New Hampshire HB 1569 to Impact Volunteer Trail Maintenance Groups

To rocket21 and Andrew, Greetings.
The concerns we volunteers have are indeed legitimate. I happen to know the particular bureaucrats in question, as I know both of you. I spoke with those bureaucrats after the STAC meeting the evening of Wednesday 1/13/16. Their remarks and demeanor were consistent with the text and methodology of hb1569, which I urge you to read. Andrew's last sentence is a good summary of the situation, IMO. What I am hearing from the Parks volunteer coordinator and the director is that Parks is very grateful for the 10,240 hours volunteers gave them in 2014, and for the 19,720 hours in 2015. Several RSAs work together to protect volunteers on DRED lands from liability, which doesn't mean we cannot be sued, which is why Parks wants to close a gap in coverage that the AG's office pointed out.

Below I post a DRAFT memo Parks sent out yestere'en. It was written by the volunteer coordinator and the director, who are not attorneys. They have more meetings with the AG's people next week. The ground is yet soft, but I believe that with a little good will and cooperation we can firm it up before the trailwork season starts.
Yours ay, Creag nan drochaid


Good evening, Volunteers,



For those of you who volunteer for, represent, or operate a Volunteer organization that works on behalf of DRED, I wanted to make you aware of new legislation that was recently introduced.



This does not affect individuals working on their own behalf, only formalized organizations.



You can view the Bill here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=624&type=4





So that there is a better understanding about this Bill, here is a basic summary (and links to referenced statutes):



HB-1569 FN

Volunteer Organization Liability



The purpose of this legislation is to help volunteer organizations reduce or eliminate the cost of liability insurance that is required for organizations while volunteering on State lands managed by DRED. This legislation does not affect individual volunteers, only organizations.



NH House Bill 1569 FN gives additional liability protections to organizations volunteering on behalf of DRED (including the Divisions of Parks & Recreation and Forests & Lands). The Bill would also allow DRED to carry blanket insurance coverage for partnering volunteer groups and provides the Department with the option of charging organizations for a portion of the cost of that insurance.



Individual volunteers are already offered protection from liability under RSA 216-A:3-h, and the State does not require individuals volunteering independent of an organization under the direction of DRED to have insurance and indemnify the State.





The language in HB 1569 FN is sourced from the Trails Bureau liability statute (RSA 508:14) that protects OHRV Clubs and private landowners.





What HB-1569 FN does:

1. Amends RSA 216-A:3-h to add liability protections for personal injury or property damage coverage to organizations (corporation or non-profit) volunteering for DRED, which are not provided under RSA 508:17.II Currently, volunteer organizations are subject to RSA 508:17 which subjects organizations up to $250,000/ $1,000,000 for negligent actions on the part of an individual/group member.

2. Provides DRED with the option to carry liability insurance coverage on behalf of partnering volunteer organizations. As of right now, DRED has no authority to carry insurance for volunteer organizations.



3. Authorizes DRED to charge organizations a portion of the insurance coverage. This would help DRED offset the cost of insurance coverage, if needed, yet provide volunteer groups that don’t already carry insurance independently with more affordable liability insurance coverage through the purchase of an aggregate policy.






What HB-1569 FN does not do:

1. Does not eliminate the current need for organizations volunteering on behalf of DRED to carry insurance. While the liability protections are expanded, the liability of an organization for gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct on the part of an organization volunteer remains up to $250,000 for an individual or $1,000,000 for a number of persons for a group via RSA 508:17. This is important to note for organizations not currently carrying insurance.



2. Does not protect organizations when they are not carrying out “assigned duties or activities” under the general supervision of DRED staff or when the result of “gross negligence of willful or wanton misconduct”.

“Assigned duties or activities” are captured in written agreements signed by the organizations and DRED (those agreements are being reviewed by the AG. - Creag).

3. Does not cover the activities of volunteer organizations off of DRED properties or activities that are not pertaining to DRED.



4. Does not require DRED to carry the liability insurance that would protect partnering organizations. It only authorizes DRED to do so, at its option, to assist its volunteer organizations.

5. Does not require organizations to purchase or join the liability insurance coverage offered through DRED. Insurance, as required by the State, can be purchased independently.

This legislation was developed with the help and support of the State Parks System Advisory Council. One of the top priorities of the Council has been to grow and support volunteer work in NH State Parks.











This above summary is still in DRAFT form, but gives you a basic idea of how it works. I wanted to share this with you as soon as I could. This is an important step to further protect the organizations that work so hard and give so much to improve our parklands on behalf of DRED. It means a lot to us here in the Department.





You might also note in the “methodology” section of the HB that the Volunteer hours and approximate dollar value are referenced. Here is a powerful example of why this reporting is important and how meaningful this information is; we have utilized it to express the importance of you, our volunteers, in an effort to enact legislative change and improvements that will benefit you and the organizations you represent.



If you have any questions, concerns, feedback, or thoughts to share, you know my inbox and phone are always open.



Yours in service,



-Patrick











Patrick Hummel

Volunteer Program Coordinator

New Hampshire State Parks



603-271-3556



[email protected]

Its interesting I had a post partially composed earlier regarding that some small groups might welcome the opportunity to buy into a larger umbrella policy. Past experience running a small club (non hiking) years ago looking for liability insurance was that it was far less expensive to buy into much larger policy composed of multiple groups than to try to buy individually like the Nansen Ski Club apparently has had to do.

Thus it breaks down into two issues

The state has elected not to cover volunteer organizations under their liability. This is bad thing for all as it effectively punishes volunteers for their good work.

Another part of state government has tried to mitigate the impact of this "bad thing" by buying a group policy and allowing smaller groups to participate. This reduces the cost of the burden to individual groups. In my opinion its the best option to mitigate the "bad thing". I don't vilify the particular state department that offered this solution, its just the best solution for an inherently bad situation that hopefully becomes a non issue

As I stated earlier this is where the political process needs to function, I.E. Jeb Bradley or some other politician who has first hand knowledge of the great value that volunteers add to the recreational access to state lands is most likely the best resource to correct this issue. There is a inherently bad decision made by the bureaucracy that needs to be corrected by the governor/executive council and if they care not to or are unable then the legislature needs to get involved. I expect that some of the posters in this thread know Jeb or some other politician and rather than get into a heated discussion amongst folks who are frustrated by the situation, its far better to vent your concerns to the political process. I unfortunately don't have good political connections, but once I get some direction on the best way to go I will gladly participate in contacting the appropriate parties.

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

What HB-1569 FN does:

1. Amends RSA 216-A:3-h to add liability protections for personal injury or property damage coverage to organizations (corporation or non-profit) volunteering for DRED, which are not provided under RSA 508:17.II Currently, volunteer organizations are subject to RSA 508:17 which subjects organizations up to $250,000/ $1,000,000 for negligent actions on the part of an individual/group member.

2. Provides DRED with the option to carry liability insurance coverage on behalf of partnering volunteer organizations. As of right now, DRED has no authority to carry insurance for volunteer organizations.



3. Authorizes DRED to charge organizations a portion of the insurance coverage. This would help DRED offset the cost of insurance coverage, if needed, yet provide volunteer groups that don’t already carry insurance independently with more affordable liability insurance coverage through the purchase of an aggregate policy.

Click to expand...

I guess the way around this is to not have any volunteers working on trails claim they are working under a 'volunteer organization' since DRED carries liability insurance for volunteers and not 'volunteer organizations.' A 'volunteer organization' could be getting people together but that is about it. When my group does work on our adopted trail in the WMNF, I don't have the our organization's name on the paperwork but have the volunteers sign their names individually.

The other way around it is to just rescind RSA 508:17.II that subjects organizations up to $250,000/ $1,000,000 for negligent actions on the part of an individual/group member. If that was rescinded, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

RollingRock,
I would like to correct an assumption you just made, namely that the State carries liability insurance for individual volunteers but not for groups. If you read the text of the bill hb1569 as linked in Patrick's email, you will IIRC find that in paragraph I the present law stays the same: individual volunteers are considered to be state employees as under RSA 99-D. There you will find no insurance policy mentioned, rather the employee is to be defended by the AG's office PROVIDED certain conditions are met.

RSA 508:17 LIMITS the group's liability to $250,000 per injured individual, and $1,000,000 per group of them for the same incident no matter how many persons were injured. If that RSA is gone, so are the limits on liability, and who would write an insurance policy where the insured's liability was limited only by how much sympathy the jury felt for the injured? Who could afford the premiums for such a policy?

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

RSA 508:17 LIMITS the group's liability to $250,000 per injured individual, and $1,000,000 per group of them for the same incident no matter how many persons were injured. If that RSA is gone, so are the limits on liability, and who would write an insurance policy where the insured's liability was limited only by how much sympathy the jury felt for the injured? Who could afford the premiums for such a policy?

Click to expand...

I know a judge who told me that if someone in the goodness of their heart, and was not being paid, was volunteering to lead a trip and/or put together a group for trail maintenance, and was subsequently sued for an accident it would be thrown out of court unless it could be proven there was gross negligence, i.e., leaving the injured participant to fend for themselves. I think someone mentioned earlier about the "good Samaritan" law being extended to trail volunteers. Someone also mentioned to have everyone sign waivers that they would not sue the State of NH of performing trail maintenance.

RollingRock @ # 25,
The statute that covers the situation you described is RSA 508:17 Volunteer Liability Limited. The waiver is called the DRED Participant Agreement Form. While you are at it, you may as well also read RSAs 212:34 wherein the Assumption of Risk statute was just extended to participants in all outdoor activities, RSA 216-A:3-H that HB1569 would change, and RSA 99-D regarding state employees.

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only problem with this is that AFAIK, the State of NH does not charge parking fees at any trailhead parking lot. There are "beg boxes" at Lafayette Place, but I honestly doubt they bring in much. So you'd be talking about instituting this new set of fees, installing all the infrastructure to collect them, and then the personnel to police it. Also note that there are a non-trivial number of TH parking lots that are not owned by the same entity that owns the bulk of the trail (for both NHSP and WMNF). In many cases, they are either easements, privately-owned, or belong to land conservation groups.

JCarter said:

The only problem with this is that AFAIK, the State of NH does not charge parking fees at any trailhead parking lot. There are "beg boxes" at Lafayette Place, but I honestly doubt they bring in much. So you'd be talking about instituting this new set of fees, installing all the infrastructure to collect them, and then the personnel to police it. Also note that there are a non-trivial number of TH parking lots that are not owned by the same entity that owns the bulk of the trail (for both NHSP and WMNF). In many cases, they are either easements, privately-owned, or belong to land conservation groups.

Click to expand...

There are admission fees charged at other state properties, however one can argue they fund the base facilities (such as the picnic area and playground at the Kearsarge trailhead).

DRED has the money to fund a $40K/year policy if they really want it. It's despicable if they genuinely think volunteer trail maintainers should be paying to do free work.

After about 10 days, I have yet to receive a response from the committee chair about this legislation.

Good afternoon, JCarter,
Please refer to my post # 6. The state lands I suggest for parking fees are often full and then some. Therefore the volume of traffic means enough fees to generate a surplus beyond capital investment and enforcement costs. Just as anywhere else, part of the fee you paid, or the fine if you didn't, covers the cost of the signs, envelopes, iron ranger, and enforcement.

Where and exactly how to collect fees really is a matter of negotiation and details after the law is in place. Many other places do this with no problem, the WMNF is a next-door example, and the State has let a fortune slip through their fingers because they refuse to follow the USFS example. BTW, where hikers use some trails over others in part because the parking is free but the tending is no better than before the USFS started making them pay something for the trails they impact, are the people who keep the parking free when they could even out and improve the situation by following a good example not even just a little bit neglectful of their duty?

Now we volunteers face the prospect of substantial financial burdens just to volunteer to tend the State's trails. It will be easier for everyone if the State finds the money for insuring their volunteers from other sources. I am only pointing out that here is a source of money that is proven reliable because it is fair and enforced. Therefore it should be on the table for this bill.

Good afternoon, rocket21,
If I were DRED I would not have asked the Legislature for authority to charge volunteer groups a pro-rated part of the premiums for insuring them, rather I would have found other sources of funding. I would not be surprised if there were strong objections from numerous volunteer groups concerned about that part of hb1569. Such objections may well cause that provision to be dropped from the bill before the committee votes to kill it or pass it. This is always something of a crap shoot, but the fact that Parks asked for this bill means it is not likely to be killed, IMHO.
As you probably know, all bills have to have a public hearing by the committee to which they were referred. HB1569 is now with the House Judiciary Committee. Anyone can check on when it will be heard at gencourt.state.nh.us. Its hearing is not yet announced

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

If I were DRED I would not have asked the Legislature for authority to charge volunteer groups a pro-rated part of the premiums for insuring them, rather I would have found other sources of funding.

Click to expand...

DRED could have very easily asked the Legislature for permission to tap into a large revenue stream that DRED controls (about $3 million over the past 5 years). It appears they would prefer to take money from volunteers rather than ensure that revenue stream is used effectively.

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

As you probably know, all bills have to have a public hearing by the committee to which they were referred. HB1569 is now with the House Judiciary Committee. Anyone can check on when it will be heard at gencourt.state.nh.us. Its hearing is not yet announced

Click to expand...

Yes indeed...which adds insult to injury, in that on top of all of the hours I volunteer to the state, I'm going to have to try to take a vacation day from work in order to drive to Concord and tell them why I should be able to continue to volunteer free of charge. If DRED truly valued the hundreds of hours I've volunteered over the past few years, would they be doing this?

I assume that the "large revenue stream" is the Sunapee lease ?

I expect that the recipient of this revenue stream would prefer to keep these funds restricted

rocket21,
Would you please tell us all about this $600,000/yr source of revenue DRED controls? We cannot evaluate nor advocate for tapping it for insurance premiums if we do not know what it is. Thank you very much.

peakbagger said:

I assume that the "large revenue stream" is the Sunapee lease ?

I expect that the recipient of this revenue stream would prefer to keep these funds restricted

Click to expand...

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

rocket21,
Would you please tell us all about this $600,000/yr source of revenue DRED controls? We cannot evaluate nor advocate for tapping it for insurance premiums if we do not know what it is. Thank you very much.

Click to expand...

That is correct. At the time of the Sunapee leasing in 1998, there was a handshake agreement that the proceeds would be used to provide Cannon improvements for 10-15 years, then would be spent on state parks/forest throughout the state. We're now approaching 20 years and Cannon has actually put the Sunapee lease account into arrears (-$332,614), while also taking large sums from the general fund.

If DRED makes Cannon pay Cannon expenses with Cannon revenue, then Sunapee lease revenue can be used for state forest and state park purposes. No need for new taxes, or for volunteers to have to pay to do free work.

Sunapee lease revenue in Fiscal Year 2013/2014/2015: $502,280/$615,399/$637,993. $40K is a drop in the bucket.

The House committee hearing is set:

Wednesday 02/03/2016 11:15 AM LOB 208