NH Right To Know law - better or worse?
We here at the 'Grok are all about open and transparent government - actions, decisions, and activities by those that govern us should always have the default scenario of being out in full public view rather than being behind closed doors. While at the national level (and sometimes at the state level) there should be things that should be "black" (e.g., spying activities, covert operations dealing with national security, et al).
And the governors should be held to account; I may be writing mere words, but Doug (and Tom) have been putting words into action by forcing local politicians to follow the law (their winning their suit at the NH Supreme Court).
Well, one of those members of the Belknap County Convention, John Thomas (R-Belmont) was recently interviewed by one of our local papers (Laconia Daily Sun, P 11). I've put the full article after the jump - just a couple of thoughts out front.
Changes to Right-to-Know law make distinction between ‘discovery’ and ‘decision’
BELMONT — State Rep. John Thomas of Belmont, the chairman of the N.H. Right-to-Know Oversight Commission, says recent changes in the state’s law will make it easier for officials to carry out town business while still insuring citizens have access to important information about decisions made by their community leaders.
The key to understanding the law’s changes, Thomas said, is knowing how the commission defined “discovery” and “decision.”
To bring the issue down to earth, the representative described a hypothetical situation where two members of a three-person selectboard have a chance meeting in a local store or restaurant.
Thomas said forbidding the neighbors from discussing any town business at that time is impractical. “The town would shut down,” he said.Most towns here in NH ARE small - ours is just 7,400 and we are considered to be on the larger size; we have just 3 Selectmen (but thinking of going to 5 with one of the reasons being the RTK law so as not to have a happenstance quorum randomly meeting on the street). Thus, this observation is valid.
The second, "The town would shut down" is a bit out there....
“The issues is that we’re here for ‘discovery’ purposes, we’re not here for ‘decision’ purposes,” he explained. “So one of us might say, we need a new pickup truck and I just found out that so-and-so has a pickup truck and he wants to sell it. That’s okay to do as long as we don’t go the next step and make a decision. We don’t say, okay, let’s buy it. What we can say is, let’s bring that up at the next meeting.”
One reason for making the “discovery” and “decision” delineation, Thomas said, is because some towns have been bothered by residents who have “conspiracy theories” about their local government.
Well, all we have to do is go here (and search "Moultonborough at GilfordGrok for more) to see, perhaps a bit, of what can be done when people do wish to hide something by ducking in and out of the loopholes in the law. This was a case of a neighboring appointed committee meeting with our School Board in a not-totally-open fashion. Granted, there will always be those that will always try to cut corners - that's human nature. But why give them the rope to hang themselves with?
“Let’s say you and I (are selectmen) are at Shooters having a beer and we’re talking about town business,” he said. “They’re convinced we’re doing something illegal. When we have someone like that in town they’re constantly after them (the selectmen and other town leaders).”
Look, a random, chance meeting? I can understand that. But to deliberately decide to go to a drinking establishment to talk about Town business? C'mon, does that really sound like a good, solid government leadership policy? Are they out in public? Yes. Is it really public? No, I certainly wouldn't be in there (mostly because I do not drink beer or spirits). As I showed above, there are good reasons why this fails the "smell test".
While emails and phone calls are the main vehicles of communication (after, of course, face to face meetings) today, that is not a reason to loosen the strictures. These forms of communication, by their nature, are not public. People, unless they are quite skilled, cannot usually break into those conversations. And who knows what data element within these conversation is the "linchpin" item for a decision if they cannot hear what is being discussed?
But if an emergency situation required such a situation, the meeting most be posted — as are all public meeting, 24 hours in advance if possible — and members of the pubic may “attend” by being on the phone at the same time.
“Anyone who wishes to jump in on that (phone call) can,” Thomas said. “You have to make them open to the public.”
Now, I have no problem attending a meeting via teleconference - been doing it for years. The problem, or question to ask is "how many towns are equiped for teleconferences?" Sure, they may have speakerphones, but do they have the trunking capacity to allow residents to attend by phone? Do they have the setups for interactive conversations?
This will be an added expense to pretty much every town to provide this capability. And towns will have to notify everyone in town and train them on how to use this capability (not a small matter).
One item they left out is the use of electronic forums (or chat rooms) where all can see what is going on (just shut off the private side conversations of the politicans) in real time, but at one's leisure. After all, the 'Net is really where the convesations are moving to, right?
One other change in the law however is that while all meetings must be posted in two public places, one of those can now be on the town or school district internet website.
This is a no brainer!
The changes in the law went into effect July 2.
