When certain people are involved, be suspicious, VERY suspicious! - Granite Grok

When certain people are involved, be suspicious, VERY suspicious!

rays of light
Sunshine in those dark corners…
.
One of the main characters involved in our ongoing Right to Know lawsuits currently pending at the NH Supreme Court is Belmont state representative John Thomas, a member of the Belknap County Convention. He is the brains behind that group’s misguided attempts at hiding from the public behind closed doors when they voted to appoint persons to fill out the remainders of the terms of several elected officials that had prematurely resigned. It has been our contention as pro se plaintiffs in the case that they repeatedly violated the Right to Laws in the process they followed at Mr. Thomas’ recommendation.
.
Yes indeed, if you knew Mr. Thomas, you would know that, despite the pickle into which he has led the county’s delegation, he fancies himself to be an expert on the Right to Know law, self proclaimed, of course. Anyway, this person has sponsored a bill that proposes the most sweeping changes to the law we have seen in many years. Be afraid… BE VERY AFRAID!!! This man has nothing but contempt for ordinary members of the public when it comes to our right to know about what government does on our behalf, and here he is the one re-writing the damn thing!
.
HB1408 claims to update electronic communications definitions and uses outside of meetings in what is a fairly substantial re-write of the existing Right-to-Know law, RSA 91-A. As I noted above, just the fact that John Thomas is the prime sponsor is enough to conclude HB1408 is no good without even reading the thing. Unfortunately, the public hearing for this thing took place today in Concord and nobody I know of was able to attend due to work and other obligations, so who knows how it went– last year, a similar proposal by the same state representative died a well-deserved death. Anyway, for what it’s worth, my co-plaintiff in the aforementioned RTK lawsuit, former Laconia Mayor Thomas A Tardif, has prepared an analysis of the proposal, which I reprint here in the hopes that some state reps will read another point of view. I’m nervous because of all the innocent appearing "minor" word changes. Click here to view the proposed bill as presented with strikeouts and additions. Then read on to see what Tom finds troublesome. His comments were originally prepared to deliver to the Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the matter…

.

Dear Committee members;

 

            I rise in opposition to the proposed legislation as written and say as follows:

 

1.  91-A: 1-a Definitions

 

            Old section 91-A: 1, I (b) has been deleted and no longer embraced by the Right-to-Know laws, in specificity.  Please allow me to explain:

            The current Section (b) states “The governor’s council and the governor with the governor’s council; including any advisory committee established by the governor by executive order or by the governor’s council”.

            Whereas, the governor’s advisory committees on transportation, a three member committees, are routinely created, comprising three executive councilors, a quorum of the executive council, in and of itself is a violation of the current right to know law.  In fact the governor’s advisory committee on transportation, regarding the Rt. 16 North Conway Bypass, was found by Merrimack Superior Court, in violation of RSA 91-A for not having recorded minutes of the many meetings regarding the proposed North Conway bypass.           Furthermore, of the pending changes to 91-A: 2, I; which states in part;

 

 “…I. For the purpose of this [section] chapter, a “meeting” [shall mean] means the convening of a quorum of the membership of a public body, as [provided] defined in RSA 91-A:1-a, [to discuss or act] VI, or the majority of the members of such public body if the rules of that body define “quorum” as more than a majority of its members, …”

 

            The omission of a governor’s advisory committees by allowing the members of any public body to define its quorum can only have the intent to circumvent meetings quorum, when a simple majority voting requirement for passage of a motion is accomplished by a committee where all the members were not allowed to be present.  In the case of the governor’s advisory committees on transportation comprised of three of the five executive councilors, routinely vote unanimously for recommendation of a project.  The vote consisting of a quorum of executive councilors is binding.  Therefore, at the fully attended regular governor and council meeting, the vote is nothing more than authentication.  Under court petition it may be overturned by a court as a remedy for not posting or recording a planed meeting governmental body or agency.

            Under the proposed legislation any governmental agency or body could simply elevate the quorum number for committees to circumvent quorum, but that does not alter the statutory requirement for passage of by the simple majority requirement for the governor and executive council or any governmental body or agency.   The county conventions could make an appointment of a constitutional officer, in committee and ratify that vote by simple majority in convention.

 

            91-a: 2 Meetings Open to Public, New Section III hits that “ … a public body may, but is not required to , allow one or more members of the body to participate in a meeting … “. (Emphasis added)  The public has never had a right to the public to speak to an issue being discussed by a public body.  The Right-to-Know law currently only provides for the public to observe and review the records.

            I believe that it is time for government to go beyond transparency.  The public “Shall” have a right to speak at any Governmental proceedings at which the transaction of any function affecting any or all citizens of the state by a public body.

 

2.  I am opposed to new section 91-a: 2, III, (a). This section is not necessary and is well covered by “Emergency”.

 

3.  I am opposed to new section 91-a: 2, III, (b).  This section is not necessary and should be addressed by the home rule of each city and town, if not already inclusive, such as a strong city manager council form of government.  The Manager with approval of the mayor or mayor pro-temp is empowered to make all necessary decisions in cases of EXTREEM EMERGENCY.

 

4.  I rise in opposition to 91-A:4, IV  which states in part,  “ … actual cost of providing the copy … “.  I believe that it should be amended to specifically exclude any labor cost unless special circumstances can be proven by a preponderance of evidence that abnormal labor is involved.  Only the cost of material shall be considered as Labor is part of public service and being responsive to the public.

            JUSTIFICATION:  No cost should limit the socio-economically deprived the opportunity to review public records or obtain copies.  

 

5.  I rise in opposition to 91-A:4, VII,  which states that a government body will no longer have to attempt to assist the public in locating a record for review when reasonable described.  The exception to “cross-reference” is not necessary nor can it be substantiated.

 

6.  I rise in opposition to 91-A:5, IV,  exempting records pertaining to internal personnel practices.  How personnel are governed, monitored, supervised, promoted or disciplined, clearly shall be public so as the public can observe its governmental body or agency.

 

Respectfully submitted

Thomas A. Tardif

 

>