As you may know, I put in an RSA 91-A demand, ironically enough, about the Office of the Right To Know Ombudsman.
Not only is this story a good bit of “how long does it take to screw in hire a light bulb” (six months after Baby Huey signed HB481 establishing the Office that SHOULD make it easier for citizens to get their Right To Know demands handled faster/easier than having to take their Government to Superior Court) but also a story about Government officials “stringing citizens along” and making them wait longer than necessary.
If you are short of time, just go to the bottom area of this post to see the “short circuit” supplied by an NH House Representative who reads GraniteGrok and found the answer (MANY THANKS!).
To recap once again:
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.
Legal Counsel to the Office of the Governor, James Scully, had responded that the Governor’s Office didn’t HAVE to honor an RSA 91-A due to Constitutional conflicts…
…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.
…but did say that I’d have the Responding Records within 30 days. So I asked WHAT that position was, and he did respond to the question:
From: “Scully, James” <James.F.Scully@nh.gov>
To: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Sent: 12/13/2022 12:58:12 PM
Subject: RE: RSA 91-A Right To Know demand – Status and materials concerning the Office of the Right to Know OmbudsmanMr. Murphy,
The Governor’s office is subject to the constitutional requirement for public access to government records in Part I, Article 8.
RSA 91-A is adopted by the legislature and governs non-constitutional agencies and how they comply with Part I, Article 8. Because of the constitutional separation of powers, RSA 91-A does not govern how constitutional offices, such as the Governor, Judicial Branch, or Legislative Branch meet the constitutional requirement for open government.
Best,
James
Now, I haven’t seen anything in RSA 91-A:5 that gives an exemption to “Constitutional Offices” and I did remind Counselor Scully that a Governor (in his Constitutional capacity) signed the legislation creating RSA 91-A and all amendments to it and I let Counselor Scully know of that collusion of two of the Constitutional Offices in making this law. I also asked, under Part 1, Article 8, for a contact within the NH DOJ so as to get the supporting documentation from them to support his assertion. After all, while it may SEEM like a little matter, it actually DOES matter – a lot. So, he quoted his “Rule Book” – I want him to live up to it.
—— Original Message ——
From: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To: “Scully, James” <James.F.Scully@nh.gov>
Sent: 12/15/2022 9:17:04 AM
Subject: Re[2]: RSA 91-A Right To Know demand – Status and materials concerning the Office of the Right to Know OmbudsmanGood morning this day before a winter storm bringing (hopefully) a White Christmas!
I read your explanation and I do understand the separation of Powers. While the Legislature, a Constitutional body in our bicameral system, drafted and passed all of the legislation that created and amended it, didn’t that OTHER Constitutional body have to join with the Legislature to make it law – the Office of the Governor?
So the two are complicit in this Law, correct? Otherwise, why wouldn’t previous Governors have refused to sign it? Or, if you are using that line of reasoning, why didn’t the present one, before signing HB481 into Law, demand that such an exemption be codified into the Law instead of being a part of “penumbras formed by emanations” of unstated Powers (as Government has Powers, Individuals have Rights)?
And yes, I have put in RSA 91-A demands against the NH House, for example, and they have been honored. No, they did not complain that even as they are also a “Constitutional body”, they did not exempt themselves therein So, I ask again – might you have a contact within the Dept of Justice to back up your assertion? Under Part 1, Article 8, as you assert?
So again, the request of a contact is requested.
Thanks – and be careful of your back tomorrow shoveling snow. The “Weather Guys” are saying it will be a rather heavy type of snow!
-Skip
However – time for the short circuit. Out of the blue, Steve received an email from someone that I don’t believe I’ve ever met before – with the answer for which I am searching (emphasis mine). And she reads GraniteGrok!
——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: DA Elword
Date: On Wednesday, December 14th, 2022 at 8:11 AM
Subject: RTK OMBUDSMAN
To: Steve@granitegrok.com <Steve@granitegrok.com>Steve, please forward to Skip.
After reading your RTK requests re: RTK Ombudsman, I made an in-person inquiry at Sec. State office yesterday and was informed that the nominee for the position is Attorney Thomas Kehr, and that there will be a meeting of the Exec. Council on Dec. 21st to address the position.
Appears Kehr was the ‘policy and procedures administrator’ for SOS
https://sos.nh.gov/media/woxhklnw/kehr-thomas.pdf
All the best,
Representative Deborah Aylward
And I did respond and thanked her (emphasis mine):
—— Original Message ——
From: “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To: “NHSteve” <nh.steve@protonmail.com>
Cc: “DA Elword”
Sent: 12/14/2022 4:07:13 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: RTK OMBUDSMANGood news. And thanks Deborah! Very MUCH appreciate your “constituent” service (even if I’m not a direct constituent!).
I do have to wonder why James Scully just didn’t say that in his email? There, partial delivery with the first response!
<reacted>
I already have a bunch of RTKs (dealing with School Districts that won’t honor my card catalog RTKs) to keep him busy!
-Skip
Simple question. Simple answer. One day. Engaged reader and responsive elected Representative WHO DIDN’T HAVE TO DO A THING as I’m not one of her voters. Much appreciated.
And we are continuing to have a conversation about RSA 91-A…to be continued. But now I know the answer and hopefully, this will turn out to be a GOOD movement going forward.
