Yep, in Part 1, we shared an email from Jesse Neumann who is the Nashua City Hall “Right To Know” Coordinator. Imagine that, a city of 90,000 people needs such a guy.
Related: Nashua’s Right Not-to-Know
According to our writers (yes, Jesse Neumann, both of those ladies whose posts have your image as the Featured Image do write for GraniteGrok and NashuaGrok!), what you have done has been, not to expedite, but to stymie their Right To Know (RSA 91:A).
The reason given for your employment is that a few folks have submitted far too many RTKs against “the castle” that is Nashua.
My view is, given what has been found out, why aren’t there MORE Citizens with virtual pitchforks tar and feathers (e.g., RTKs) storming the walls to see what other ugliness is hiding within THEIR Government (not the elected representatives, not the “faceless” bureaucrats, but the Citizens’ City)? Every RTK seems to
However, it seems that you have become the moat surrounding the castle – a most perfect metaphor for what is actually happening.
Back in Medieval times, the moat was a defensive feature to protect the walls. The water wasn’t wide enough or deep enough, though, to enable a Navy. However, a lot of refuse was thrown into it turning it into a dirty, smelly, and dangerous disease-holding mess. But it did slow down the “horde” that wanted to see what was really inside the castle walls…
Alas, I have waxed poetic for a bit – let me refocus.
As I said in the first of this installment series (yes, because of the valuable work he does, Jesse Neumann now warrants a series all his own), I did have a response for him and emailed him back relatively soon after seeing his demanding missive (and, to remind you again, his attempt to use his military service as a bargaining chip – which, if the emails I’ve received are any indication, has put him in a poorly viewed position.
As a double Blue Star Dad, I thank you for your service. However, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Trying to use your military service in this case as a cudgel is, however, repugnant.
As far as protecting your image, I merely did a google search which led to your LinkedIn account. While I also have such an account, I haven’t touched it for years – long enough that, like other accounts I DO use, should have forced me to log in as you noted below (“the image is one that I intentionally set to be viewable only by logged-in LinkedIn users“). Problem is – I wasn’t and you didn’t and I was immediately presented with your image.
All that said, I just repeated it that exercise and this time (again, without logging in), was brought to your account – this time, sans your image. So I am thinking that your settings have been changed since those posts went live. Which meant they weren’t earlier. Regardless, LinkedIn is still a public social media platform and is open to anyone that can traverse it and information in it available to anyone. After all, there is no privacy on the Internet – given your position, I am sure you realize this.
Last I knew, one doesn’t have to “request” to use a picture of someone. So, given your words:
“feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions”
I will take you up on that – right now! I would be happy to review the relevant NH RSA, if you would provide such, to your claim that a member of the NH Media must request permission to use someone’s image in their reporting. Frankly, I’ve not heard of it in the 16 years GraniteGrok has been around. Given that you are a lawyer (I assume a member of the NH Bar), you would be far more familiar with such than I. A URL is not needed, though appreciated,
If we are in error, we will immediately replace your image with another.
It is clear that you read our FAQs – congratulations as very few actually do! Thus, you do know the part where we state that any emails sent to us may well be posted on GraniteGrok.
And yes, we WILL replace his image – with another. Those of you who are Loyal Readers understand that, don’t you? We do try to keep our word.
To be continued