NH AG issues new memorandum on Right-to-Know law.
It’s always been said that timing is everything. After blogging last week about the Republican-dominated Belknap County Convention’s continued use of closed-door meetings to conduct the public’s business and their use of a secret-ballot to make a vote in a public meeting, along comes the latest “Memorandum on New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, RSA Chapter 91-A” by NH Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte.
.
This document is one that gets updated by the AG’s office every few years and has long been a handy tool for citizens as guidance in understanding the extent of access and openness which is required in our representative government.
This document is one that gets updated by the AG’s office every few years and has long been a handy tool for citizens as guidance in understanding the extent of access and openness which is required in our representative government.
.
On November 27th, Attorney General Ayotte wrote
“To the People of New Hampshire: The public’s right-to-know what their government is doing is a fundamental part of New Hampshire’s democracy. For our government to remain of the people, by the people, and for the people, while protecting individuals’ privacy, it is essential that the people have reasonable and open access to the information that will inform the people what their government is up to and how it is performing..
With the exception of the public business conducted at traditional annual town and school meetings, New Hampshire uses a representative form of democracy. The people’s elected representatives set and carry out most public policy. New Hampshire’s Constitution and the Right-to-Know Law ensure that the public has reasonable access to public meetings and public records that show what those elected representatives and the appointed public officials that carry out our laws are doing.”
In other words, it’s important for the people to have as much access as possible to the government that acts on their behalf. Ayotte further writes
“As New Hampshire’s Attorney General, I take an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of our State. As part of my efforts to fulfill that duty I am proud to issue this updated Memorandum on New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, RSA Chapter 91-A..The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide a reference guide to the statute and to the judicial decisions that further define and explain the peoples’ right-to-know. This edition includes general principles concerning the law, statutory changes since the last edition, and up-to-date judicial interpretations of the statute..
I urge every citizen, every school child, and every student of government to study the Right-to-Know Law. Truly understanding our representative form of democracy requires a sound understanding of your right-to-know about the public actions of your elected and appointed representatives.”
Observers of the local scene will recall that activists like me and others have invoked the Right to Know Law on several occasions. Imagine how responsive and careful local government bodies would be if even more ordinary citizens became aware of the rules this law places on elected officials.
.
As I reported last week, The Laconia Daily Sun’s Michael Kitch wrote of the Belknap County Convention’s commissioner selection process in that paper’s November 21st edition:
“Once the applications were received, Thomas refused to reveal the identification of the candidates and insisted the convention should interview behind closed doors, claiming the selection process was a ‘personnel matter’ that did not require public disclosure under the Right-to-Know law.”
Remember, they were discussing the replacement of an elected official.
The Ayotte memo demonstrates the use of the Right To Know Law cited by Thomas allowing the withholding of the candidates’ names as being completely wrong:
“Minutes must be recorded and must include: (1) The names of the members present (2) The names of persons appearing before the body (3) A brief description of each subject discussed…”
There would be no legal way for anybody appearing before the body- in this case the County Convention- to escape identification in the legally required meeting minutes.
.
The Ayotte memorandum also handily addresses the use of a secret ballot by a body subject to the Right to Know Law. As you recall, I noted last week the Daily Sun reported on the vote by the County Convention to choose the new County Commissioner:
The Ayotte memorandum also handily addresses the use of a secret ballot by a body subject to the Right to Know Law. As you recall, I noted last week the Daily Sun reported on the vote by the County Convention to choose the new County Commissioner:
“Voting by secret ballot, 14 members of the convention chose Long over Dave Nielsen…”
Page six of the AG’s memorandum lays out the characteristics of public meetings. Just like the law itself, it’s pretty specific:
“No vote in an open meeting may be taken by secret ballot except for: (1) Town meetings and elections (2) School district meetings and school district elections (3) Village district meetings and elections”.
Back in the spring, the Gilford Budget Committee held a vote to fill an opening created by the resignation of one of its members. The vote was openly held in the proper fashion. I was elected to fill that seat. There was only one slight problem- turned out that the meeting was not properly noticed as required by the Right to Know Law. No actions taken during that meeting were legal, because the meeting was not legal. When this was discovered, the Gilford Budget Committee held a new meeting and had a re-vote. Nobody had to take them to court. They just fixed it so as to do the right thing.
.
Will the Belknap County Convention do the same thing? If it turns out that an illegally chosen county commissioner has participated in official county business, is ANY of it legal?
