NH Governor's Emergency Order Re: Excess Expenditures

Under RSA 32:10, the governing body of a municipality may transfer an unexpended balance in one appropriation to another appropriation, provided that the total amount spent for the year shall not exceed the total amount appropriated at Town Meeting. However, RSA 32:11 provides that when "an unusual circumstance arises during the year which makes it necessary to expend money in excess of an appropriation which may result in an overexpenditure of the total amount appropriated for all purposes at the [town] meeting or when no appropriation has been made," the selectmen may apply to the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) to make such expenditure.

Section 4 of Governor Sununu's Emergency Order Number 23 relaxes a number of the requirements of RSA 32:11 which must be met prior to the actual expenditure of monies in excess of an appropriation or of the total amount appropriated at Town Meeting. Specifically:

1. RSA 32:11, I requires that before application to DRA may be made, a majority of the budget committee (or if no budget committee, the governing body) must hold a public hearing. The Governor's order waives the public hearing requirement "during the current health emergency."
2. Under the Governor’s Order, DRA must review the overexpenditure application and notify the governing body of its decision within two business days of DRA's receipt of the application. (RSA 32:11 contains no timeframe within which DRA must notify the governing body of its decision.)
3. Applications to DRA may now be submitted by email to the DRA’s Director of the Municipal and Property Division. 

The Governor’s Executive Order Number 23 may be found at https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/emergency-orders/index.htm.

Law Court Finds FOAA Complaint Properly Dismissed

Maine’s Law Court recently issued a brief decision reminding Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) practitioners that FOAA complaints are subject to dismissal, like any other complaint, where they fail to allege facts that would entitle a plaintiff to relief under the statute. 

The facts in the case, Dubois v. Town of Arundel, involved a denial by the Town of Arundel’s Planning Board of an application to renew a conditional use permit submitted by an agricultural composting facility. The Planning Board denied the application during a public hearing, which was not attended by any representative from the composting facility, including the two plaintiffs in the case. Following the Planning Board’s denial, the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that a memorandum drafted by the Town Planner and distributed to the Planning Board members led to an illegal executive session. The Town of Arundel moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief, which the trial court granted and the plaintiffs then appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that a complaint brought under the FOAA is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. However, the Law Court rejected this argument and found no merit for the proposition that a motion to dismiss is barred in the context of a FOAA complaint. 

Turning to the substance, the Law Court examined the complaint to determine whether it alleged facts that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief. Here, the Law Court explained that the complaint failed to allege that any action was actually taken during an executive session that would violate the FOAA. On the contrary, the complaint merely alleged that a memo from the Town Planner led to an executive session, and that the Planning Board then held a public hearing at which the composting facility’s application was denied. Consequently, because the complaint failed to allege that any specific action was taken during an executive session, the Law Court found that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the FOAA that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief.

Maine Municipal Law Update: Biennial Budget, Marijuana Legalization & Opportunity Agenda

Maine's Biennial Budget

Legislative work continues to steadily flow in Augusta, Maine as more bills are taken up by policy committees and many of them are meeting passage or being killed. In addition, the state’s biennial budget is slowly inching forward as the Appropriations & Financial Committee has accepted non-controversial initiatives, and will soon tackle the more contentious ones.

The Marijuana Legalization Implementation Committee

In the meantime, the implementation of adult-use marijuana legalization continues to pose interesting and as-yet undecided policy questions to the Marijuana Legalization Implementation Committee (MLI) and the State House’s respective party caucuses.

The MLI has thus far held a series of public hearings allowing any and all members of the public to voice a range of opinions around marijuana policy, including the state’s preexisting medical program. However, only LD 243 has been taken up in MLI. This bill, after being extensively worked by the committee received a 16-1 “ought to pass as amended” vote.  It is now poised to establish a “hub and spokes” model of licensing that would be centered on the Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) with major “spokes” extending to the Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations (BABLO) and the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry (DACF). BABLO, an organization that exists within DAFS, would regulate packaging and retail, while DACF would regulate cultivation. 

The Committee will continue to meet regularly through the end of session and continue through the interim period between sessions.  The Committee is likely to hold several more large public hearings throughout the spring that will cluster individual bills based on their proposals and the different aspects of legalization implementation.

Opportunity Agenda

In other news, Legislative Democrats unveiled the “Opportunity Agenda” last week, a counter-proposal to the most recent LePage biennial budget. The program is touted by Democrats as providing the largest property tax cut in history, funded partially through new revenues created by adult-use marijuana legalization.