Petitioners assert that the Chair of the Belkap County Convention & administrative assistant violated NH’s Right-to-Know law on Monday, July 23rd.
.
.
Following on the heels of being found guilty of Right-to-Know (RTK) law violations, the chairman of the Belknap County Convention and the official keeper of the records conspired, according to petitioners Thomas A Tardif and Doug Lambert, to deny them immediate access to unsealed meeting documents as required by NH’s Right-to-Know law RSA 91A.
.
On Monday, July 23rd, Mr. Tardif and Mr. Lambert submitted a written RTK request for three specific documents referred to in the May 29th non-public session minutes of the Belknap County Convention regarding the appointment of the replacement sheriff. After confirming that they were in her possession, the Administrative Assistant to the Belknap County Commissioners, the official record-keeper for the County Convention, denied Tardif and Lambert the opportunity to inspect the requested public documents. Upon the insistence of Mr. Tardif, the Administrative Assistant called Convention Chair Stephen H. Nedeau who instructed her to deny us access.
.
The RTK law notes, in RSA 91-A:4, I,
Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all public records, including minutes of meetings of the bodies or agencies, and to make memoranda, abstracts, and photographic or photostatic copies of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.
It further states, in 91-A:4, IV,
Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any public record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such public record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release.
Once again, within a span of under four weeks, the Belknap County Convention, in this case its chair, finds itself facing charges of violating the law. Once again, it is alleged, the
LAWMAKERS HAVE BECOME LAWBREAKERS.
One has to wonder when they are going to "get it?"
.
Here is the petition as filed today in Belknap Superior Court:
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BELKNAP, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
Docket #______________ July 23, 2007
Thomas A. Tardif & Doug Lambert
v.
Stephen H. Nadeau, Chairperson and
Angela Bell, Clerk Belknap County Commission
PETITION FOR DELARATORY JUDGMENT
NOW COMES, Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe and Doug Lambert, ProSe, in the above entitled matter says as follows:
Parties
1. Mr. Thomas A. Tardif, Petitioner is a resident and taxpayer in the City of Laconia, Belknap County, having an address of Laconia, NH 03246
2. Mr. Doug Lambert, Petitioner is a resident and taxpayer in the Town of Gilford, Belknap County, having an address of Gilford, NH. 03249.
3. Stephen H. Nadeau, Clerk Belknap County Convention a resident and taxpayer in the Town of Meredith, Belknap County, having an address of 46 Pleasant Street, Meredith, NH.
4. Angela Bell, Clerk Belknap County Commission, records keeper of the Belknap County Convention having an address of 34 County Drive, Laconia, NH. 03246.
NOW COMES Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe and Doug Lambert, ProSe, the Petitioners in the above entitled matter say as follows:
1. On 29 May 2007 the Belknap County Convention held a meeting. The 14 member quorum, by roll call vote, entered non-Public session per RSA 91-A-2. No Exemption cited, in violation of RSA 91-A:3, II.
The minutes, as published, states on Page 2 that:
“Chairman Nadeau announced that the applications for seven candidates have been sent to each Delegation member, and that letters of recommendation are on file in Angela Bell’s office, and will also be sent out. The Delegation agreed that all seven should be interviewed, and asked specific questions. Each Delegate will have a score sheet for each candidate.” (Emphasis added)
(Attachment #1)
2. On 11 June 2007, Belknap County Convention held a meeting. On or about 6:35 p.m. the quorum entered non-Public. No exemption was cited, in violation of RSA 91-A:3, II. They interviewed seven applicants and using score sheets rating applicants, voting by majority reducing the field of seven to two.
( Attachment #2)
3. On 23 July 2007, the petitioners having read the County Convention meeting minutes, knowing that the non-public meeting minutes and documents cited were not sealed, desired to review the afore cited documents.
4. On 23 July 2007, on or about 11:45 a.m. the petitioners presented a written Right-to-Know Request per RSA 91-A to Angela Bell, the pronounced records keeper for the Belknap County Convention.
5. On 23 July 2007, Ms. Bell read the RSA 91-A request and stated “she was working on the payroll and could not copy them”, clearly indicating they were immediately available. The petitioners clarified the request; “We only wish to review the documents”. “Ms. Bell stated she would have to make a call and would let us know”, absent any definitive time or day. The petitioners asked if the documents were in fact available? Ms. Bell’s answer was in the affirmative. At this point the petitioners suggested that it was she who was denying access to documents that were admittedly immediately available, and that she should make that call ASAP. She directed us to take a seat.
6. On 23 July 2007, Ms. Angela Bell returned from making the call cited in paragraph 4. She stated to the petitioners “that Mr. Nadeau told her not to let us have the document requested”. She followed by saying “He said,” he “would have to call the County Solicitor”. Ms. Bell returned the Right-to-Know request. (Attachment #3).
7. On 23 July 2007, on or about 12:30 p.m. returned to the Belknap County facility so that Ms. Bell would know who to call with an answer. The petitioners gave Ms. Bell a signed original. However, Mr. Lambert had failed to affix his signature and Ms. Bell came out into the parking lot to obtain his signature, which he willingly complied.
8. On 23 July 2007, on or about 12:35 p.m. the petitioners requested Ms. Bell in kind, give us a receipt or sign the other original as a receipt. Ms. Bell refused.
9. On 23 July 2007, at the close of the normal business day the petitioners did not receive a call informing them of when they would be able to review the documents that are or should have been immediately available for review.
.NOW THEREFORE, according to the ongoing violations of RSA 91-A
. such as but not limited to:
a) Ignoring the Right-to Know’s Preamble. –“ … The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people”, then
b) Denying a citizens right to inspect records clearly embraced by RSA 91-A:4, II. After the completion of a meeting of such bodies or agencies, every citizen, during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all notes, materials, tapes or other sources used for compiling the minutes of such meetings, and to make memoranda, abstracts, photographic or photostatic copies, or tape record such notes, materials, tapes or sources inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5, Then
c) In spite of a clear, well described request to review certain records, the designated keeper of the Convention’s records denied access to documents that in fact, were as they must be immediately available. RSA 91-A:4, IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any public record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such public record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release. …”, Then
d) RSA 91-A:3 I, (a) Bodies or agencies shall not meet in nonpublic session, except for one of the purposes set out in paragraph II. Both the meeting of 29 May 2007 and 11 July 2007 ignored the requirement of RSA 91-A2,2
e) RSA 91-A:3, III. Minutes of proceedings in nonpublic session shall be kept and the record of all actions shall be promptly made available for public inspection, except as provided in this section. Minutes and decisions reached in nonpublic session shall be publicly disclosed within 72 hours of the meeting, unless, by recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present, it is determined that divulgence of the information likely would affect adversely the reputation of any person other than a member of the body or agency itself, …”.
f) RSA 91-A:8, I,. If any body or agency or employee or member thereof, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, refuses to provide a public record or refuses access to a public proceeding to a person who reasonably requests the same, such body, agency, or person shall be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in a lawsuit under this chapter provided that the court finds that such lawsuit was necessary in order to make the information available or the proceeding open to the public. Fees shall not be awarded unless the court finds that the body, agency or person knew or should have known that the conduct engaged in was a violation of this chapter or where the parties, by agreement, provide that no such fees shall be paid. In any case where fees are awarded under this chapter, upon a finding that an officer, employee, or other official of a public body or agency has acted in bad faith in refusing to allow access to a public proceeding or to provide a public record, the court may award such fees personally against such officer, employee, or other official.
.III. In addition to any other relief awarded pursuant to this chapter, the court may issue an order to enjoin future violations of this chapter, I-a. The court may award attorneys’ fees to a board, agency or employee or member thereof, for having to defend against a person’s lawsuit under the provisions of this chapter, when the court makes an affirmative finding that the lawsuit is in bad faith, frivolous, unjust, vexatious, wanton, or oppressive.
g) RSA 91-A:9 Destruction of Certain Information Prohibited. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor who knowingly destroys any information with the purpose to prevent such information from being inspected or disclosed in response to a request under this chapter. If a request for inspection is denied on the grounds that the information is exempt under this chapter, the requested material shall be preserved for 90 days or while any lawsuit pursuant to RSA 91-A: 7 – 8 is pending.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray the following:
A Declare the Belknap County Convention on 29 May 2007 and 11 July 2007 met in nonpublic session in violation of RSA 91-A, and
B Order Belknap County Convention Defendant to make immediately available documents in its “File” regarding the appointment to fill the unexpired term of Sheriff Collis, and
C On 23 July 23, 2007, the defendant, with malfeasant or miss-feasants violated RSA 91-A, by denying access to public records not sealed and immediately available. In fact intentional knew or should have known was a violation of RSA 91-A, and
D Order that the defendants comply with RSA 91-A, now and in the future, and
E This honorable court order the defendants to pay petitioners all out of pocket expenses incurred in bring this action.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
&nb
sp; Doug Lambert, ProSeGilford, NH
______________________Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe
Laconia, NH
If only they would simply comply with the law and always default to a position of sunshine and openness. Why do they do this? What are they trying to hide? Or is it just a matter of ignorance of the law? Not a good thing when you fancy yourself a lawmaker…