Frustrated by my inability to get the facts on the legal details of reps’ gmails, I’ve taken a few Plan B detours along the way. When I say “Gmails,” let it be known that I mean all emails used by members of the legislature that don’t end in “leg.state.nh.us” due to my keystroke laziness.
If you want to refresh your memory on HB 1002, and my most recent article, click here (where many relevant links are included).
Since submitting my most recent article, I had the creative idea to light a fire under some Legislative Legal Lads in Concord by emailing the Senate Clerk’s office. The senate clerk is a nice lady that I’ve always exchanged friendly greetings with in person upon seeing her, and she promptly did her job when I asked an RTK question about Ms. Maya last year, at this time when I was blocked on Twitter.
Attorney Lehmann professionally and expediently answered my question, so it stood to reason, based on personal observation, that finding information on the Senate side of the wall is a more user-friendly experience than its House counterpart. Let it be known, however, that the House clerk replied to my Monday email on Tuesday but did not answer my questions to my satisfaction, though his answer was polite. My email to the House clerk said the following:
“I am emailing your office as per 91A right-to-know to ask a 2 part question. The first one is whether an email address ending in “leg.state.nh.us” exists for each of ALL 400 reps(less the two current vacancies), whether or not they prefer to use them. Secondly, if the answer to the first question is yes, please provide a list of email addresses for all the reps that do not display one with “leg.state.nh.us” on their home pages.”
And his reply:
Good morning, Ms. Smith.
In answer to your first question, no, not all members utilize the legislative email system (which ends in leg.state.nh.us). In answer to your second question, all members who list their emails (in any manner) can be found on our Roster Download page available at https://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/ (on the left hand side – you can download it is an excel file, word file, or .txt file).
I hope this helps.”
Rather than follow up and be THAT annoying person criticizing the House clerk, I figured that both chambers would have a mirror-image policy with regard to email issues, hence my decision to reach out to Tammy and elicit a response from Attorney Lehmann, whose response was prompt and professional and … answered my questions. Unfortunately, what he had to say was a disappointment, legally speaking. I will share some of what he said that might be of interest to people passionately interested in truth-seeking. I asked Tammy four questions, but the answer to the 4th question sadly rendered my first three questions moot.
What I find share-worthy is the following excerpt from Attorney Lehmann’s email:
“RSA 91-A does not apply to all legislator email, but it may apply to some legislator email. I know that is not a particularly helpful answer, so I will try to respond in greater detail. The Right-to-Know law has two main sections. One section applies to public meetings, and the other section applies to governmental records. Since you have asked about email, I will assume you are primarily interested in governmental records.
Governmental records can be records of a public agency or of a public body. The definitions section of 91-A:1-a makes it clear that the general court (and its committees) are “public bodies.” Qualifying records of public bodies are, of course, available to the public. However, individual senators are neither the “general court” nor are they committees of the general court. For this reason, the email of individual senators are not public records subject to RSA 91-A.
Although individual Senator’s emails are not subject to the Right-to-Know law, emails sent to a quorum of a committee are. Accordingly, emails received by a senate committee are subject to the Right-to-Know law, and are included in the bill folder for each piece of legislation considered by each committee.
This interpretation of the Right-to-Know law has been in place for as long as I can remember, and I started as legal counsel to the New Hampshire Senate in December 2000. This interpretation has also been endorsed by the New Hampshire Department of Justice. An opinion of the former Attorney General from 2011 is attached for your convenience.”
This was in response to my 4th question, which was if 91a applied to ANY email to or from ANY member of the legislature involving “the people’s business.”
While it was not the answer I had hoped for, I wanted to thank Attorney Lehmann in the public square for his answer and remind everyone that HB1002 still has not yet received official Interim Study status from the whole House.
