Details on our Right-to-Know lawsuit [UPDATED]

by
.
[UPDATE]: The Citizen newspaper ran an editorial further describing what this all means. Click here to read it.
.
One of the stories we missed while we were in technological meltdown this week here at the ‘Grok was the victory/ non-victory handed down this week by the judge. Writing in his decision, Presiding Justice Bruce E. Mohl stated:
"the violation of the specific command of RSA 91-A is plain and indisputable. The county delegation should have known that a secret ballot vote in a public session violated that Right-to-Know law on its face."
That was the good news. The citizens have been vindicated. Their government INDISPUTABLY violated the law and it has been so stated in public, for all to hear. Unfortunately, the judge continued in his ruling, reaching out and, in error, created a new, less restrictive means for government to head for the cloak of secrecy offered by the infamous "non-public session." This is not good at all. Some have said we won the battle but lost the war. Wrote Judge Mohl, in his decision:
While the Convention has, without question, violated the Right-to-Know law with respect to the secret ballot decision to appoint Wiggin as Sheriff, the Convention would have been well within its rights to conduct the entire process of selecting the Sheriff in nonpublic sessions. RSA 91-A:3, II (b). The exeption for hiring public employees allows those matters to "be considered and acted upon in nonpublic session…" (Emphasis added.) In this sense, the Convention went further than the Right-to-Know law required, conducting interviews with the two final candidates in public and voting at the public session, albeit by secret ballot.
Except that the Sheriff is NOT an "employee" being "hired"– click here to this post for the explanation. And the Convention, in their own pleadings to the Court in the case stated
The County Convention specifically proceeded in the manner provided by RSA 91-A:2,II. There is a good public policy reason for the process to be exempted. The process protects and limits animosity being created in which an "elected’ individual choosen to fill the unexpired term may not personalize their election in subsequent engagements between that official and the County Convention which authorizes the individual department’s budget. Further, as the Convention is a partisan group of representatives, the authorized exemption of the secret ballot election takes the taint of partisan politics out oof the process.
This flies in the face of the very foundation of the Right-to-Know law that calls for openness in government. RSA 91-A:3,  II, (c ) clearly states 
“Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the body or agency itself,… .”  (Emphasis Added).
Click here to read our original case presented followed by the memorandum of law as submitted to the Court. What follows is the judge’s complete decision that has us so concerned:
.

Here is the text:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author

Share to...