This is in part the same story as Mr. Clay being limited in his right to speak to the Alton Selectmen. Now the State may allow charges to be applied to acquire information to those who request that as part of Right to Know, and the legal process. This is very scary and will begin to freeze those who are legitimately using this information. Towns and municipalities will surely use this as a tool to further squelch the public's right to know.
Right to know could get costly
By PAUL FEELY
New Hampshire Union Leader
A bill allowing government officials to charge the public for time spent responding to right-to-know requests received an "Ought to Pass" recommendation from legislators last week, despite strong opposition from civil advocates, local officials and media members.
House Bill 646 would charge anyone making a right-to-know request an upfront fee - in theory covering the cost of retrieving and preparing the records - before they are turned over. It also allows cities and towns to charge for employee labor after the first hour of work associated with a right-to-know request.
The bill has generated strong opposition from open government advocates and members of the media, but even some municipal officials have spoken out against it. Its major backers include lobbying groups representing cities, towns and school boards. Manchester Alderman and Rep. Pat Long, D-Manchester, the bill's prime sponsor, told members of the House Judiciary Committee right-to-know requests are becoming more broad in scope.
"There is a substantial cost to taxpayers to implement these requests," Long told the House Judiciary Committee.
Support for the bill
The New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) and the NH School Boards Association support the bill, saying it will force parties to think before making right-to-know requests requiring a lot of time to answer.
"We don't want to discourage people from making legitimate records requests, even those that will take a lot of time," said NHMA Executive Director Judy Silva. "This would dissuade those people who might use records requests to harass officials with voluminous requests. We do hear about those situations."
Cordell Johnston, NHMA's Government Affairs Counsel, said his group has heard from local officials who report receiving right-to-know requests that generate thousands of pages of documents, requiring hours of staff time to fulfill, only to have the requester fail to claim any of the paperwork.
"The question is often raised is there a way to distinguish the legitimate document requests from the frivolous ones," said Johnston. "The answer is there's no way to make that distinction. The idea is to avoid discouraging anyone from requesting these documents, while recognizing there is a cost associated with the process of fulfilling those requests. We feel this bill strikes that balance."
Opposition to the bill
But several groups, including the New Hampshire Press Association, Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, American Civil Liberties Union, and some members of the NHMA, are against the bill.
"This is the most shameless attempt by Concord lobbyists to hide government waste and corruption from the public we've seen in years," said Trent Spiner, Executive Editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader and president of the New Hampshire Press Association.
Durham Town Administrator Todd Selig said providing documents to the public is a critical part of good governance.
"If you start with the premise that we in government are undertaking the people's business and that public records belong to them, then it's easy to see that providing helping to provide them with access to those records is part of the job, just like putting out fires or paving roads," Selig said. "They shouldn't have to pay for what's already theirs. It's part of the cost of doing business on behalf of the people."
"This is a bad bill," said former state Rep. Harriet Cady, a member of Right-to-Know New Hampshire. "It's a bad bill because it might be enough to prevent someone from keeping an eye on elected officials. Not everyone has the money to spend on being a watchdog. I can't impress on you how opposed I am to this. The cost is enough to scare some people away from making a right-to-know request."
Should be available
Spiner said towns and cities should be using technology to make documents available at less cost for everyone involved.
"Rather than trying to hide information from the public, the municipal association should be showing its members how to use the Internet and technology to be more responsive to the public," said Spiner.
Last week one of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, made an amendment to the bill allowing officials to charge at the minimum wage hourly rate for time spent on right-to-know requests, with the first hour spent on the request free of charge.
Last Thursday, an additional amendment was made to the bill, adding the line, "No charge shall be imposed for allowing a person to inspect a record that is immediately available."
The bill, as amended, was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee on a 14-4 vote with a recommendation of 'Ought to Pass.'
"I can see why it passed, because I think the members of the committee feel so pressured by officials to relieve them from the so-called 'burden' or right to know requests," said Selig. "But what if the record isn't immediately available? There never was a charge for looking at records standing at the counter. Under that language, residents could be charged for access to records they used to access for free."
"This legislation rewards cities and towns for sloppy recordkeeping, rather than encouraging them to develop systems more open and accessible to the public," said Spiner.
"If this passes, there would be no safeguard against a municipality throwing all of their unsorted records in a box because they'd know you'd have to come up with thousands of dollars upfront to look inside. It eliminates any impetus for cities or towns to keep records in an easily accessible manner."
Serves as incentive
"While compliance with 91-A carries a cost to public bodies, these costs serve as an incentive to streamline records management to control costs," wrote Rep. Michael Sylvia, R-Belmont, in the minority report on the bill. "In the balance, we have a constitutional duty to maintain transparency in government; this bill would be a step in the wrong direction."
"This bill threads the needle between an individual's right to free and full access to public records and the taxpayer's right to be free from bearing the substantial costs of unreasonable or abusive document retrievals," writes Rep. David Woodbury, D-New Boston, in the bill's majority report.
HB 646 also contains language that government officials can waive any charges for individuals who demonstrate an inability to pay.
"That language itself can create a disincentive to request records," said Selig. "People in New Hampshire are proud. They shouldn't have to demonstrate an inability to pay for records that are theirs in the first place."
HB 646 is scheduled to go before the full House for a vote this Wednesday.
pfeely@unionleader.com
- See more at:
http://www.unionleader.com/article/2....QJHlxt26.dpuf