Still Digging in: Which DCYF Personnel Were Included In On My Initially Botched RTK?

Recap: I had put in a Right To Know to DCYF Specialist Amy Fortin for their Investigative Manual that is supposed to outline how DCYF Field Workers are to handle their cases. She at first blew me off by not responding within the first five business days after receipt of the Right To Know that demanding a copy for inspection.

When I reminded her that she was overdue, she responded that her lawyer’s advice to was to tell me it was a public document and that it could be found on the Internet.

In other words, go pound sand. Silly person.  I responded with, “RSA 91-A has Clauses 7 & 8 has penalties – would you like to find out how?” and that’s when DHHS Chief Legal John Martin showed up and delivered the Responsive Record demanded of Fortin.

But that got me thinking – what was that path from me to her through to him?  So I put in a Right To Know to find out (as you can tell, an RTK is the most powerful tool a citizen can employ in keeping our Government in check and to account) to him as he had said, in effect, “ask me anything.” I made it clear that I was NOT asking to see any “privileged client/lawyer communications” as outlined in the Right To Know law as I knew and specified in my RTK that such were unwanted and are exempt from RTKs. Just the communication pathway.  What I received from him didn’t make the grade (reformatted, emphasis mine):

—— 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 Request

Good 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
Department of Health and Human Services

Office of Legal and Regulatory Services

Bureau of General Counsel
129 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301

His response specifically leaned in on what I specifically DIDN’T want to see, attorney/client privilege, as the reason not to send me anything. I decided to correct his logic because, from my standpoint, he was pulling a curtain I had already rent across to shield those Responsive Records for whatever purpose):

—— 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 Request

So 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 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 and 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

Let’s see what happens