That was my “curious nature” concerning the velocity of how my last email to DCYF CPSW Amy Fortin got transported from her and ended way up on the heights of the DCYF organizational chart ending up at DHHS’ (which “owns” DCYF) Deputy Chief Legal Counsel John B. Martin.
So I “asked.”
This request is for certain DYCF emails messages with the time frame starting May 25, 2023, to June 17, 2023, inclusive based on the email from Skip@GraniteGrok.com to Amy.Fortin@dhhs.nh.gov concerning my previous Right To Know demand, which she “blew off” and the situation had to be rectified by DHHS Deputy Chief Legal Counsel John B. Martin.
And why did this lowly blogger gain attention at such heights? However, even after explicitly stating that I didn’t want any privileged client/attorney communications (expressly forbidden by RSA 91-A; a carveout, IMHO), my Right To Know was denied by Mr. Martin (emphasis mine, reformatted):
—— Original Message ——
From “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 6/30/2023 1:31:08 PM
Subject RSA 91-A Right to Know RequestGood afternoon Mr. Murphy. I am responding to your Right to Know request pursuant to which you requested any internal e-mails relative to your initial Right to know request seeking a DCYF protocol. At this point I have reviewed all of the e-mails beginning with your initial request for the protocol leading up to my e-mail to you on June 9, 2023, when I provided you with two DCYF protocols.
Every internal E-Mail was either sent to a State attorney or by a State attorney for the purposes of legal consultation. As a consequence, these e-mails fall under the attorney/client privilege and are exempt from disclosure under RSA 91-A:5,IV. For this reason, there are no public records that are responsive to your request. That being said, I hope you have a good weekend and a nice 4 th of July.
John B. Martin, Deputy Chief Legal Counsel
Which is what I thought would be tried to be claimed and why I explicitly ruled it out and restarted it as well:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
Date 6/30/2023 3:04:21 PM
Subject Re: RSA 91-A Right to Know RequestSo far it has been! Hope yours has been as enjoyable as mine has been thus far!
Relative to the attorney/client privilege, I wasn’t asking WHAT was said, only who was involved. Redacting any and all email bodies of such Responsive Records, would be fine – that erases any client/privilege communications that are subject to RSA 91-A:5, XII.
Providing names/email addresses and those connections, however, is not explicitly enumerated in that clause of the statute. The resulting digraph, which is of interest to me and the reason for the RTK, would be void of ANY such prohibited privileged legal advice. Therefore, those records should be released and available for my inspection.
And a wee message along with my reasoning as to why he was wrong:
And yes, good wishes are returned back to you as we celebrate what our Founding Fathers, in their political genius, bequeathed to us – a governance model that first and foremost that was the first one that put citizens first an over a Government that should be totally and wholly responsive to them…
…And not the other way around. It is unfortunate that their aspirations have not yet been met in many ways.
-Skip
So, it ended up with a bit of a reminder for after the Independence Day Holiday, with a bit of humor (but only a wee bit):
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
Date 7/7/2023 12:59:04 PM
Subject Re[2]: RSA 91-A Right to Know RequestGood afternoon, sir!
Am hoping that you had a great Fourth of July spent with family and friends!
I am circling back (the favorite phrase, seemingly, of all Presidential Press Secretaries) on my Right To Know. When might an ETA be available for those Responsive Records?
-Skip
And lo and behold, and interesting, not what I suspected. Historically with my RTKs with School District lawyers trying to deny my RTKs, I expected more :
—— Original Message ——
From “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 7/7/2023 4:30:56 PM
Subject RE: Re[2]: RSA 91-A Right to Know RequestGood afternoon Mr. Murphy. I apologize for the delay in responding to this. Without waiving the attorney-client or attorney work product privilege, in addition to me, the following attorneys were involved in this matter:
Amanda Kniveton (Amanda.L.Kniveton@dhhs.nh.gov)
Laura Brevitz (Laura.Brevitz@dhhs.nh.gov)
Frank Nachman (Frank.D.Nachman@dhhs.nh.gov)
Anne Edwards (Anne.M.Edwards@doj.nh.gov)
Deanna Baker (Deanna.Baker@dhhs.nh.gov)
Have a good evening.
John B. Martin, Deputy Chief Legal Counsel
I was rather surprised – little ole’ me seems to have attracted a much higher level of attention than what I had bargained for (I do believe that “hoped for” is exactly the wrong phrase); perhaps what DCYF has brought down upon itself in the care of its wards lately may have signaled that the Attorney General’s office (Anna Edwards) had to get involved. Yet, this wasn’t about a given child or set of children – just who was talking about my pushback.
So being surprised that SIX lawyers were listed (again, I really did find it hilarious given all the much bigger fish to fry than me, an ordinary schlub from Central New Hampsha), I had thoughts but only asked about three:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
Date 7/7/2023 7:10:14 PM
Subject Re[4]: RSA 91-A Right to Know RequestGood evening Mr. Martin!
No problem with “delay” – the week is generally a vacation week so I figured you’d be just getting back in the swing of things on Monday / Tuesday and get back to me mid-week, so this is a plus. Plus, I’m quite sure that there may well be far more important issues on your desk than Right To Knows from a lowly blogger.
I am surprised, however – seriously, it took six lawyers just to advise on a single Right To Know? Thoughts racing around are:
- Was my RTK all that outrageously bad – or good?
- Am *I* that bad of a Requester that six lawyers were needed to make a decision?
- I still can’t figure out how I, just an ordinary schlub from Central New Hampsha, could warrant that amount of legal attention.
Sidenote: Someday, if we meet in person, I’ll tell you the joke about how many software engineers it takes to change a light bulb…
All that aside, appreciate the information and have a good weekend as this is now put to bed.
-Skip
And he explained
