    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10473
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 11:18 am: | 
|
Right to know is THE crucial core concept for democratic election systems. New Hampshire legislators are now working on their second attempt to erect barriers to the public right to know.
HB 349 is trying to exempt legislator's e-mails from both right to know and court subpeonas; an earlier bill, HB 53, seeks to remove the secretary of state's office (and other executive agencies) from right to know by redefining what a "public body" is. How the main office controlling public elections can conceivably be deemed "not public" is a question that causes some of us to shudder.
Regardless of whether these bills pass, they don't remove the RIGHT, because you can't really "remove" the inalienable rights to self-govern. What these bills seek to do is to put in place a policy to REFUSE TO HONOR the right to know.
Right to know is a necessary part of our inalienable right to self-government, which is key to our right to liberty. Almost all states, and the federal government, have right to know laws, often contextualized with preambles like the following: "Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over the instruments of government we have created."
Foster's Daily Democrat - April 29, 2009, by Robert M. Cook
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090429/GJNEWS_01/704299884/- 1/FOSNEWS
E-mail exempt bill goes before Senate
CONCORD — Senators heard testimony Tuesday on a House bill that would allow lawmakers to exempt certain electronic correspondence from the state's Right-to-Know law and from court subpoena.
The Senate Election Law and Veterans Affairs Committee did not take action on House Bill 349 after 45 minutes of testimony, according to Claire Emery, the committee's secretary. She said the committee, which is chaired by State Sen. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua, would vote on the bill at a later date.
The legislation has drawn plenty of fire from Right-to-Know law advocates and generated debate on whether the House bill would compromise the state statute that was amended in 2008 to address electronic communication.
Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, and Frank Tupper, D-Canterbury, co-sponsored House Bill 349, which would designate electronic communication between state lawmakers and constituents as confidential. It also would let state lawmakers decide which electronic communications from constituents would be public record. The House passed the bill without much opposition earlier this year.
Kurk has previously said the bill is needed because it will add another layer of protection for constituents who are afraid e-mails sent to lawmakers could become public record. He said it also may benefit the state and legislators because they would continue to get valuable information from people who may be facing difficult situations.
"It's not a public conversation, and it shouldn't be a public record," Kurk said of constituent e-mails. He added that he believes they are the same as letters or phone calls intended for him only.
Rep. Peter Schmidt, D-Dover, said Tuesday he has always been in favor of the public's right to know. But when it comes to sharing all the e-mails he receives with the public, he said he is not sure it is realistic.
"Sometimes I get hundreds of e-mails," he said.
From a logistical point of view, Schmidt said there is no way individual lawmakers could provide copies of all the e-mails they receive to the public. "I just don't think it would be workable," he said.
Attempts to get comment Tuesday from the committee chair, Lasky, or member Sen. Amanda Merrill, D-Durham, were unsuccessful.
Foster's Sunday Citizen filed Right-to-Know law requests from six state lawmakers for all their electronic correspondence in March. House Counsel David Frydman and Senate Counsel Jeffrey Meyer rejected the newspaper's request because they argued the electronic messages in question did not rise to the level of a governmental record specified by the state law.
This article is also archived in the New Hampshire - State of section of this Web site. |
