Brentwood Selectmen – You Shouldn’t Have Deleted Those Emails! Part 2

So, Part 1 of this Brentwood Email Saga left off with this admission from Karen Clements, the Brentwood Town Administrator:

From: “Karen Clement” <KClement@brentwoodnh.gov>
To: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Sent: 12/2/2021 3:51:25 PM
Subject: RE: Re[4]: RSA 91:A Right To Know demand

I’ll forward this to IT and see what they can do to help facilitate this more efficiently. I’ve let them know we are looking at Jon Morgan’s inbox only for now.  Jonathan Frizzell’s email box was deleted after he resigned.

Thanks,

Karen Clement, CPM
Town Administrator
Town of Brentwood

The Seacoastonline article mentioned previously set up the timeline; Frizzell quit within the last 3 weeks.  So, his emails became “excess baggage” and were quickly thrown overboard.

Or, were they deep-sixed because of their content?

When Government disposes of its “Governmental Records” in such a quick manner, one has to start thinking “Why?”  And, I did – why were Jon Frizzell’s emails sent down the Memory Hole (an Orwell’s 1984 mention there)?

With the above email to me, it was clear that the ball was now in my court – so I volleyed back.  Had to – this is now serious stuff that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

NO Governmental agency or official can violate the Law. RSA 91:A was put into place with strict prohibitions to keep that from happening.

Note that I included the Chair of the Brentwood Selectmen

—— Original Message ——
From: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To: “Karen Clement” <KClement@brentwoodnh.gov>
Cc: “kchristiansen@brentwoodnh.gov” <kchristiansen@brentwoodnh.gov>
Sent: 12/2/2021 6:17:41 PM
Subject: Re[6]: RSA 91:A Right To Know demand

>> Jonathan Frizzell’s email box was deleted after he resigned.

Well, now you have a problem – RSA91-A:4:

III-a. Governmental records created or maintained in electronic form shall be kept and maintained for the same retention or archival periods as their paper counterparts. Governmental records in electronic form kept and maintained beyond the applicable retention or archival period shall remain accessible and available in accordance with RSA 91-A:4, III. Methods that may be used to keep and maintain governmental records in electronic form may include, but are not limited to, copying to microfilm or paper or to durable electronic media using standard or common file formats.

I am betting that since he just resigned, his governmental records (his emails) are still well within your paper retention procedures and times.  Make no mistake – I have requested ALL of the Brentwood Selectmen emails from the time period specified in the RSA91:A Right To Know document I submitted to the Selectmen.  That includes Mr. Frizzell’s government records categorized as “emails”.

You need to get them back, pronto – your IT department, if it is operating within industry norms, has backups of them extending back for months (at least).  What ARE your archival times and procedures?

After all,

91-A:7 Violation. – Any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may petition the superior court for injunctive relief. In order to satisfy the purposes of this chapter, the courts shall give proceedings under this chapter high priority on the court calendar. Such a petitioner may appear with or without counsel. The petition shall be deemed sufficient if it states facts constituting a violation of this chapter, and may be filed by the petitioner or his or her counsel with the clerk of court or any justice thereof. Thereupon the clerk of court or any justice shall order service by copy of the petition on the person or persons charged. Subject to objection by either party, all documents filed with the petition and any response thereto shall be considered as evidence by the court. All documents submitted shall be provided to the opposing party prior to a hearing on the merits. When any justice shall find that time probably is of the essence, he or she may order notice by any reasonable means, and he or she shall have authority to issue an order ex parte when he or she shall reasonably deem such an order necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

91-A:8 Remedies. – I. If any public body or public agency or officer, employee, or other official thereof, violates any provisions of this chapter, such public body or public agency 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 enforce compliance with the provisions of this chapter or to address a purposeful violation of this chapter. Fees shall not be awarded unless the court finds that the public body, public agency, or person knew or should have known that the conduct engaged in was in violation of this chapter or if the parties, by agreement, provide that no such fees shall be paid.
II. The court may award attorney’s fees to a public body or public agency or employee or member thereof, for having to defend against a lawsuit under the provisions of this chapter, when the court finds that the lawsuit is in bad faith, frivolous, unjust, vexatious, wanton, or oppressive.
III. The court may invalidate an action of a public body or public agency taken at a meeting held in violation of the provisions of this chapter, if the circumstances justify such invalidation.
IV. If the court finds that an officer, employee, or other official of a public body or public agency has violated any provision of this chapter in bad faith, the court shall impose against such person a civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $2,000. Upon such finding, such person or persons may also be required to reimburse the public body or public agency for any attorney’s fees or costs it paid pursuant to paragraph I. If the person is an officer, employee, or official of the state or of an agency or body of the state, the penalty shall be deposited in the general fund. If the person is an officer, employee, or official of a political subdivision of the state or of an agency or body of a political subdivision of the state, the penalty shall be payable to the political subdivision.
V. The court may also enjoin future violations of this chapter, and may require any officer, employee, or other official of a public body or public agency found to have violated the provisions of this chapter to undergo appropriate remedial training, at such person or person’s expense.

I take these kinds of matters very seriously.  Please, if you would, Follow The Law.

Kindest regards,

-Skip
Co-Founder, co-owner
GraniteGrok.com

Just quoting my own email has put me way over Steve’s (the Editor!) nominal word count, so I think I will stop here. Besides, the ball is now back in Brentwood’s court.

What will they do?  Will the Selectmen decide to Follow The Law?  Only the Good Lord above knows – certainly, this lowly blogger does not.  I hope they do.

And readers?  I do hope that this just isn’t a story in which you think I’m just “crusading” here – if it is happening here, it’s most likely that something similar is happening in your’s as well.  My question to you is this: are you going to let it continue to happen in your name? Or tell “them” to knock it off and fly right?

To be continued.