Takes a real head of steam to initiate change

One of the themes woven through the government and politics days during the Leadership New Hampshire and Leadership Manchester programs is the unique nature of New Hampshire state government.

Watching town meetings take place, city governing boards grappling with housing and other issues, and legislators haggling over bills during the session reminds us of how our government was designed to work.

New Hampshire has always been a collection of small communities (and a few major cities) in which much of the work of self-government is done. That is still true, and riding by the deliberative sessions associated with town meetings recently, and seeing the cars and lack of parking demonstrates how seriously the population takes this process and the ability to participate.

Our state governmental system is based on the system that existed before the Revolution, and the constitution we now have evolved from one written after that war and before the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789. Why is that important?

Before the Revolution, the CEO was the King of England, George III. He was not terribly popular in these parts, and the leading colonists petitioned him to allow a council of five citizens to advise the colonial governor, an appointee of the king.

That “executive council” still exists, with five members elected from districts to share executive authority with the governor, now popularly elected by the people.

This, along with the governor’s two-year term, weakens the executive by spreading out the authority, and all appointments and major spending items have to be approved by the council.

The two-year term also applies to all other elected officials in New Hampshire with the exception of U.S. senators and the municipal official in Nashua. Having to stand for office every two years also weakens the power of officials, as it makes them accountable to the voters more often, and requires running for office almost continually.

Almost all department heads in state government have fixed terms, so a new governor often cannot pick the heads of state government departments until well into the first term, or even later, weakening the executive power somewhat. Removal of a department head requires the consent of the council.

Our Legislature also is a result of the early constitutional design. The upper house is a 24-person Senate. Relatively small, this body was based upon geography until the “oneperson, one-vote” decision of the Supreme Court required it to be made up of districts with equal population.

The lower chamber, the House of Representatives, was designed to give wide representation to the people.

Originally requiring one representative for each community, and an added one for each 1,000 voters, the body grew as the population increased. After the State House was constructed in Concord, and the number of representatives grew to 420, the room was full, so the number was rounded down to 400.

That is why we have a 400-member House of Representatives, because the room was full! The members largely are volunteers who work without offices, much staff or other perks found in other states. Yet, they do a diligent job, and generally get the tasks accomplished.

However, having to get a proposal through the Legislature requires persuading a majority of the 400 members in the House and then a majority of the Senate to agree on something. If that is accomplished, the governor has the opportunity to veto the legislation, and it takes a super-majority of both houses to overturn the veto.

Designed to be weak, the system remains that way today, reflecting the inherent skepticism of government which motivated those designing the system. It takes a real head of steam to have major changes in policy adopted by the Legislature, approved by the governor and passed into law. And they did it on purpose!

As a result of the design, major changes like changes in tax policy, legalization of gambling, education funding and a host of other matters continue to come back, session after session, since the momentum is not quite great enough to get them enacted.

Periodically, there are proposals to change the system, and advocates wax poetic about four-year terms for governor, elimination of the Executive Council, shrinking the House, enlarging the Senate and raising legislators’ pay.

When there is a governor and Legislature from one’s own position or party, the inability of government to act swiftly and decisively is quite frustrating. On the other hand, when the governor and Legislature are proposing changes or policies one opposes, our system is comforting.

Think about that.

Brad Cook is a Manchester attorney. The views expressed in this column are his own. He can be reached at bradfordcook01@gmail.com.