So back on 6/27, I posted up the video that was taken by activists during the White Mountain Pride’s Drag Queen Children Hour event in which, in spectacular fashion, Director David Smolen covered himself with a legal word salad in trying to CYA himself in denying access to regular Conway Public Library patrons. It reminded me of my sons (and your children as well, I bet) in trying to persuade me that they hadn’t broken something of mine that was rather valuable. The phrase used was “Limited Public Forum” in which he was right (it is a legal term) but completely botched how it is actually used.
Well, a Conway activist reached out for help in trying to make him live up to his words in that video (paraphrased) “I gotta go but I’ll get back to you on that” – and never did. She had seen the RTKs I’d been putting up but couldn’t write on herself. So of COURSE I helped her write a Right To Know to present to the Conway Public Library Trustees last night at their meeting speaking exactly to that.
July 10, 2023
Right to Know demand per RSA 91-A: Conway Public Library: “Limited Public Library”
[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive…The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government…
RSA202-A:3-a Records and Meetings Subject to Right-to-Know Law. – A public library established or accepted by a town or city shall be deemed a “public agency,” and the library trustees a “public body,” for purposes of RSA 91-A, and they shall be subject to all applicable provisions of that chapter; provided, however, that any books, documents, records, or other information maintained by a public library that is exempted or protected from disclosure by other provisions of law shall not be subject to disclosure under RSA 91-A.
202-A:5 Status. – Every public library shall remain forever free to the use of every resident of the town wherein it is located.
Background:
On a video captured by citizens and hosted on GraniteGrok (https://granitegrok.com/blog/2023/06/so-about-that-drag-queen-at-the-conway-public-library-last-friday-part-2), Director David Smolen, while conversing with a Conway Citizen said that the reason she was disallowed from attending the White Mountain Pride Drag Queen Reading was that the Conway Public Library (“CPL”) was a “Limited Public Forum” as the reason for preventing her entrance. She was also disallowed from entering the building environs exclusive of the reserved room for the WMP meeting.
The sense of “Limited Public Forum” is not mentioned in RSA 202-A which proscribes how Public Libraries are to be managed and act. Neither is that description mentioned in RSA 201-D.
Demand:
Given that NH is a Dillon’s Rule State, pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A:4 (I) ), I am demanding access, within 5 business days, to the below enumerated governmental records:
- Provide the NH Statutes (“RSA”) that label or define that a NH Public Library is legally defined as a “limited public forum”
- Provide the NH Statutes (“RSA”) that can disallow residents access to the CPL in the whole for reasons that a meeting held in a given room
- Provide the NH Statutes (“RSA”) that can capriciously and arbitrarily set conditions as to the manner of entrance. In this case, only those adults accompanied by a child would gain entrance.
- Provide any and all CPL Policies that cover the above and the reference to State Statutes authorizing the actions in the Policies.
Otherwise, if this cannot be fulfilled within that 5 business day mandated window per RSA 91-A:2, II, please advise when the Responsive Record will be made available.
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 (e.g., emails, query files, policies) which may have been deleted from respective local hardcopy or software systems but are still available on the applicable servers or in application or archival system(s) either in-house or hosted.
Please let me know when these records will be sent to me for inspection. You may email the Responsive Records to me at butterfly91011@yahoo.com. If the volume turns out to be substantial, I have already set up a Dropbox folder to use in uploading those Responsive Records.
Thank you for your lawful attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Wendy Richardson
Now, there seems to be several backstories that surfaced when she went to the meeting last night and personally delivered this RTK to the Trustees. She also asked them some questions to which the response was “deer in headlights” and a few feeble “er, no”. I’ll be getting the details from that later on. Some of those “no’s” seemed to be markers of “something ain’t right here” so yet another project.
Oh, and I wrote an RTK for myself – and the Director’s response. So I couldn’t help myself with my response. Hilarity ensued.
To Be Continued…