Garry Rayno

It is time to end the pretense it is safe to hold in-person House and Senate committee meetings and sessions.

After the House and Senate held sessions the first week of January, the COVID-19 fallout has followed as several predicted it would.

Last week a half a dozen House members were known to have come down with COVID-19 and according to a well-placed rumor, one Senator.

And the pandemic is not only affecting lawmakers, it has the potential to infect many others who want to participate in the legislative process.

Let’s remember how this two-year term began: the death of House Speaker Dick Hinch from COVID-19. Several other lawmakers also had the virus after Organization Day, including one member who spent many weeks in the hospital on a ventilator.

Last year all committee hearings were remote, while the Senate met in spacious Representatives Hall and the House met on a football field, and in a parking lot and a sports complex.

Now with infections at their highest rates ever, as well as hospitalizations and deaths, House and Senate leaders want to meet in-person?

The now dominant Omicron variant may be a little less deadly than the original virus, but it is many times more infectious meaning many more people will contract the illness and more will be hospitalized and more will die as New Hampshire and many others are learning.

Look at the numbers, one in five people have had the virus, better than one in 100 have died (many more lately), and the vaccination rate is the lowest in the Northeast and about in the middle for the country.

Last week the public learned six House members had been infected from the long sessions over two days at the Exposition Center at the DoubleTree Hilton in Manchester. The public did not learn this from House leadership, but from members who were either sick, or who forwarded leadership’s email about infections to the media.

The chances are there are many more members with COVID-19. If you watched any House committee meetings last week you had to notice empty chairs without substitutes.

Friday the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee had eight members absent including the chair and vice chair.

Another committee chair told his colleagues three members called to tell him they were sick the night before.

House Speaker Sherman Packard has been steadfast in refusing to identify members who have COVID-19, except to tell members exposed to an infected representative.

He wants to protect their privacy, but with a full schedule of committee meetings for the next month or more, and the requirement that people appear in person if they want to testify or participate, there are many others who potentially could be infected beyond lawmakers. The public, lobbyists, staff, janitors, security and cafeteria workers come to mind among others.

Masks are not mandated and many representatives — mostly Republicans — don’t wear them — and it is impossible to know if the person sitting near you is vaccinated or not, or if they are infected.

The Speaker’s calls to stay home if you are sick have not always been followed as many learned the second House session when bathroom talk alerted people to one member who tested positive the night before and was at that session.

That drew a rebuke form Packard.

To his credit, Packard supplied rapid test kits to all members to take before the sessions, whether everyone complied is not known and there was ample speculation on social media that a good number did not.

People are becoming aware of the safety concerns surrounding the New Hampshire General Court.

The number of people attending public hearings during the first week of committee meetings attests to that.

The Senate Election Law Committee hearing on the maps proposed for the Senate and Executive Council, drew a couple dozen people — they all wanted to testify — but was far smaller than the public hearing the House redistricting committee held on its proposed maps.

Last fall, a hearing on prohibiting vaccination mandates produced an overflow crowd in Representatives Hall, but last week the crowd was very sparse on a similar bill.

The same was true of other hearings on controversial subjects with the exception being two bills to require paper ballots for all elections and outlawing voting machines.

They drew a crowd concerned about election fraud, something that has yet to happen in any impactful number.

Maybe the House and Senate leadership are satisfied with the public turnout, but it is not even close to what it was on remote hearings last year. The turnout was enormous and over Zoom which is much easier to follow than this year’s YouTube committee streaming.

Too often microphones are not turned on before speaking, or a lawmaker is too far away and difficult to hear, and many people do not identify themselves when they testify.

It is not an ideal situation — better than having to attend in-person — but not as simple and easy as it was with Zoom last year and the year before.

Democrats and some Republicans have sought remote access to sessions and committee meetings, but to date have been unsuccessful in convincing Packard to change his mind.

A number of at-risk Democrats sued in U.S. District Court seeking remote access before last year’s session began, but the court sided with Packard.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision, Packard sought a rehearing, which was granted and held, but a decision has not been released.

Packard maintains the House needs a rule change to hold remote sessions, although the Supreme Court said in a ruling two years ago, a quorum could be present remotely.

The House has voted down that rule change four times, most recently during the first session this year Jan. 5.

Others claim meeting remotely contributes to partisan tensions, divisions and less congeniality than in the past, but that is gaslighting at best.

Packard and others have argued the technology is difficult to implement with the number of House members, but that is not an issue for many legislatures.

Others are not holding in-person sessions and committee meetings because of the record surge in COVID-19, including across the Connecticut River in Vermont, which began the first two weeks of its session remotely.

The Vermont Senate will remain in remote sessions until Feb. 25, while its rules committee meets weekly to determine if a change is needed.

The Vermont House voted last week to allow in-person committee meetings until Feb. 1, at which time it will reevaluate, but also allow remote access for representatives who do not feel it is safe returning to in-person meetings.

The Vermont legislature also tightened COVID-19 protocols at its State House complex, requiring masks, which are offered free at the door, and that cloth masks are insufficient.

Vermont lawmakers have two rapid tests to be taken each week, and unvaccinated legislators are required to take a PCR test weekly.

That would require much more information than Packard has required of House members.

It is no secret COVID-19 is a partisan issue and it never should have been, everyone should pull in the same direction if it is ever to be in the rearview mirror.

In New Hampshire it has also been a legislative strategy.

The House GOP majority has a very slim majority and if a dozen or so Democrats with serious health risks stay home, there is less chance of a few Republicans joining Democrats on an issue and upending the game plan.

But that does not address the issue for people who want to participate in their government but are afraid to go to the State House or Legislative Office Building due to COVID-19 exposure.

The rooms may be double and air purifiers present, but there is too much risk for many people with maskless lawmakers and many openly anti-vaccine.

A group of health-care providers wrote the legislative leadership twice in recent weeks urging remote access. They told leadership it is time to rethink the health environment in the Capitol.

The super-spreader event they fear may only have affected lawmakers this time, but it may be much worse in the future encompassing the public, staff and others.

The leadership has been playing with fire since this two-year term began and last week the fire ignited and threatens to grow hotter.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

Distant Dome by veteran journalist Garry Rayno explores a broader perspective on the State House and state happenings for InDepthNH.org. Over his three-decade career, Rayno covered the NH State House for the New Hampshire Union Leader and Foster’s Daily Democrat. During his career, his coverage spanned the news spectrum, from local planning, school and select boards, to national issues such as electric industry deregulation and Presidential primaries. Rayno lives with his wife Carolyn in New London.

Newsletter