Well, I would say that the response we had when Ms. Gretchen Hamel (Administrator!) emailed Letter arrived could be described amongst us “Techi Groksters” was a “really, you expect us to believe that this is difficult?”.  After all, amongst us, we have a handful of degrees and upwards of 75 years of technical experience and several of us are the corporate experts in our areas for our respective companies. So, we’re asking the main technical guy of the State of NH – is this really that difficult?

Good evening, Commissioner,

Upon reading the rather sparse Letter from Ms. Hamel (April 27) concerning our Right To Know request concerning the website traffic Summarizations, we became technically puzzled.  It is our hope that you would be able to address our concern and lack of understanding of the difficulty implied by Ms. Hamel’s Letter.

Our response to that is below, as well attached to this Letter in both WORD and OpenOffice formats.

Regard

– Skip

Skip Murphy for Steve Mac Donald and Ed Naile.

*****

April 30, 2012

To:

Stanley “Bill” Rogers, Commissioner, Department of Information Technology / CIO, State of New Hampshire

Re: April 30, 2012 Request for Records Pursuant to RSA 91-A – delay of response.

Dear Commissioner Rogers,

We are in receipt of the letter by Ms. Gretchen Hamel, Administrator of April 27, informing us that it was impossible to transfer the Internet URL Summarization records that we, as citizens of the State of New Hampshire, believe that we should have access to, especially under the aegis of RSA 91-A (the State’s Right To Know (“RTK”) law). From a technical standpoint, we are extremely puzzled over two issues:

• First, we included DES Commissioner Burack as a courtesy on this RTK simply as our first RTK dealt specifically with one of his employees abusing the Internet access afforded by your network and we requested those Summarization records specifically in that case. We accept the fact that in a case pertaining a single employee, we understand that these could be labeled as “responsive but exempt”.

• Secondly, our latest RTK concerned these Summarization records are in toto, thus not tied to any given employee or subgroup of employees and therefore, would fall into that category of “responsive but non-exempt”.

But more to point of fact, we are puzzled as to the “additional time is needed” in delivering records that taxpayer monies have already paid for and whose existence has already been confirmed by the State.. As a technical person (although we do recognize that you are, by dint of your title, a Political Appointee, and thus mired in politics which most engineers tolerate but abhor), you must realize that we understand how such records are obtainable in short order.

Read more