Ms. Lovering, (Attorney Steve Bolton and Ms. Deshaies will need to respond to some of these requests.) This threatening posture from you and the Nashua Legal Office of disruptive behavior, health hazards, refusal to leave, and future arrests is unfounded.
I believe it is an expression of the ineptitude of the city to handle information requests.
I am concerned that once again Attorney Bolton’s stroke a year ago had left him unfit for duty. It is clear, based on the writing that the legal office contributed to this response. This type of response representing City opinions of the delivery of public service reinforces my concerns that the Nashua legal office is in disarray resulting from unstable and incompetent leadership.
Below is your response redlined with my remarks. The bolded sentences are requests for records under RSA 91-A. Attorney Bolton and Ms. Deshaies will have to respond to some of these requests.
Laurie
Mrs. Ortolano,
I’ve been made aware that you were in the City Clerk’s Office Monday afternoon, again asking to meet with me but refusing to provide a topic for that meeting. Such requests have been repeatedly made by you during the last month or so, and have all been denied.
None were denied. I never received a response. The clerks always took the message and never stated that you or Allison were unwilling or unable to respond or meet with me.
I’m also aware that you wasted significant amount of staff time demanding to meet with me and/or my Deputy Clerk, despite being told repeatedly that your messages had been passed along and neither of us was available to speak with you.
Under RSA 91-A please provide the surveillance video recording for the entire day for Friday January 28, 2022. I want to understand the magnitude of the time I wasted “demanding” to meet. It was unclear to me when the clerks responded that no one was available at this time, that meant that you and Ms. Waite was never going to respond to me. “Wasting a significant amount of staff time and demanding” is a subjective statement. I made no demands, I made requests and my first request for a meeting was on Friday, January 28, 2022. The video will clarify this.
During your time spent in the City Clerk’s Office you made no specific request to inspect a publicly available document nor did you request to conduct any business handled by the City Clerk’s Office.
That is true but I did request to speak about city wide record keeping.
At length,…
The phrase ‘at length’ is unclear, please clarify. In 4 weeks, Monday, January 31st was the first time I spoke with Ms. Waite and she made it clear she only had 60 seconds,
…when Deputy Clerk Allison Waite was available to meet with you at your continued insistence and refusal to leave…
(I was never asked to leave the office and I am certain that if I was disruptive, you would have called the police; I am very concerned by the ‘refusal to leave’ statement. This is false and given my past situation, I would not stay if I were asked to leave. Someone is lying)
…until either she or I spoke with you, you informed Ms. Waite that you wished to discuss responses you had received to two or three Right-to-Know requests. You did not specify or give any indication as to which Right-to-Know request responses you were referring.
Ms. Waite showed up at the counter on January 31st for the first time in a month, and informed me that she was in a meeting; she stated that she only had 1 minute to speak with me. Clerk Lovering, since January 3, 2022, you have never shown up at the office counter to respond to my concerns. My time in the clerk’s office would indicate that few customers spend only 1 minute addressing their business. Clearly, this was a brush off. And Ms. Waite did not speak to me, she spoke over me. You are correct that I did not provide specific RTK requests because I believed I was only going to be setting up a meeting, I did not bring the requests, and Ms. Waite only had 60 seconds.
To my knowledge, all Right-to-Know requests submitted by you to the City Clerk’s Office have been fulfilled. If you have a specific question about a Right-to-Know request, please identify the request by date of request or production of documents, or City file number. I will consider any question(s) in accordance with RSA chapter 91-A. Experience has shown that a conversation like this one is most productive when had via email.
My experience has shown that conversations like this one are absolutely NOT productive when handled via email. As Vice President of Right to Know New Hampshire, RSA 91-A does not require the City to answer questions, however, in assisting citizens all over the state, our group’s recommendation is that citizens speak with their agencies first to understand how documents are maintained and what documents exist before writing the request. My records questions are best handled in a conversation but it is apparent you are denying this. Please note that risk management, finance, assessing, and the health department engage with me in conversations about my record requests. These are far more productive conversations and yield more productive and accurate responsive records. Today, I had several conversations with other municipalities in the state for records requests and already have been provided responses from three. Super simple.
For future reference, please note that the City Clerk’s Office is available to conduct that business which falls under the purview of the City Clerk, including, but not limited to:…
Please note that the City Clerk Chairs the Municipal Records Committee to address records issues and access for the entire City. It was stated at the meeting in September, that Ms. Waite has a records archival background that I assumed would be valuable to establish a records system for all departments. The future topics to be discussed were not just City Clerk records, they encompassed all city records. I believe the clerk’s office is the most reasonable department when it comes to seeking assistance on my concerns with how record searches are being done and records are being stored.
- Vital Records Corrections and Requests
- New voter registration and changes to current voter information
- Dog licensing and other licenses and permits issue by this office
- Requests for documents within the department pursuant to RSA chapter 91-A
If you are not present in the City Clerk’s Office to conduct the above referenced business and/or request to inspect publicly available documents, after reasonably describing them, you will be asked to leave. The public area of the City Clerk’s Office is a small, enclosed space where confidential and sensitive information is often discussed.
I would argue that this public space is not small. It is over 200 sq feet and seats 8-10 people at the cubbies. It is many times bigger than the assessing office customer service area. If there is confidential information typically discussed, I would contend the office should have been designed with a private room for those citizens that need confidentiality. This is how the assessing office was redesigned downstairs to allow seniors to have a private room to address financial hardship exemptions. Under RSA 91-A, please provide any documents that would show the confidential and sensitive information discussed in the customer service area.
It is unfair and disrespectful to other citizens to jeopardize the confidentiality and discretion of those transactions.
It is outrageous that I am responsible for jeopardizing the confidentiality of any transaction in a public customer service area. No one asked me to step away or leave the customer service area because confidential discussions were taking place. Frankly, I can only recall two people who came in while I waited and I am completely unaware of the business they were transacting and certainly did not hear confidential information. These customers asked nothing of me, nor did your clerks. Under RSA 91-A please provide the video surveillance footage of the customer service area of the clerk’s office for January 31, 2022 for the time period of 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm.
It is also disruptive to the workings of the office to have you sit at a station when you have no articulated reason for being in the office.
I did have an articulated reason. I was waiting to speak with you. Your clerk did not state that I was out of line, that I could not sit there, or that I was to leave. The standard office practice is that the shades are drawn at all windows not in use so you do not have to look at your public. It is insulting that you would describe my sitting at an empty window as a disruption to the office. Again, no clerk asked me to be quiet or less disruptive. By way of further information, several weeks ago when I stopped in to see if you or Allison were available, there was a husband and wife at a customer service window working with a clerk. He was not wearing a mask because he hated them and rejected the mandate. He further stated, while being assisted, that the customer service in city hall was horrible. Is this disruptive – no mask, covid threats everywhere, and disrespecting the city government? Please also note that when I came to the clerk’s office to inspect voter data months ago, I worked at the cubby for over an hour. Once I finished with the data provided by your office, I stayed in the office working on my spreadsheet. I sat there, using a space, for an extra half hour, without anyone asking me to leave.
Further, we are still in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. City Hall has had a mask requirement in place for quite some time now. Having unnecessary people in the small, enclosed space is a health hazard.
I spoke with Foqia of the Nashua Health department and asked her to define what a covid health hazard would be. She said the department has no such terminology they use and offered the legal office’s phone number and requested that I contact legal to obtain documentation on the City COVID Health Hazards records. Foqia explained that a 6 foot distance is required when unmasked people are together and 2 foot distance is required when masked, but that City Hall had a mask requirement. I followed the required protocol and wore a mask. As I recall on Monday, two people came in a 30-40 time period. The staff is behind 1″ bullet proof glass. It is seriously disturbing that the City is not requiring appointments for the clerk’s office if you and the legal office are aware of unforeseen health hazards that exist when people randomly enter the office. Under RSA 91-A, please provide any documents that describe health hazards associated with Covid.
Additionally, I have been advised that it is the City’s position that employees subjected to abuse by citizens, via phone, e-mail, in-person contact, or any other form of communication, are not required to continue to engage with that person and further subject themselves to abusive behavior.
This city’s position was articulated by Attorney Bolton during the deposition conducted of you, three months ago, for a Right to Know lawsuit. I specifically asked you during this deposition if you have ever experienced someone in the Clerk’s office behaving disruptively such that police assistance was required. Your answer was no. Do you have reason to believe that my behavior warranted abuse? I think it is important when the City is posturing and flexing to clamp down on citizen behavior that we have an abusive behavior policy. Under RSA 91- A, please provide me with any city policies regarding acceptable or unacceptable citizen behavior in City Hall.
Appropriate steps may be taken by employees to disengage from abusive behavior.
As I understand from the deposition months ago, your staff is trained to handle this and it is apparent that it wasn’t needed when I was there on Monday, January 31, 2022. The video will provide reflective information and learning for both your staff and I.
If you are not present in the City Clerk’s Office to conduct any legitimate business, and you refuse to leave, your conduct will be immediately reported to law enforcement.
Sue Lovering | City Clerk
City of Nashua – City Clerk’s Office
229 Main St|Nashua, NH 03061-2019
T: 603.589.3010
Fair enough.
It is important to note that all descriptive information written in the email sent by you is second hand information. You were not present. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify my position on customer service and my expectations of access to a public building. Sharing this will all departments and divisions may be a helpful training exercise.
