Yes, I did get an answer concerning my RTK:
HB481 authorized a new Right To Know Ombudsman Office to be located in the NH Department of State once it has been staffed. As of last week, no such position has been filled. No news items have covered such an appointment or activation of that office. HB481 was enacted into State Statute on June 24, 2022, being duly passed by the General Court, with Governor Sununu’s signature.
This demand is for any and all communications (emails, voice mails) and other documents (e.g., position postings, resumes, evaluation documents, meeting notices, meeting notes, background checks, et al) pertaining to the hiring and appointment process concerning any and all respondents looking to be the first Ombudsman for the Office of the Right To Know
The email that came in, from His Excellency’s office (and yes, that is the official and Constitutionally mandated name of the Governor, was this:
—– Original Message ——
From: “Scully, James” <James.F.Scully@nh.gov>
To: “Skip@granitegrok.com” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Sent: 12/12/2022 3:11:52 PM
Subject: RSA 91-A Right To Know demand – Status and materials concerning the Office of the Right to Know Ombudsman
Dear Mr. Murphy,
Kindly find our initial response to your request attached.
Best,
JamesJames F. Scully, Jr.
Legal Counsel
Office of Governor Christopher T. Sununu
State House
107 North Main Street – Rm 208
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-8791
And it’s payload was this. I did find a part of it “curious” so I have taken the opportunity to bold it:
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNORCHRISTOPHER T. SUNUNU
GovernorVIA Email
December 12, 2022
Skip Murphy
Founder, co-owner
GranitGrok.comDear Mr. Murphy:
I am writing this letter to provide an initial response to your December 7, 2022 request made pursuant to the New Hampshire Right to Know Law RSA 91-A for the following records:
- All communications (emails, voice mails) and other documents (e.g., position postings, resumes, evaluation documents, meeting notices, meeting notes, background checks, et al) pertaining to the hiring and appointment process concerning any and all respondents looking to be the first Ombudsman for the Office of the Right To Know.
As an initial matter, please be advised that it is the long-standing position of the New Hampshire Department of Justice that RSA 91-A does not apply to the Governor’s Office. Our office responds to such requests as inquiries pursuant to Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution to the extent applicable and subject to all privileges and defenses under New Hampshire law. While this office is therefore not subject to the 5-day timeline provided for in RSA 91-A, we endeavor to respond to all requests as soon as possible.
After reviewing your request, I estimate that we will need 30 days to complete our review and provide a further response to your request. If this timeline changes, I will let you know.
Sincerely,
James Scully
Legal Counsel107 North Main Street, State House – Rm 208, Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Telephone (603) 271-2121 • FAX (603) 271-7640
Website: http://www.governor.nh.gov/ • Email: governorsununu@nh.gov TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
But glad to see that SOMEONE is respecting the NH Constitution (although it is clear that we at GraniteGrok spent a lot of pixels talking about the Office of the Governor NOT strictly adhering to the both the black letter law and spirit of the NH and US Constitutions. Be that as it may, here is Part 1, Article 8 (because I CAN and because not enough people read to know what that “fence” is that protects We the People from Government – that fence is meant to keep them corralled inside of that fence while we freely go about
So, I responded:
—— Original Message ——
From: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To: “Scully, James” <James.F.Scully@nh.gov>
Sent: 12/13/2022 9:28:34 AM
Subject: Re: RSA 91-A Right To Know demand – Status and materials concerning the Office of the Right to Know OmbudsmanGood morning!
I am in receipt of your “initial response” and I’m glad to see that you will be honoring the details of my Right To Know concerning the Office of the Right-To-Know Ombudsman (Ombudsman to be?). If it will take 30 days for a complete response to be assembled, I am happy to accept partial delivery of such Responsive Records that may be gathered sooner than your 30 day deadline.
Also, a question concerning:
…please be advised that it is the long-standing position of the New Hampshire Department of Justice that RSA 91-A does not apply to the Governor’s Office.
Would you please forward that memorandum/finding to me as well? I would like to read the legal foundation for it as I don’t see that the “Governor’s Office” is a listed Exemption in RSA 91-A:5. As an engineer and as a former elected official who used RSA 91-A to keep other elected officials from going “off the rails” with respect to the rubric of “Follow The Law”, I am quite curious of the legerdemain employed in that position.
Oh, and if this new request rises to the level of another RTK, let me know and I can write one. Should that be sent to, if needful? Or might you have a contact in the NH DOJ that would be best to handle that?
Thanks!
-Skip
Skip Murphy
Founder, co-owner
GraniteGrok.com | Skip@GraniteGrok.com
It WOULD be rather interesting to see that reasoning.
And I still love the irony of having to file an RTK to see what is going on with the RTK Ombudsman position…
And for the record, here is RSA 91-A:5’s text (reformatted for easier reading):
91-A:5 Exemptions. –
The following governmental records are exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
I. Records of grand and petit juries.
I-a. The master jury list as defined in RSA 500-A:1, IV.
II. Records of parole and pardon boards.
III. Personal school records of pupils, including the name of the parent or legal guardian and any specific reasons disclosed to school officials for the objection to the assessment under RSA 193-C:6.
IV. Records pertaining to internal personnel practices; confidential, commercial, or financial information; test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examinations; and personnel, medical, welfare, library user, videotape sale or rental, and other files whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy. Without otherwise compromising the confidentiality of the files, nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a public body or agency from releasing information relative to health or safety from investigative files on a limited basis to persons whose health or safety may be affected.
V. Teacher certification records in the department of education, provided that the department shall make available teacher certification status information.
VI. Records pertaining to matters relating to the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, including training to carry out such functions, developed by local or state safety officials that are directly intended to thwart a deliberate act that is intended to result in widespread or severe damage to property or widespread injury or loss of life.
VII. Unique pupil identification information collected in accordance with RSA 193-E:5.
VIII. Any notes or other materials made for personal use that do not have an official purpose, including but not limited to, notes and materials made prior to, during, or after a governmental proceeding.
IX. Preliminary drafts, notes, and memoranda and other documents not in their final form and not disclosed, circulated, or available to a quorum or a majority of the members of a public body.
X. Video and audio recordings made by a law enforcement officer using a body-worn camera pursuant to RSA 105-D except where such recordings depict any of the following:
(a) Any restraint or use of force by a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that this exemption shall not include those portions of recordings which constitute an invasion of privacy of any person or which are otherwise exempt from disclosure.
(b) The discharge of a firearm, provided that this exemption shall not include those portions of recordings which constitute an invasion of privacy of any person or which are otherwise exempt from disclosure.
(c) An encounter that results in an arrest for a felony-level offense, provided, however, that this exemption shall not apply to recordings or portions thereof that constitute an invasion of privacy or which are otherwise exempt from disclosure.
XI. Records pertaining to information technology systems, including cyber security plans, vulnerability testing and assessments materials, detailed network diagrams, or other materials, the release of which would make public security details that would aid an attempted security breach or circumvention of law as to the items assessed.
XII. Records protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
XIII. Records of the youth development center claims administration and the YDC settlement fund pursuant to RSA 21-M:11-a, with the exception of settlement agreements, which shall remain subject to RSA 91-A:4, VI, and, after a claim has been finally resolved, such other records the release of which would not constitute a violation of other provisions of law or an unwarranted invasion of a claimant’s privacy.
Note that “Office of the Governor” doesn’t appear at all in those 13 exceptions.
Note that last bit, XII – am guessing that the NH State Government wants to keep secret any malfeasance concerning the Sununu Youth Development Center. Why, however, would it need special “recognition” where other statutes would otherwise be in force? Why is it so special? But I digress.
Thirty days, eh? Time to put it in my planner.
Speaking of which, I have a bunch of RTKs to go back and follow up on now that the elections and recounts are over. And post some of THOSE responses that haven’t been posted yet.
