New Hampshire HB 1569 to Impact Volunteer Trail Maintenance Groups

[rocket21]

There have been e-mails going around about this, but I wanted to post this to alert other trail maintainers of legislation that was just introduced a few days ago.

HB1569

Anyone involved with groups who volunteer in New Hampshire State Forests/Parks should be aware of this, especially:

"The commissioner of the department of resources and economic development shall be authorized to charge such volunteer organizations a portion of the department's cost for liability insurance coverage"

and

"The Department estimates the cost to obtain liability insurance coverage for the volunteer organizations would be about $40,000 per year"

In other words, if this legislation were passed as is, volunteer groups would have to *pay* to do volunteer trail work in New Hampshire's State Forests/Parks.
While this may not mean much for large enterprises such as AMC, this could potentially stop all-volunteer groups without revenue streams from working in state forests/parks.

The House committee hearing date has not yet been set.

I have yet to receive a response from the committee chair as to who in DRED requested this legislation and who wrote it. Odds, us volunteers are going to have to take time off from our day jobs to go to Concord and fight for the right to continue to donate our labor for free.

 

[psmart]

The full text of the bill is here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=624&txtFormat=html

The primary intent of the bill is to indemnify volunteers working on state property in the same manner than state employees are already indemnified. That seems to be a good thing.

The bill also provides the option for the commissioner to purchase related liability insurance, and the further option to charge a pro-rated portion of that insurance cost to applicable volunteer organizations. So the volunteer organizations might each be billed a share of the tentative $40k cost.

As written, this would not seem to apply to individual volunteers - only to organizations. But if both options were exercised, I agree that the cost would be burdensome (and counterproductive), especially for small low-budget volunteer organizations, such as Trailwrights (whose work I wholeheartedly support)

 

[TrailwrightBratt]

It surely would affect the Belknap Range Trail Tenders.
The Bill authorizes DRED to charge a portion of the insurance to Orgs. It does say" May or May Not".
If DRED does go that route and asks for payment it is a form of Mandate.

According to the Methodology: The department assumes if the volunteer orgs. are not able to obtain adequate protection from liability through Statute or insurance the number of volunteers could be reduced by 90%.
It also states that the total value of volunteer time for the Div. of Parks and Recreation in calendar year 2014 was $240,279. See the methodology for more stats.
Bratts alone in 2015 contributed some 1400 hrs. at $22.98 for $32,130 that could possibly be lost to the State. I would think Statute would be a good way to go.
I am sure there will be more comments as time goes by.

 

[RollingRock]

This bill is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of...OK maybe not given the composition of the today's legislature. My small organization maintains a trail in the WMNF and if they adopted the same requirements you just stated as the State of NH, we would be done volunteering. Why should an organization pay to do volunteer work?

 

[JCarter]

SMH.

NH, "Live Free" doesn't mean "mooch off of other people".

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

In 2015, Cardigan Highlanders Volunteer Trail Crew gave the State 800 hours valued at $18,400. I encourage everyone to read the entire bill and its methodology. There you will read statements from two State departments: Parks, and Justice (the Attorney General's office).

The AG's office says that they will not defend volunteer groups from liability lawsuits (RSA 508:17 Volunteer Liability Limited, RSA 216, and the State's sovereign immunity notwithstanding). That is why Parks seeks authority from the Legislature to buy liability insurance for its volunteers, so as to have the insurance company's attorneys defend their volunteers because the AG refuses to, IMO.

Parks is quite aware of the value of the volunteers who gave them 10,456 hours in 2014, and no doubt more than that in 2015. Parks also assumes that if those volunteers cannot have protection from liability through either statute or insurance, 90% of those volunteers will leave. Speaking for myself, Parks assumes correctly.

In this bill, Parks asks the Legislature to authorize Parks to buy liability insurance for its volunteers, and also to charge a pro-rated portion of the insurance premiums to the volunteer groups. Here is another cause for volunteers to quit, and many of them would. I am sure Parks understands this.

In New Hampshire, many government functions are paid for by those who use them. Motorized trail users have to pay to register their vehicles with the State through Trails Bureau, which then uses the money to pay for trail improvements and liability insurance for the volunteers who work on motorized trails. The users and the volunteers are the same people.
Hiking trails are maintained by altruistic public service volunteer workers while most hikers never volunteer to tend the trails or pay any fees to maintain them. That was acceptable before we volunteers faced the prospect of being charged to do the work. Therefore the time has come to once again consider the success of the parking fees in the White Mountain National Forest, which fees pay for trail upkeep and improvements. The user pays, the job gets done, and everyone accepts that there is a quid for the quo.
Hikers pay to park now at Monadnock, Rollins, and Winslow State parks plus others I do not know of. If iron rangers with fee envelopes were added at Cardigan, Franconia, and Crawford Notch (among others), the users would be paying, the insurance would be paid, and we could carry on into the future with one less worry to bear.

 

[Stan]

I'm curious as to how many "small" non-profits would share in this cost. Wouldn't it include ATV, snow machine and xc ski trail organizations, too? Is it possible the cost may not be as daunting as it seems and perhaps volunteers can also be offerred a level of protection they don't currently have? There may be several more imaginative ways to offset the cost as CVD above has described. Would waivers by volunteers help?

I'm not advocating nor opposing ... nor have I considered the philosophical, political and legal implications of all this ... but I do know it is a litigious world and everyone needs protection. Perhaps some expansion of the good samaritan law could obviate the need or at least significantly reduce the cost further.

Though I plead guilty to ignorance on the details, I do know this. There is a lot more to be gained from a constructive dialogue than there is in drawing battle lines and ultimatums nobody really wants. Hopefully this could work out because the great work done by volunteers, and I'm a chronic one myself albeit in other fields, is too precious to lose. A similar matter came up many years ago here in Mass. applicable to non-profit board members and it was resolved satisfactorily ... by a legal opinion from the state's AG if I remember correctly.

BTW, aside from the litigious angle, is part of the driving force the desire by state employee bargaining units to bring this into the purview of more state jobs? Whoops, said I wasn't considering political aspects but couldn't help but wonder.

 

[rocket21]

There is an inaccurate notion that DRED is self-funded and thus starved for cash. This is untrue, as DRED does indeed receive funding from the General Fund. Yet, under this legislation as written, volunteer groups would have to pay DRED to maintain DRED's properties.

Volunteer groups have enough of a challenge finding volunteers and funding equipment used. For the small groups that perform a significant portion of the volunteer maintenance in the state, even a small fee would be insurmountable.

And, there are some volunteers who reject the premise that they should have to pay the state to donate free work to the state.

 

[sierra]

Maybe in lieu of paying for coverage, a waiver could be signed taking the possibility of litigation off the table.

 

[Amicus]

A similar matter came up many years ago here in Mass. applicable to non-profit board members and it was resolved satisfactorily ... by a legal opinion from the state's AG if I remember correctly.

I'm not sure about an AG opinion, but in 2007, the Mass. Legislature passed a law extending to private volunteers doing maintenance on trails on State land the same limited protection from liability that State employees already possessed. That protection precludes liability for negligence, but not for intentional acts.

A few years ago, the Mass. DCR caused a lot of consternation among groups (such as the AMC) that do trail maintenance on State land, by proposing regulations that would have required specific approval from a couple of different DCR functionaries before such maintenance could be done. A number of groups commented critically on that proposal and I don't think it has been adopted, although I haven't been following it lately. Volunteers are supposed to sign a DCR waiver form but I believe there is no insurance requirement.

 

[peakbagger]

Calling Jeb Bradley, he is friend of hikers and his suggestions on the political process was quite helpful for the ongoing Thoreau Falls Bridge controversy.

 

[John in NH]

Sierra-- I thought of that as a solution (volunteers signing waivers), but is this liability insurance to protect volunteer organizations from being sued by users of the trail who get hurt? If so that wouldn't work, unfortunately.

General Question: Does anyone know if this proposal is being brought up in the NH House in response to some court case precedent (ie in NH or federal court?) that is forcing the issue?

If not, then I don't see the need to push this issue as it would punish volunteer labor needlessly and be a major disincentive for small trail maintenance groups to even fight to exist.

 

[TrailwrightBratt]

Craig:Assuming the fees goes to Maint., reconstruction and improvements not the Gen. Fund. I think that is where you are heading with your comments. I would support that concept.

 

[peakbagger]

How about the approach that a value is assigned to volunteer hours by the groups and that value is used to pay the insurance costs? AMC and other groups use this method extensively to leverage other funding that requires a local contribution. The state doesn't get handed any actual dollars but DRED can show that they are getting useful needed work in exchange for funding these costs.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

peakbagger:
No one is likely to accept a value of our labor greater than the $22.98 Parks uses, and why should we value our own labor any lower than anyone else? So to use CHVTC as the example (see # 6 above), our 800 hours is worth $18,400 of insurance premiums. I have been thinking about such an offset these past few days, and it does seem fair. Of course, someone other than the volunteers still has to find the premium money, because none of the small volunteer groups has anything close to their pro-rated premium sitting idle in a CD waiting to be tapped.

Also, you may be comparing pine cones and maple seeds here, because the local matching share is a feature of applications for grant money... hmmm, maybe some conservation-minded charity would consider paying the premiums so the volunteers can continue working. More options to think about.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Hal: You guess correctly. My intent is that the parking fees from trailhead parking lots go to hiking trail upkeep and rehab if there is money left after the insurance premium is paid. The hikers pay, so they should benefit. Details negotiable.

 

[TrailwrightBratt]

"I will drink to that". Let's all get behind this idea.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Statewide Trails Advisory Committee meets 1900h tonight DRED HQ on Loudon Road in Concord. I hear HB1569 will be explained. I hope to offer a report here on Thu or Fri.

 

[Andrew]

I'm curious as to how many "small" non-profits would share in this cost. Wouldn't it include ATV, snow machine and xc ski trail organizations, too? Is it possible the cost may not be as daunting as it seems and perhaps volunteers can also be offerred a level of protection they don't currently have?

A small XC ski club that operates in a state park just north of Berlin NH was relieved when they heard this news. This group lead by a board of directors of dedicated individuals, who all have full time jobs and young families; and happen to live in the most economically depressed area of NH, as well as many having to commute long distances as an extra burden on their time. They have on their own raised enough money to annually purchase liability insurance to cover their activities to benefit their own recreational needs and also to the general public. They have enthusiastically done this by selling baked goods at local events, holding road tolls for donations, holding an annual fundraising dance, an annual ski race and winter carnival, plus myriad other efforts. They will be glad if they could buy into a pool at lower cost for a portion of the various insurances they buy to protect not only themselves and the general public.
What I read here in this thread is a twisted rant on par with Bundy type anti gummint agenda attitude before really knowing the motivation of an effort that is trying to help people. Maybe the AG's office has told DRED insurance is required and the department is trying to find an affordable solution for all?

 

[rocket21]

What I read here in this thread is a twisted rant on par with Bundy type anti gummint agenda attitude before really knowing the motivation of an effort that is trying to help people. Maybe the AG's office has told DRED insurance is required and the department is trying to find an affordable solution for all?

No, what you're reading are legitimate concerns raised by posters who have donated thousands of hours of hard labor in our state parks across the state for decades.

At least two of the posters have developed successful volunteer organizations that have made significant improvements to trails in state parks and are genuinely concerned that provisions in this legislation could not only halt future volunteer projects, but jeopardize the work that has already been done. You expect them to sit by idly and let benevolent bureaucrats, who have no concept of this work, make uninformed decisions without question or objection?

You owe these hard working men and women an apology for your comments.