He thinks that he’s keeping from establishing a “quorum” via doing BCC emails (“Don’t do REPLY ALLs”). Won’t tell us who the “appropriate people” are that gave him the advice information. Problem is that in trying to avoid ONE Right To Know problem, he stepped into another one.
And he’s quite blunt and so sure of himself about it to the point of having in put into the minutes (Heh!).
Once again, NH State Rep Barbara Comtois reads the relevant part of the Law to him, and like with Harry Bean, just tosses it off. Here is the relevant part of RSA 91-A:
Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit and purpose of this chapter as expressed in RSA 91-A:1.
So, since he refused to tell us who those people were, I sent this off to him (and Belknap County Chair Harry Bean) yesterday:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To steven.bogert@leg.state.nh.us
Cc froggytouttaint@aol.com
Date 3/9/2023 9:54:52 AM
Subject RSA 91-A Demand for any communications or emails sent by or received by NH State Rep Steven BogertGood morning,
Please find attached an RSA 91-A demand for emails that were sent by or received by NH State Rep Steven Bogert with respect to his statement that the use of the BCC feature of emails was approved by “Appropriate People”.
The public has a Right To Know who they are and the construction of that advice.
The clock starts ticking now.
-Skip
Skip Murphy
Founder, co-owner
GraniteGrok.com | Skip@GraniteGrok.com
And the payload of that RTK is this (e.g., sans the boilerplate text)
From RSA 91-A2-a (excerpted, emphasis mine):
Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit and purpose of this chapter as expressed in RSA 91-A:1.
The intent of this Clause is to ensure that people in Government (re: elected, appointed, and employees) from circumventing the Right of the People to always know what is being done within their Government and WHO is doing it “by other means”. Especially the “WHO” part.
Thus, this Right To Know demand is a result of NH State Rep. Steven Bogart stating last night that Delegation members use a feature of emails known as Blind Carbon Copy when discussing Delegation matters. This circumvents the “spirit and purpose” of New Hampshire’s Right To Know Law and philosophy as it shields our duly elected participants from accountability for their actions.
This demand is for all communications, including but not limited to any and all emails, during the period stated above, between NH State Rep Steven Bogert and the “Appropriate People” as seen in this video that gave him credence for his email BCC statement in handling official Government Records and materials
- his (or their) official leg.state.nh.us email addresses
- his (or their) Belknap County email addresses
- his (or their) personal email addresses
In a Right To Know, you aren’t allowed to ask questions. Well, you can but RSA 91-A doesn’t mandate that the receiver has to answer them. However, I can ask for any communications (e.g., emails and other) concerning this issue of BCC and Appropriate People as they are related to the performance of his duties as an NH State Rep.
Here’s the video of this past Monday night’s Belknap County Delegation meeting where he talks about his BCC scheme as well as during the March 6th Budget Review subcommittee meeting of which this first time Representative was elected to be the Chair
Clock is now ticking…
