By ZACH LAIRD, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD — The Senate Judiciary Committee discussed Senate Bill 626 on Tuesday which would restrict right-to-know requests to those domiciled or maintaining a permanent residence in New Hampshire, and require proof of domicile or residency to file the requests.
“We’re here today because the voluminous stuff is requested from out of state, and it’s costing (and) taking a lot of time for municipal associations,” state Sen. Bill Gannon, R-Sandown, said.
“We narrowed it down, saying, ‘If you’re from New Hampshire, we’re not denying you anything under 91A,’” Gannon said. “We want you to have all the information you’ve requested.”
Gannon said the goal of the bill is to ensure that residents have the ability to obtain the information. He added that businesses located in New Hampshire will still be able to get the information, as well as lawyers representing a resident and individuals who own property within the state.
“Again, with foreign country actors and far-away businesses which are just using the state, the Municipal Association asked me to bring this forward to limit it to in-state people,…” Gannon said.
Sarah Burke Cohen, a legislative assistant for the New Hampshire Municipal Association, said the law aims to ensure transparency for residents throughout the state.
“The use of the term ‘citizen’ in RSA 91:4 was established in 1967, and actually survived a number of amendments during the establishment of the Right-to-Know Law, so it indicates there was some intent in keeping it there to ensure that citizens of New Hampshire were receiving documents, and able to hold their government accountable,” Burke Cohen said.
She said there is an amendment to the bill that allows people domiciled in New Hampshire, as well as those who own property in the state, to request records as a citizen.
“Defining ‘citizen’ doesn’t limit legitimate access to governmental records,” Burke Cohen said. “It’s there to target misuse, not legitimate oversight. The definition will simply protect the intent of the law by saying, ‘If you live here or own property here, you have every right to know what your government is doing.’ If you don’t live in New Hampshire, the same level of access doesn’t automatically apply to you.”
She also noted the law would maintain access for the media, which would allow for requests of records to be made by news agencies without having to prove residency.
State Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, asked if the law would affect companies outside the state that want to datamine for information. Burke Cohen responded that those types of requests are what inundates municipalities.
Mark Hayward of the New England First Amendment Coalition spoke in opposition to the bill.
“Let’s say someone from Massachusetts gets pulled over when he might believe he shouldn’t have been,” Hayward said. “Maybe there wasn’t probable cause. He should be able to file a right-to-know request and see if his assumption was correct.”
Hayward gave another example of a Maine resident who wants to buy property in New Hampshire and wants to know about neighboring properties, selling issues or any disputes regarding the property.
Hayward also noted that there are only a handful of states in the country that limit public record laws to residents. The committee did not take any immediate action on the bill.