The Board
of Selectmen and School District 16 have reached a new low with their
demonstration of disdain for the citizens.
They are supporting House Bill (HB) 646, which would allow government
agencies to charge for the time it takes to fulfill right-to-know requests that
are submitted pursuant to RSA 91A. The
RSA makes it clear that the citizens have a right to information that is not
being withheld because it meets confidentiality standards. RSA 91A provides citizens with easy and
affordable access to information held by local and state governments and is a
key tool in the protection of citizens from the government. As the RSA states in its preamble, “Openness
in the conduct of public business is essential to a
democratic society."
HB 646 is supported by the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the state’s School Boards Association and the Exeter Board of Selectmen. Why do these organizations support HB 646 and oppose the citizens right to have access to records? The answer is simple, they don’t want anyone to oversee their actions and they don’t want to be accountable to the citizens. The concept of cost recovery is a scheme to make access to public records so expensive that the average citizen will not be able to afford to participate in the process. Once this is achieved, the pesky citizens will go away and they will be able to conduct their business without interference and oversight. It is important to remind the individuals in these organizations that they are employees of the citizens, and not nobility, and they should be working to help the citizens and not shut them out of the process.
HB 646 is supported by the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the state’s School Boards Association and the Exeter Board of Selectmen. Why do these organizations support HB 646 and oppose the citizens right to have access to records? The answer is simple, they don’t want anyone to oversee their actions and they don’t want to be accountable to the citizens. The concept of cost recovery is a scheme to make access to public records so expensive that the average citizen will not be able to afford to participate in the process. Once this is achieved, the pesky citizens will go away and they will be able to conduct their business without interference and oversight. It is important to remind the individuals in these organizations that they are employees of the citizens, and not nobility, and they should be working to help the citizens and not shut them out of the process.
.
Maybe you should do some research before screaming. People might take you more seriously. The new part of the statute would read:
ReplyDelete"If the time required to retrieve the requested records is estimated to exceed one hour, the public body or agency may charge for the cost of labor after the first hour, at a rate not exceeding the applicable minimum wage, and may require payment of the estimated cost before retrieving the records. No charge shall be made for the cost of searching for or retrieving minutes of any public body meeting that occurred less than one year before the date of the request. Any labor charges may be waived for any individual who demonstrates an inability to pay."
CHEMTRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!
First of all, we, the taxpayers, already pay town employees to do their job, part of which is carrying out the state Constitution and sate laws regarding right to know. So, the municipality would now get paid twice for the employees' work hours.
ReplyDeleteSecond, there are no standards regarding determining HOW the hours are determined. Charging for looking for the records, charges for assembling the records, charges for watching over the citizen reviewing the records, charges for re-filing the records. What else can a municipality dream up to increase the cost to the point where it is prohibitive for a citizen to request a public record? The only recourse is to go to court, which will only add to the cost the citizen has to bear. This is all aimed at stifling public access to government documents.
If municipalities would be more transparent in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for 91A requests.
"dreaming up.?" Look in the mirror.
ReplyDelete