Bruce Berke, Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group 

With another very active week in the books, it is looking more and more like there will be multiple showdowns between the Senate and the House. Usually in political circles, you read about Democrats v. Republicans but in this Legislature there are so few Democrats, the only stumbling block for Republicans are other Republicans!

In this case, Senate Republicans and House Republicans are differing with one another over two key fiscal changes to the state constitution. The first is whether constitutionally-mandated caps should be placed on spending versus requiring super majority votes to raise taxes. And the second has to do with some of the wording in a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the Legislature to target state aid for education and not be subject to judicial interpretations of what the state can or cannot do.

This week, the Senate amended a constitutional amendment that the House had sent to them.  The House voted overwhelmingly for a version that would require any tax increase or the creation of any new tax to have a three-fifths majority vote in favor before it could take effect.  However, the Senate chose a different tact. Senators voted overwhelmingly to also require a three-fifths vote but its vote would be relative to the spending side of the ledger.  The Senate stated that no budget bill containing an increase over the budget of the previous biennium greater than the rate of inflation shall become law without 3/5 approval of each house of the legislature.   This probably will not amount to a showdown that would be likened to the OK Corral but it definitely will have some political drama as they seek to work out their differences.

Less stark are differences between how the House and Senate want to allow for the state of New Hampshire to target aid education aid to those school districts most in need. The House version of the targeted aid bill would restrict the courts from weighing in on how schools are funded, whereas the Senate version includes the word responsibility that could be interpreted to mean that the state should provide this funding.  However, the legislative record that the Senate is creating would clearly debunk that argument. 

The latter of the two is most likely to produce some agreement between the two chambers but it will take a committee of conference of members from the Senate and House to do so. If they do reach agreement, final adoption cannot occur until the voters have their say in November and it will require a two-thirds affirmative vote to be enshrined in our state constitution.

Will Stewart, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce 

With public hearings already held for most of the bills which the Chamber is following, we have now entered that phase when committees in both houses begin to "exec" bills, or vote them up or down in what's known as executive session.

This week, the House Municipal and County Government Committee took up two bills the Chamber is opposing. The first, HB 1282, would repeal the workforce housing law the Chamber helped pass in 2008. This law ensures that communities allow the development of housing options that are affordable to the workforce. Like they did with a similar piece of legislation last year, the committee voted to kill the bill again this year, voting it Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) by a vote of 15-2. Of course, like last year, the committee's recommendation might not amount to a hill of beans, as word on the street is that House leadership won't let the recommendation stand, and will opt for a floor vote, possibly as early as next week.

The House Municipal and County Government Committee also voted to ITL HB 1561, which seeks to discontinue the state's nine regional planning commissions - including our very own Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission - by a vote of 16-1. But, again, who knows if House leadership will let the committee's recommendation stand or if they will insist on a floor vote. Stay tuned.

House ignores committee, keeps new tax

In case you haven't noticed, the House isn't exactly the most predictable legislative body. In yet another surprising (or not) move, the House ignored a report of the Science and Technology Committee regarding HB 1305, voting 161-133 to allow municipalities to tax telephone poles, a move the Chamber opposed.

With the defeat of HB 1305, rates for landline users-which include many members of the business community-will increase. Indeed, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission has already granted approval for FairPoint to add the new tax to customers' bills. Other communications providers likely will follow suit and impose their own surcharges. 

You down with UCC? (yeah, you know me)

On Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Committee heard public testimony on SB 204, which seeks to make technical changes to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, relative to secured transactions, as proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

And yes, SB 204 is as exciting as it sounds. But what the bill lacks in political drama, it makes up for in good business sense.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), first published in 1952, was created in an effort to harmonize the laws of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states.

As our friends at Wikipedia inform us, "the goal of harmonizing state law is important because of the prevalence of commercial transactions that extend beyond one state. For example, goods may be manufactured in State A, warehoused in State B, sold from State C and delivered in State D. The UCC therefore achieved the goal of substantial uniformity in commercial laws and, at the same time, allowed the states the flexibility to meet local circumstances by modifying the UCC's text as enacted in each state."

SB 204 would make technical modifications to Article 9, as adopted by the legislature more than 10 years ago. Chief among these modifications is "Alternative B," which leaves intact the requirement that a financing statement use a debtor's "individual name," but provides that the name on the driver's license will also be sufficient as well as the debtor's surname and first personal name.