A very respected Granite Stater made an intriguing comment about a member of the Senate that I was complaining about. However, this tipster did not want to be identified and refused to answer any questions related to the tip. I spent some time considering how I could learn more without exposing the informant, so I had to decide which knowledgeable people to approach and try to get them to talk without revealing who I was investigating.
I decided that an RTK inquiry, narrowed down the best I can, would be a good place to start. I also decided to start the 5-day clock at opening time on a Monday morning by having my email in the Senate clerk’s inbox(senateclerksoffice at gc dot nh dot gov) before the crack of dawn. On December 15, I said the following:
Season’s Greetings, Tammy.
I would like to view sometime in the next 5 days any records dated after the most recent Organization Day(12/4/24) that ban any current senators from places inside the state house that their peers in the body are not restricted from. If I am barking up the wrong tree, would you or Attorney Lehmann kindly send me the name and email for the correct person to make this inquiry to, presumably in security or “protective services” or perhaps the Concord/State Police. If there’s any responsive material that’s being denied, please cite the exemption and a brief explanation of why/how it applies. If there are any clarifying questions about my request, please reply to this email.
Thanks,
Julie
Normally, Tammy forwards my requests to Attorney Lehmann and he responds within a few hours, but 5 days are allowed for a response, even if it’s not the kind of response one might hope for, such as a notification that more time is needed to process the request or an outright refusal to release responsive records. Meanwhile, I discussed my quest for information with some of Attorney Bolton’s biggest critics. I kept the identity of the informant to myself, but I did tell this handful of people who was the object of my investigation. Two of them repeatedly suggested that the Dems would probably be willing to talk, especially if it’s the subject of gossip. There are only 8 of them and I first contemplated who might be the most approachable and considered 2 of them as contenders, but I dislike the enemy camp so much that this task requires skills outside my wheelhouse. When one of the people in my email distribution made the same suggestion for the 2nd time, I said “you are a constituent of (that senator) and therefore a good person for the job, please volunteer.” On Wednesday 12/17, this person shared the intel from a talk with that blue senator and the detail of interest was that a particular senator was expelled from the Republican caucus. That information had me thinking that the senator of interest might not be persona non grata in a physical place inside the state house and therefore more difficult to investigate. I sent a 2nd RTK inquiry with wording that politely pointed out that I was still waiting for an answer to my previous inquiry, but had a new question.
Good afternoon, Tammy.
I have a new request, separate from the one I sent you early Monday morning. I would like to view any records dated after the most recent Organization Day(12/4/24) in which a current senator is sanctioned(suspended or expelled from a caucus).
Please and thank you.
Julie
I didn’t have the highest hopes for success as I would not have been surprised to have Attorney Lehmann tell me to pound sand, politely, citing a party caucus being safe from 91A. After all, he’s the one who knows the law and I would fully expect that door to be slammed in my face without delay. However, crickets continued to chirp all day Thursday with TWO inquiries awaiting a response. At 3:45pm on Friday, I decided to up my game, albeit casually, in following up on my early Monday morning inquiry by forwarding my Monday email and copying it to Tammy’s individual address and both of Attorney Lehmann’s individual addresses.
Good afternoon, Attorney Lehmann and Tammy.
I’m checking in with both of you on my early Monday morning inquiry to ask if there’s any responsive material on its way. I was hoping for an update before you’re gone for the weekend.
-Julie
I don’t know what the magic bullet was in finally getting a response, but 9 minutes later in a reply-all, Attorney Lehmann said the following:
Julie,
This will acknowledge receipt of your email. I will not be able to get you anything before the close of business, but I do hope to have responsive materials next week.
Richard J. Lehmann
Lehmann Major List, pllc
6 Garvins Falls Road
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 715-2516
rick@nhlawyer.com
My immediate impulse was to say thanks and wish a good weekend to Attorney Lehmann, but I chose restraint instead. I then turned to the same handful of people in the earlier email distribution and one of them said the following:
Legislature is a small (partisan divided) world. I am sure you asked the right guy.
Remember that if the law was on Lehmann’s side in telling me NO, he could have just refused and been done with it, but there’s obviously something keeping him from doing that, perhaps the absence of a plausible exemption. Meanwhile, we are now in the “next week” that he referred to in his Friday 12/19 email. At first, I was optimistic about the possibility of a Monday 12/22 email. Then Monday became Tuesday and Tuesday became Wednesday. With Thursday being Christmas and 12/26 having a patchwork of holiday & PTO office policies, I attempted to seek clarity while trying not to come off as too pushy. At 9:02am Wednesday, I finally sent that thank you reply to his Friday email and said the following:
Thank you. Will it be today, by any chance? Only asking because I don’t know if you guys consider Friday a holiday and therefore making today functionally a Friday.
My expectations included a number of possibilities, preferably one with the responsive material that he said he HOPED to have “next week.” If there’s a plausible reason for the wheels turning so slow, I sure would like to know what it is! Another possibility would have been a notice that he needs more time, a typical Attorney Bolton tactic, but usually reserved for the last minute on the last day. Another possibility would be that an exhaustive search was conducted and either no responsive material was found or something is protected by an exemption. I was NOT expecting to be ignored. I vented my frustration to the usual suspects and one of them said the following:
“hope to have responsive materials next week” … well its next week now
Not exactly in compliance with letter of law, or even the spirit. You’ve got til Friday, Rich.
Since (this person’s senator) knew about it, he certainly knew long ago. The record containing member dismissal would be in minutes of the caucus.
He knows if it is a public record. And if he says it ain’t, that means it did happen and does not want it to get out.
Then someone else replied-all at 3:23pm on Christmas Eve with these words:
That is not like Lehmann to be evasive. You’re on to something they want to hide! Merry Christmas.
The good news is that Attorney Lehmann is a virtual employee in that he’s a travelling lap top guy and can reply anytime and anywhere he wants, including midnight in some Colorado ski area parking lot, so this story is far from over. Again, he is a lawyer and I am not. If he can refuse me, why wouldn’t he have already done so, post haste, to both of my requests that I sent on 12/15 and 12/17? He would have saved himself and possibly some staffers extra work.
Decades ago in the brick and mortar world, we were forced to accept garden variety excuses like “I was out of town and the clerk was using up some vacation time and nobody else has the keys to the file cabinet,” or whatever else was in vogue at the time, either by happenstance or by design. As for those excuses, what are their modern day counterparts?
Why is Attorney Lehmann stalling me with the same modus operandi that his adversary, Attorney Bolton, regularly uses? Is it because his boss, Queen Sharon, has ordered him to? She is, after all, the queen of her castle(the senate) just like the mayor is king of his castle(city hall). I surmise that Queen Sharon is trying to contain any and all senate dirty laundry by all means necessary. Is she a “Republican Hillary?” You tell me. Either way, Lehmann takes his orders from her, an ardent ENEMY OF 91A, never mind the law!
