Right-to-Know faces unclear changes
CONCORD – Depending on who you ask, changes to the Right-to-Know law in House Bill 53 are either legislative housekeeping or an assault on the public’s access to information.
Rep. Jim Garrity, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the bill will remove a redundant and potentially confusing double reference to “agencies and authorities” in the existing law. Right now, the law (RSA 91-a) includes them under one section on public agencies and another one on public bodies. His bill pulls “agencies and authorities” out of the section that requires all public bodies, such school district or selectmen’s boards, to meet in public.
Attorney Glenn Milner, who won a right-to-know case against the Local Government Center last week, disagrees with Garrity.
“This is not a house cleaning bill, but a bill that severely restricts the scope of 91-a and could overturn the very reasoned opinions of the Supreme Court,” Milner said.
Past rulings, Milner said, held that “it is specifically because of this language that these types of agencies are covered by the law.” Garrity said he is a defender of the public’s right to know, and noted he is sponsoring another bill that will carry stiffer penalties for violations of the law.
He proposes a fine of $250 to $1,000 against public officials who are found to have violated the law in bad faith. They would also have to reimburse the costs of any court actions. Now taxpayers typically cover costs when violations are found.
“Our Right-to-Know law is awesome, but there are no teeth in it,” Garrity said. “This would personally punish the knuckleheads.”