Senate Judiciary Committee
Pete Mulvey 271-4063
HB 66-FN, relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.
Hearing Date: April 24, 2025
Time Opened: 1:05 Time Closed: 1:56
Members of the Committee Present: Senators Gannon, Abbas, McConkey, Altschiller and Reardon
Members of the Committee Absent : None
Bill Analysis: This bill describes who may invoke the right to know law and in what manner, includes preliminary drafts of documents that are distributed to a quorum of a body among the materials that must be disclosed, allows certain persons to request documents in either paper or electronic form, and modifies the manner in which the right to know ombudsman's ruling may be appealed to superior court.
Sponsors:
Rep. Lynn | Rep. Edwards | Rep. Kuttab |
Rep. M. Smith |
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
Who supports the bill: 12 signed in support of HB 66-FN. Contact peter.mulvey@gc.nh.gov for further details.
Who opposes the bill: 39 signed in opposition to HB 66-FN. Contact peter.mulvey@gc.nh.gov for further details.
Who is neutral on the bill: n/a.
Summary of testimony:
Representative Bob Lynn
Rockingham – District 17
- HB 66 offered several changes to the right to know law, RSA 91-A.
- The term ‘citizen’, currently undefined, is replaced with the term ‘person’ to make requests clearly permissible regardless of residency.
- Sen. Gannon asked if ‘person’ was limited to a state resident or encompassed anyone.
- Rep. Lynn said all individuals were encompassed by the term.
- Sen. Gannon asked if artificial intelligence would be considered a ‘person’.
- Rep. Lynn suggested that it likely wouldn’t but clarified that it had not been enumerated.
- Sen. Gannon said he believed that the term ‘citizen’ was not undefined, and suggested that it meant an in-state resident in the context of RSA 91-A.
- Rep. Lynn said it was important to understand that for many years, requests emanating from out-of-state, or even out of the country, had been made and that those were not grounds to ignore. Rep. Lynn referred to a right to know request in Rochester which concerned an individual who did not reside in the State of New Hampshire.
- The Rochester Voice, the owner of which lived in Maine, offered a 91-A request which was opposed upon the fact that the requestor resided out-of-state.
- The Superior Court concluded that the legislature did not intend to limit the right to request information nor limit the right to seek relief for violations of said right, according to Rep. Lynn. RSA 91-A could not be construed to limit its benefits to those residing in the State.
- Rep. Lynn added that a unanimous Supreme Court decision maintained that States may limit their right to know requests. However, if New Hampshire changed its law to do so, it would be one of six states with such a limitation across the entire country.
- Limitations on out-of-state requests were provided in HB 66. If a requestor is not a media representative, or connected to the State in some capacity, they must physically appear at the location where records are held within business hours to complete such a request.
- School boards are occasionally requested for information to use for commercial purposes. Rep. Lynn indicated that some boards would offer the requestor an in-person visit, which usually took care of the problem.
- Rep. Lynn found concerns surrounding the potential scope of the requests legitimate. Voluminous requests can cost a Town, and the State a significant amount. Rep. Lynn suggested that preexisting legislation facilitated recourse and remedies for such a situation.
Kate Horgan
Vice President, Government Affairs – The Dupont Group
New Hampshire Association of Counties
- The New Hampshire Association of Counties opposed HB 66.
- The term ‘person’ and who it may encompass was a concern.
- The House’s efforts to limit voluminous or out-of-state requests was appreciable, however, determining whether someone was a taxpayer was vague. Ms. Horgan contemplated if an individual paying the rooms and meals tax counted or not.
- Ms. Horgan said that HB 66 may cause more confusion than help.
James McLeod
Director of Planning and Development – Raymond, N.H.
- Mr. McLeod said that corruption and malfeasance were prevented by transparency.
- Mr. McLeod supported RSA 91-A and opposed any expansion to it.
- Voluminous requests were a concern for the Town of Raymond.
- Mr. McLeod described a six-page,18-part request which resulted in a 20,000 page document, which personally cost Mr. McLeod 200 hours of labor.
- Many requests were not in good faith according to Mr. McLeod. Some requestors sought to waste resources, or illicit negative, even illegal responses, which they can capitalize upon via the internet.
- HB 66, although well intended, may make the abuse of RSA 91-A easier, at the cost of the local taxpayer.
- Sen. Gannon asked if an RSA 91-A request must be replied to in an itemized fashion or if the department or agency can mass-deliver a tranche of applicable documents.
- Mr. McLeod said that his response was to notify the requestor that it may take up to 90 days to satisfy their detailed request. Mr. McLeod’s response was met with a court petition which had cost the town $10,000 in legal defense, despite being fully compliant with RSA 91-A.
- Sen. Gannon asked if the town of Raymond hired a full-time individual to handle RSA 91-A requests.
- Mr. McLeod said that the town did not, and that the obligation often fell to the department being requested.
- Sen. Gannon asked how much time requests cost the community.
- Mr. McLeod stated that he spent 200 hours of his own time for one request.
Giles Bisonette
Legal Director - ACLU N.H
- The ACLU of NH supported HB 66.
- HB 66 was designed to reflect how RSA 91-A had been historically litigated and interpreted.
- Mr. Bisonette maintained that HB 66 concerned dissemination, not who can request documents.
- Mr. Bisonette described that on occasion, a few pages of a police report will be requested for release from a department hours away. While the information could be emailed quickly, municipalities will insist that individuals physically appear to access the requested documents.
- The expectation to physically appear for a request was unreasonable and a significant barrier to transparency according to Mr. Bisonette.
- The language of HB 66 fairly limited its scope to prevent burdensome, voluminous requests in a manner similar to other states.
- Sen. Altschiller asked Mr. Bisonette where the language on undue burden was included in HB 66.
- Mr. Bisonette said that page two, lines five through nine, and ten through twelve contained the language in question.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if Mr. Bisonette agreed that substituting ‘person’ in place of ‘citizen’ was a clarification and not an expansion of RSA 91-A.
- Mr. Bisonette believed it was clarifying. There were other provisions in RSA 91-A which used the term person according to Mr. Bisonette. When interpreted holistically, RSA 91-A is not limited to New Hampshire citizens, which HB 66 codified.
- Sen. Gannon asked if automated intelligence would be considered a ‘person’.
- Mr. Bisonette said that requests which are known to be from automated intelligence likely would not justify a response. Mr. Bisonette clarified that foreign entities and enterprises were considered ‘persons’ under the law currently.
Cordell Johnston
Attorney
- Mr. Johnston practiced municipal law and spoke in opposition to HB 66.
- Mr. Johnston identified his primary concern as section four of the bill.
- Requiring towns or agencies to send documents when requested was an expansion of RSA 91-A. The current law was that individuals had a right to appear and access documents. Effectively, records had to be open and available but not distributed.
- Compiling digital records may not be technically burdensome. Older, exclusively physical documentation was the issue regarding timeliness of fulfillment and the burden posed.
- Currently, an individual could appear, request access to meeting minutes, and be presented with where they are held, with permission to view or copy. HB 66 would require that the requested body search, discover, aggregate and distribute the documents as opposed to the individual requestor.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if requiring a deposit for requests may mitigate frivolous, voluminous requests made in bad faith.
- Mr. Johnston believed that a deposit may nominally alleviate frivolous requests, but did not deal with potential burden posed by significant, albeit legitimate requests.
Ken Loui
Assistant Chief of Police – Manchester Police Department
New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police
- The New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police opposed HB 66.
- The State was on track to exceed last year’s 14,000 right-to-know requests.
- The burden placed on local departments from RSA 91-A was crushing.
- Officer Loui described a lieutenant whose ancillary duty was to respond to requests related to discipline, whose time was now largely consumed by what was meant to be a secondary duty.
- The burden from right-to-know requests had negative impacts upon public safety, costs, and officer retention.
- Police officers now acted as records clerks redacting volumes of information despite being trained and tasked with public safety.
- Officer Loui described numerous instances where individuals made requests for information, to ultimately never pick them up for review.
- Officer Loui suggested that RSA 91-A was intended to hold public entities and bodies accountable to the local citizen. HB 66 did not clarify RSA 91-A, it clearly expanded it.
- Verification of an individual’s claim toward doing business or paying taxes in New Hampshire would be difficult. Officer Loui speculated that all requests would be considered de-facto legitimate in fear of liability.
- Even with the current statute the workload from RSA 91-A was overwhelming.
Bryan Levesque
Chief of Police - Merrimack Police Department
- Chief Levesque concurred with Officer Loui and opposed HB 66.
- The term and concept of a media professional was vague in a contemporary context. Any individual could claim to run a blog or media page, which concerned Chief Levesque.
- Many RSA 91-A requests were from data aggregating firms, who ultimately downshifted their responsibility and services to the public.
- Chief Levesque noted that offering physical appointments to access information had significantly cut down national data aggregating requests.
Sarah Burke Cohen
New Hampshire Municipal Association
- The New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed HB 66.
- HB 66 widely expanded the definitions already contained in RSA 91-A since 1967.
- Mr. Cohen clarified that regarding the case of the Rochester Voice, the ombudsman had determined that Rochester Voice was the claimant, and a ‘citizen’ of New Hampshire, not the owner from the State of Maine.
- Ms. Cohen stated that the caselaw referenced by Rep. Lynn in fact referred to New Hampshire as being a state which already had a statute limiting right-to-know requests to citizens of the State, only.
- The requirement contemplated in HB 66 was burdensome for States and municipalities.
- The NHMA conducted a survey and offered their results to the committee regarding the labor input necessary to satisfy RSA 91-A requests.
Katherine Kokko
Right to Know New Hampshire
- Ms. Kokko stated that she was not a paid lobbyist nor was she paid to appear.
- Right to Know New Hampshire put significant time into obtaining information for residents.
- The word citizen and its interpretation were already addressed in the attorney general’s 2015 memorandum concerning the right to know law according to Ms. Kokko.
- RSA 91-A emphasized accountability and accessibility to the people according to the memorandum in question. Therefore, an agency should not require a requestor to demonstrate that they are a citizen of New Hampshire or the United States of America.
- It was existing practice that residency or citizenship were not questioned according to Ms. Kokko.
- Ms. Kokko referred to HB 1002, which became law in 2024, and suggested that if more communities implemented the law within their ability, they would see relief from large, frivolous requests.
- Ms. Kokko maintained that Right to Know New Hampshire was well versed in the requirements governing RSA 91-A requests and suggested that cases requiring hundreds of hours of labor could likely be rejected if the requested body had proper training and familiarity with the law.
- Ms. Kokko added that redactions may be automated without liability under current statute.
Andrew Shagoury
New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police
- Chief Shagoury opposed HB 66.
- Chief Shagoury concurred Chief Levesque’s comments.
- AI and data aggregating requests were a growing concern.
Nicole MacShay
Peterborough, N.H
- Ms. MacShay opposed HB 66 and concurred with previous speakers in opposition.
- The town of Peterborough has been requested to disclose prices for goods or services which the town receives from businesses it transacts with.
- Ms. MacShay believed many requests are conducted through AI by businesses seeking to undercut their competition.
- Ms. MacShay described an instance where a local resident submitted an RSA 91-A request relative to a development to prevent their attorney from doing so at their cost.
- An individual who claimed to be a journalist asked for documents detailing every instance in which the Peterborough police department had used handcuffs over the last 20 years.
- The town had a plan to release portions of the requested data weekly. Ms. MacShay stated that the requestor simply came in, took photos of the documents as opposed to purchasing them, and then posted it on their Patreon where individuals paid to access the photos.
- It cost the town of Peterborough $500 a week to produce the records in question.
PM
Date Hearing Report completed: April 22, 2025