Part 1.
And this first post is the least egregious but exemplifies the growing attitude of Executive Branch Departments and other subdivisions of the State that they are “above” the Law and can toss it aside. That’s what this post is about.
However, I have a second one that will go up later this evening showing what DCYF is trying to do to a mother with several young children. Amanda Grady Sexton (Director of Public Affairs for NHCADSV), you will want to read it!
Anyways, as many of you know, I do non-frivolous Right To Knows. I generally have a target for what I want, know how to go from general to specific, and have spent a few years in crafting my standard format. This one, on behalf of a couple I know, I thought was rather simplistic as it only demanded one certain specific governmental record (a document), that I knew to exist.
And I wanted DCYF to cough it up. Rather simple, I thought – public document. Easy for a DCFY field specialist to find and email; no muss, no fuss/cut and dried. Names have been redacted to protect (for now) the guilty (emphasis mine – some original and some added now):
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To <redacted>
Date 5/25/2023 9:13:52 AM
Subject RSA 91:A Right To Know demandGood morning <redacted>,
Please find attach a formal Right To Know demand concerning certain governmental records in the possession of DCYF.
If you have any questions concerning this “RTK”, do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you in advance for your lawful attention to this matter.
-Skip
Note the data sent. And here is the full RSA 91-A demand:
Right to Know Request per RSA-91A: Standardized Protocol for the Investigation and Assessment of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases
Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A), I am demanding access, within 5 business days, to the following governmental record:
- Provide, as documented in RSA 169-C:34-a (therefore, public knowledge of its existence), the manual known as “Standardized Protocol for the Investigation and Assessment of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases”
Please note that this Governmental Record does not appear in RSA 91-A:5 Exemptions that enumerates specific governmental records that are not subject to the rest of RSA 91-A. Thus, the expectation is that this will be provided.
Per RSA 91-A:4 IV(c) If you deny any portion of this request, please cite the specific exemption used to justify the denial to make each record, or part thereof, unavailable for inspection along with a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the information withheld.
As you are aware, in 2016, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a governmental body in possession of records is required to produce them in electronic media using standard common file formats: Green v. SAU #55, 168 N.H. 796, 801 (2016). Unless there is some reason that it is not reasonably practical to produce such, explain why it is not practical to comply.
Please also note, per RSA 91-A:4 III, III-a, and III-b, you are required to maintain the safety and accessibility of such responsive records. This also includes such responsive records such as emails, query files, data files, paper records). To the matter of emails, these types of Responsive Records would also respective Inboxes but are still available on the applicable email server or in your / email host backup system(s).
Please let me know when these records are available for inspection or you may email the records to me at Skip@GraniteGrok.com. If the volume is turns out to be substantial, I’ll be happy to supply a Dropbox folder sufficient to hold all of your responsive records.
Thank you for your lawful attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Skip Murphy
Tick-tock, tick-tock, went the clock. For too long. They decided to be UNlawful – the legally mandated time expired. Nary a phone call or email. So, I did what I normally do with recalcitrant lawbreakers (right, Harry Bean?):
From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 8:50 AM
To: <redacted>
Subject: Re: RSA 91:A Right To Know demandEXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.
Good morning,
I am following up on my formal RSA 91:A demand for a certain Government Record that is in possession of DCYF. Today is the 5th business day which means that the response is now out of compliance with the Law.
My original Right To Know document is attached and the relevant portions are below:
From my Right To Know demand:
Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A), I am demanding access, within 5 business days, to the following governmental record:
- Provide, as documented in RSA 169-C:34-a (therefore, public knowledge of its existence), the manual known as “ Standardized Protocol for the Investigation and Assessment of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases”
From NH Statute RSA 91:A
91-A:4 Minutes and Records Available for Public Inspection. –
IV. (a) Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release.(b) If a public body or agency is unable to make a governmental record available for immediate inspection and copying the public body or agency shall, within 5 business days of a request:
(1) Make such record available;
(2) Deny the request; or
(3) Provide a written statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied and the reason for the delay.Please advise on your decision to supply the demanded Government Record – or not.
-Skip
I expected that missive would both get the DCYF specialist’s attention AND the demanded document. After all, in what that person does, it is the DCYF Bible (in a matter of speaking) on how the obvious is to be done.
(Feign the voice of John Belushi in Animal House): “But NOOOOOoooooo!” Nope, the specialist decide to “lawyer up”. Now channel Founder from Animal House: “This is gonna be GREAT!”). Emphasis mine:
—— Original Message ——
From <redacted>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 6/1/2023 1:28:35 PM
Subject RE: RSA 91:A Right To Know demandHello Skip,
I consulted with my attorney who advised I inform you that all the protocols are online and available to the public
Now, regular readers of GraniteGrok know from my series of posts on demanding the card catalogs from some SAU/School Districts around the state, don’t you? Yep, and with a twist as there is a specific reason why I demanded that document:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To <redacted>
Date 6/1/2023 2:43:56 PM
Subject Re[2]: RSA 91:A Right To Know demand<redacted>,
This answer is insufficient in fulfilling my Right to Know (“RTK”) demand. It is not up to the Requester to go and search out the materials. My RTK is valid – the manual is not listed in the exceptions enumerated in RSA 91-A:5 (as I said in the original document). It is up to the Respondent (that would be you and/or DCYF) to supply the Government Record demanded.
Telling me, effectively, “go find it yourself” is not fulfilling the demand. Sending me a URL is also insufficient (see above). Again, I expect the manual (in electronic format, see Green vs Timberlane in my original document) to be sent to me at Skip@GraniteGrok.com
Thus, your lawyer is wrong – their name, please? If s/he believes they are right in “throwing away” a valid RTK, please feel free to send my contact information along and ask that lawyer to provide the relevant RSA or the exact clause in RSA 91-A that backs up the assertion that you have the Power to answer the way you did. Which, I point out, pretty much obviates RSA 91-A :4. I would LOVE to have that conversation.
In the meantime, I’ll post your answer on GraniteGrok.com and contemplate if I should invoke RSA 91-A:7 and RSA 91-A:8 for refusing to Follow The Law.
Boom?
I will also forward this to <redacted> to bring this matter to the Judge at <redacted> hearing as to how DCYF handles such legal requests as it is germane to there case.
-Skip
Yes, I know – instead of there, it should have been “their”. In the inimitable words of NH State Rep Harry Bean, upon being called out by another Rep for condoning an illegal act (yes, I should have brought that up during my oral testimony but forgot):
Sue me!
Yes, that couple will be meeting a Judge and the DCYF specialist and lawyer at a preliminary hearing….soon (not going to give away hints to keep confidentiality intact just like my Jane/John Doe in my NH Legislative Ethics Complaint case where confidentiality was NOT waived (unlike Harry Bean and Travis O’Hara).
Will it make a difference in the hearing? Probably not but as I did say in my oral testimony, one person CAN make a difference here in NH. I wish that more would be that person. As James O’Keefe says: “Be Brave – DO Something!”.
Here, it’s a simple case of deliberately and willfully choosing to NOT follow the Law. When School Districts have given me the same answer and/or lawyered up, I have won every one of those “discussions” when I point out other “consequences to their actions.
This time, and if there is time and if that couple’s lawyer can squeeze it in, I hope this can get the Judge to go cross-eyed at the DCYF specialist and lawyer and go “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!”
But that will be the least of their problems in trying to explain that one away.
Part 2 will get you mad.