB 1337 – AN ACT repealing the New Hampshire council on autism spectrum disorders hb1337 Position: Support (Ought to Pass) Chair and Members of the Committee: My name is Moira Ryan, and I am submitting testimony in support of HB 1337, which repeals RSA 171-A:32 (the New Hampshire Council on Autism Spectrum Disorders) and related statutory references. hb1337 I support repeal for a simple reason: the Council’s structure and practices create too much risk for too little public value. New Hampshire families affected by autism deserve transparent, accountable, and effective work—not another layer of government activity that can operate without meaningful oversight. 1) If a body uses public authority/resources, it must comply with public accountability RSA 171-A:32 establishes the Council to provide leadership and coordination for education, healthcare, and services. But in practice, families experience a body that is too easy to run like a private club—especially when it comes to: Public access: Meetings held in locations or formats that are not meaningfully accessible to the public. (A public council should not function like an invite-only stakeholder group.) Right-to-Know compliance: Under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know principles, minutes are expected to be made available promptly (commonly within five business days) and meetings must be noticed and conducted in a way the public can attend/observe. Remote-meeting claims: RSA 91-A includes specific requirements for remote participation (identifying remote participants, roll call votes, etc.). If a council is meeting “100% remote,” it should be able to clearly point to the statute and the compliance steps being used. When a council repeatedly fails the basics—access, minutes, responsiveness—it undermines public trust and harms the very families it claims to serve. 2) The Council’s outputs do not justify its continued existence HB 1337 specifically removes the requirement that DMV consult the Council for the Blue Envelope Program design. hb1337 The Blue Envelope Program itself is already established in RSA 265:3-c and can be administered by DMV without a standing council. If one of the Council’s most visible “wins” is limited to design input on a program another agency can run, that is not a win. hb1337 an ongoing council with ongoing costs. 3) Representation and scope problems: families outside the “most severe” are left out Autism is a spectrum. Many individuals and families fall outside the narrow “most severe disability” frame yet still face urgent needs: school disputes, service navigation gaps, transition-to-adulthood planning, workforce barriers, housing, transportation, co-occurring conditions, and caregiver stability. When a council’s agenda consistently centers a subset of the spectrum while ignoring the broader population, it becomes unrepresentative by design—and families conclude (correctly) that the council is not for them. 4) Appointment and conflict-of-interest concerns warrant repeal, not patchwork fixes A legitimate public council needs clear appointment pathways, transparency about membership, and safeguards against capture by professional advocates or organizations that lobby for funding or policy outcomes. RSA 171-A:32 contemplates a formal public membership structure. If a council drifts into self-appointment or informal gatekeeping—or tolerates persistent conflicts of interest—it cannot credibly claim to speak for New Hampshire families. Marissa Berg NIS and has ties to the Area Agency. Sarah A. was also on the committee and she is married to Alex, a formal lobbyist and Sarah is on the Quality Council. ABLE, a notorious lobbying group is also on the Autism Committee. Those are just some examples. This is not a problem you fix with “best practices.” It’s a problem you fix by ending the structure and reassigning any truly necessary tasks to agencies that already have public accountability. 5) Better alternative: move essential functions into accountable agencies If the legislature believes certain coordination functions are still needed after repeal, they should be placed where the public can demand results: DHHS (service navigation, Medicaid/waiver alignment, adult services coordination) DOE (school-age supports and compliance coordination) DMV (Blue Envelope implementation) And any future advisory group should be time-limited, with: a defined charter and deliverables, mandatory public reporting, strict Right-to-Know compliance, and an appointment process that prevents capture. Conclusion HB 1337 is the right step. The Council, as structured and experienced by families, is a low-accountability body with limited deliverables. Repeal will protect public trust and allow New Hampshire to rebuild autism-related coordination in a way that is transparent, representative, and measurably effective. For these reasons, I respectfully request the Committee vote Ought to Pass on HB 1337. hb1337 Respectfully submitted, Moira Ryan | Londonderry | Support | 5,184 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Eve Hiatt for Myself New London With diagnoses of autism and spectrum disorders on the rise, a decision to dismantle current support of individuals and families requiring developmental, educational and mental health services would have longterm damaging effects both on individual, family and community health and well-being. NH needs to support professional providers specifically trained to diagnose and help individuals develop their full potential for productive lives and prevent strain on families. | New London | Oppose | 472 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Amy Rheaume for Myself Derry Members of the Committee: Thank you for taking time to read my testimony. I strongly oppose this HB1337. I am a parent of an adult child with autism spectrum disorder. I am also a member nominated by this council, waiting on the governor’s appointment like others spoke of in today’s testimony. As stated in testimony, I am very thankful that the council helped establish the blue envelope program. My son is working towards his drivers license and the blue envelope is going to give me peace as a parent that a police officer will know how to interact with my son if gets pulled over or gets in an accident. A subcommittee has just formed as part of the council to develop a New Hampshire resource page on our website. This is a critical sub-committee as no other website in the state of New Hampshire has such a resource for people with autism or families with those with autism. Many people spoke regarding the barriers of us being a successful council over the past year and half. One of those barriers is the attendance online, during our meetings, by Shannon Bouchard. She is the individual who partnered with Mr. MacDonald to sponsor HB1337. We meet as a council for 1.5 hours on a monthly basis. Each time we meet, she logs on remotely, and causes our committee to respond to her for 10 minutes plus of our meeting time to discuss whether we are meeting quorum or following RSA’s. Our council chair, respectfully answers her questions, but agenda items are not addressed fully as they could be to this line of questioning. People with autism or families of loved ones with autism are suffering and need help. Each minute of this council meeting and its subcommittee’s matter. Please do not stop the New Hampshire autism council from meeting. Also, I came to testify against this last year, but due to this hearing being held on February break, I am with my family and could not attend today, but would’ve liked to. Thank you for taking the time to read this and to listen to everyone today. If possible, please do anything you can to strengthen this council and get our member appointed members nominated by our Governor. Amy Rheaume, Derry, NH | Derry | Oppose | 2,207 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Darlene Gildersleeve for Myself Hopkinton As a parent of 2 with Autism, I oppose HB1337 and would like the Autism Council repealed. It is beaurocratic and ineffective. In the distant past it may have hekped peopke but those days are long gone as those parents have moved on. This council is now just another ineffective voice for those that truly need it. Please oppose HB1337 Thank you, Darlene Gildersleeve | Hopkinton | Oppose | 372 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Shannon Bouchard for Myself Sandown HB 1337 — SUPPORT Repeal of the New Hampshire Autism Council Submitted by: Shannon Bouchard?NH Parent & Advocate Key Points * The Autism Council has produced no measurable outcomes for autistic individuals or families despite years of funding. * In 2022, membership changed from gubernatorial appointments to members selecting members, concentrating authority in a small, unelected group. * Decisions and spending are controlled by a small quorum, with limited transparency and accountability. * The council does not provide services, oversee implementation, or enforce policy. * Families continue to face long waitlists and fragmented systems with no improvement linked to council activity. Why Repeal Is Appropriate Advisory councils should be transparent, accountable, and outcome-driven.?The Autism Council does not meet these standards. Maintaining a non-functional structure does not help families.?HB 1337 allows the Legislature to refocus on real oversight and results. Request Please SUPPORT HB 1337. Families need action, not another advisory council. | Sandown | Support | 1,081 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Angela Fletcher for Myself Stoddard My name is Angela Fletcher and I am a parent, advocate, and liaison. I strongly oppose repealing the New Hampshire Council on Autism Spectrum Disorders. The Autism Council is not duplicative of the New Hampshire Quality Council. The Quality Council only represents individuals who qualify for certain Medicaid waivers. Many autistic individuals in New Hampshire do not qualify for those waivers but still need representation. The Autism Council serves all people with autism, regardless of service eligibility. Claims about quorum are misleading. The Council has been meeting lawfully. While some seats require gubernatorial appointment, two-thirds do not and are currently filled. Appointment delays should not be used as a reason to eliminate an entire council. The Council has also been productive. It played an instrumental role in developing materials for the state’s Blue Envelope Program, improving safety for individuals with autism and anxiety during interactions with law enforcement. Autism is complex and affects people across a broad spectrum. A specialized council ensures those voices are heard. Instead of repeal, we should strengthen and renew this council so it can continue its important work. I respectfully urge you to oppose repeal and support strengthening the Autism Council. | Stoddard | Oppose | 1,305 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Phyllis Groth for My Daughter Surry Good Morning This morning I woke up, turned to my nightstand and reached for my iPad. My daughter’s MIL is currently in ICU and I wanted to see if there were updates. As I was looking I noticed I had some new emails. I have been actually waiting on an assignment for an investigator for my Daughter Haley. No updates for MIL, on to email for BEAS. There was an email from MDS with news of a repeal on HB1337. Anything with Autism will catch my eye, as this concerns my daughter. As her mother, I am her number one advocate. To be honest, I had to read this a few times. Then came the questions, Who, Why, Where, What, How. As there is no time for me to research as much as I need to, because the meeting is basically now, I would like much more information on this. From what I am reading from the complaint is there is an oversight committee on Autism that was assigned, that sounds like the members of that committee need oversight themselves? Again with the same questions, Who are they, How did they get on the committee, What have they each done while on the committee, Where are the records of what has or has not been achieved on the committee, When can we see the results they have on records on their progress, and most importantly, Will they share this information quickly. The Blue Envelope, I have seen just recently when I was searching for information around the NH.GOV website. I believe on The State Police site, there is voluntary information you can give on yourself or that of a loved one. It puts you in the system so that when one is stopped by the police it will come up for them in their information so that they are aware of the disability. I think this is brilliant and I have also seen in other States that the local police have programs that those on the Spectrum can sign up for a program that they will actually be stopped as a rehearsal for those on the Spectrum. Yes, brilliant and I have put that on a list to call our local Keene Police Chief to talk with him about this. Again, I have not had time to read into “ The Blue Envelope” but if this is what it is about, then I support that whole heartedly. Anything that is in support of Spectrum Disorders, I appreciate. While looking this up, I see that there have been HB with the same numbers, but are for other things in the past. Again, I did not know this about HB, and would hate for Autism to get lost in another bill for weapons? Very confusing. Charges have been brought up that claim misappropriation has happened. Is there proof? What is the proof, How will the members respond, and Do these individuals need to be replaced instead of the whole committee itself? Should there be something put in place to insure that those who need the help in Autism, are getting what they need. This is most important, as I am in a case of Conflict of Interest for my daughter Haley now. That is why I am waiting on an Investigator to be assigned to her case. There must be a way to insure that these things Do Not Happen. That is why measures are put in place for those who can not help themselves. That is why we are here, to help them, to protect them, and to make sure that these measures are in place to do that. Thank you for all that you do, protecting the rights of my daughter Haley Groth. Phyllis Groth Mother and Daughters Advocate | Surry | Neutral | 3,351 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Jane Haigh for Myself Manchester Please oppose this bill which would cancel the Autism Council before it has a real chance to do its work | Manchester | Oppose | 105 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Catherine M Spinney for Myself Pelham Please OPPOSE HB 1337. As someone who served on the Quality Council for over a decade and who Chaired it for 7 years, the Quality Council is no replacement for the Autism Council. The Quality Council concerns itself with issues within the Developmental Disabilities system. Some of those served have an Autism diagnosis. But there are a vast number of people with an Autism diagnosis who are NOT part of the DD system. The Autism Council concerns itself with ALL people who experience Autism where the Quality Council does not. The two Councils have very different charges and one is no substitute for the other. Please vote NO on bill HB1337. | Pelham | Oppose | 643 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Tami Lanzillo Zeimetz for Myself Gilford We are curious as to why this information would not be needed. Are we planning to limit necessary services and programs that are most definitely needed? This sounds like a bill that would want to either severely reduce or completely eliminate a proper plan for our Autistic students. | Gilford | Oppose | 284 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Barbara OConnell for Myself Brookline I oppose because autism deserves representation of a council to better understand the impacts to this part of the population. | Brookline | Oppose | 125 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Amie Ruggles for Myself Gilford Hello, My name is Amie Ruggles, and I live in Gilford, New Hampshire. I am the mother of two children on the autism spectrum. I am speaking today in strong opposition to HB 1337, which would eliminate the New Hampshire Council on Autism Spectrum Disorders. As a parent of autistic children, I rely on services and supports that help my children thrive. The Council is the only group in state law focused specifically on improving services and supports for people with autism and their families. It brings together families, providers, educators, and state leaders to identify gaps in services and improve coordination. Without this Council, families like mine have no formal voice in shaping the programs and policies that directly affect our children’s lives. We need this Council because autism affects every aspect of a child’s life, education, healthcare, social development, and community participation. The Council provides a critical forum for sharing knowledge, highlighting needs, and coordinating resources so that children and families do not fall through the cracks. Eliminating it would leave families like mine with no state-level support, guidance, or advocacy. My children deserve access to coordinated, evidence-based services that help them reach their full potential. Without the Council, we risk reversing the progress we have made in New Hampshire to support autistic individuals and their families. I urge the committee to oppose HB 1337 and maintain this vital resource for families, children, and the broader autism community in our state. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Amie Ruggles | Gilford | Oppose | 1,639 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Matthew Bouchard for Myself Manchester My name is Matthew Bouchard, and I am here as a brother to an autistic sister. I have watched my family navigate autism day in and day out for years. Autism does not pause for meetings, reports, or restarts. Families live this every single day — coordinating care, fighting for services, managing crises, and trying to plan for the future with very little support. Since COVID, we were told the Autism Council would “restart.” We were told things would improve. Years later, nothing meaningful has changed for families like mine. The same barriers exist. The same gaps in services remain. The same exhaustion and frustration are still there. From the family side, the Council has not made a difference in our daily reality. It has not improved access to services, reduced waitlists, or provided clear, practical support. What it has done is create the appearance that the state is addressing autism — while families continue to struggle on their own. A council that exists mostly on paper does not help autistic people. Oversight that produces no outcomes is not oversight. Keeping a non-functioning council in statute does not protect families — it delays real reform. Repealing this Council is not turning away from autism. It is acknowledging that this structure has failed families and that we need a new, more accountable approach that actually listens to those living this every day. My sister deserves more than promises. Families deserve more than restarts that lead nowhere. I urge you to support repeal so the state can stop pretending this system works and start building something that does. Thank you for listening. | Manchester | Support | 1,635 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Stephanie Burnham for Myself Hudson The Autism Council deserves support. | Hudson | Oppose | — | 37 | Feb 25, 2026 | |
Fredrick Royer for Myself Hooksett Chair and Members of the Health and Elderly Services Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. I am a grandparent of a child on the autism spectrum, and I am writing in support of repealing the Autism Council. For years, this Council has not operated as the statute intended. It has existed largely on paper, with inconsistent participation, repetitive meetings, and little evidence of meaningful outcomes for autistic individuals or their families. Despite this, the Council has continued to remain in statute and collect state funds. As a family member, I care about real support—services, accountability, and results. Unfortunately, those state funds have not translated into tangible benefits for families like mine. A nonfunctioning council creates the illusion of oversight while allowing serious gaps in services and accountability to persist. Repeal is not a rejection of autism services or advocacy. It is an honest acknowledgment that this structure has failed and that continuing to fund a body that does not function as designed does not serve the public or the autism community. Autistic people and their families deserve better than a council that exists in name only. I respectfully urge the Committee to support repeal and allow the state to pursue meaningful, accountable reform. Thank you for your time and consideration. sincerely, Fredrick Royer | Hooksett | Support | 1,396 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Adam Thompson for Myself Nashua The New Hampshire Council on Autism Spectrum Disorders provides an important structure for coordination, expertise, and lived experience input across systems that affect autistic residents and their families. Autism policy touches education, healthcare, employment, housing, and developmental services. The council helps inform state agencies and legislative bodies so they understand the real world needs, service gaps, and policy impacts affecting autistic residents and their families. Without a dedicated advisory body, that coordination risks becoming fragmented. Advisory councils are not symbolic. They create a formal pathway for families, self advocates, clinicians, educators, and service providers to inform policy decisions and identify gaps before they become crises. Eliminating the council removes a consistent mechanism for that input at a time when demand for autism related supports continues to grow. Many individuals on the spectrum navigate complex service systems throughout their lives. A centralized advisory body helps ensure policies are responsive, aligned, and informed by real-world experience. Repealing it will reduce visibility, accountability, and collaboration across agencies. This bill raises a broader question: how New Hampshire ensures that autistic residents and their families continue to have a structured voice in state policymaking. If improvements or restructuring are needed, those conversations should occur with stakeholders at the table, not through elimination of the forum itself. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to find HB 1337 inexpedient to legislate. | Nashua | Oppose | 1,646 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Amy Wheeler Teas for Myself Nashua We cannot better serve/help our Autistic brothers and sisters if we dissolve things like the Autism Council. Supporting the council helps us support individuals and families living with Autism. | Nashua | Oppose | 194 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Paula Margenau for Myself DUNBARTON Parents and adults of individuals with autism NEED to have a voice!! We need to be able to help protect our children and we can not do it under this council. The council is completely ineffective with zero results for one of the most vulnerable populations, we are just repeating history over and over and wasting precious time and money. Worse, we are wasting precious years for these individuals who could be living a better life. | DUNBARTON, AL | Oppose | 433 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Eileen Hull for Myself Danville I oppose this bill because it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to have a committee that helps parents of autistic children and the autistic children themselves. Who else will advocate if not fir them. PLEASE do not support them abolishing the committee | Danville | Oppose | 244 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Paul Beaulieu for Myself Sandown The autism council needs to be repealed as it is not accountable and there are no actual outcomes from this failed council. | Sandown | Support | 124 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Jennifer Pike for Myself Hanover Good Afternoon, I am writing to respectfully request that you support HB 1337 to repeal the Autism Support Council. I was a part of the original Council which met faithfully monthly and spearheaded meaningful projects and took regular action to assist this population. However, over the past several years there have been months and even years with literally no action from this group, and when they do meet they do not advertise their meetings for participants and do not promote any actions to assist this very important population. There must be strict definitions of this group followed precisely with the benefits of this population in mind. It is tragic that this Council has deteriorated as it has. Thank you, Jennifer Pike jennifer-pike@comcast.net 603-748-5960 | Hanover | Support | 787 | Feb 25, 2026 | ||
Irenemarie Hyson for Myself Manchester I strongly support the repeal of the council that provides support to children with autism and their families. These families rely on critical resources, advocacy, and coordinated services. Removing this support would create unnecessary barriers and negatively impact some of our most vulnerable children. We must protect and strengthen services — not eliminate them. | Manchester | Support | — | 367 | Feb 25, 2026 | |
Tim Lenihan for Myself Enfield The fact is that this group has not gotten anything done, picks its own members, and receives state funds that should be allocated elsewhere. Let the supporters of this group form their own non-profit/volunteer organization. | Enfield | Oppose | 225 | Feb 25, 2026 |