Sandwich NH

[songkrai]

What was this all about?

Laconia Citizen

Taxpayers to foot legal bills for both sides
By BEA LEWIS

"OSSIPEE – A judge has ruled that the Town of Sandwich must reimburse a local couple the more than $204,000 they spent on attorney’s fees and related costs to win a Right-to-Know case against municipal officials."

[Descant]

Looks like the Sandwich Selectmen and officials approved a building on a small lot on Squam Lake that wasn't fully buildable. They discussed it and "met" via email, instead of holding public meetings and releasing the minutes of the meetings. Illegal under RSA 91-A, the NH "Right to Know" law. Sandwich lost, Sandwich pays.
http://www.unionleader.com/courts/sa...gants-20160713

[noreast]

Typical small town public employee's who want to control every inch of your land, Want to tell you what's acceptable or not. Doing shady back room deals. Shut up, play your minuscule part in society and except it, or better yet, move on and get a job.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by noreast

Typical small town public employee's who want to control every inch of your land, Want to tell you what's acceptable or not. Doing shady back room deals. Shut up, play your minuscule part in society and except it, or better yet, move on and get a job.

I was tempted to agree with you, but the graft and corruption is worse in big cities. You need vigorish, the bigger the government, the greater the vig.

[Patiently Watching]

Typical of small town government... Much like a club, rules are made on the fly and enforcement is selective.

Several other nearby towns have recently lost lawsuits related to the conduct of public officials and/or freedom of information.

It is government - the money comes out of the sky...

[Dave M]

And who elected these officials.


Dave M

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Dave M

And who elected these officials.


Dave M

Often, the voters are not given much of a choice. Only those who step up onto the ballot can be chosen (yea there may be write ins but that person still needs to be willing to step up to serve). The problem with government is that the people in it think "the law is whatever I say it is", they can't be bothered to navigate the legal requirements to get things done. The "right to know" and public meeting rules can be VERY complex and unforgiving. Meeting a fellow official in the grocery store and having a 5 minute conversation and exchanging ideas can get you in trouble. No private phone calls to discuss things or ask questions. It seems very counterproductive to getting things done.

I understand the problems the rules are trying to protect against but it seems most officials are simply chatting to a fellow official trying to move things forward. No harm is intended or done. The rules were put in place to protect against the few malicious and incompetent actors. Now everyone suffers under the load of complex and restrictive rules.

[longislander]

These officials are given classes by the NHMA and have town legal counsel.

NH Atty.General

"I strongly recommend that all public officials learn their responsibilities under the Right-to-Know law. It is important for those public officials who use e-mail or who maintain government records in electronic form to carefully study the 2008 and 2009 changes to the law relating to electronic records. This Memorandum should be kept easily accessible and be referred to when you are faced with questions on the application of the law. When you are uncertain about the application of the law to a specific circumstance, state officials should consult with my Office, county officials should consult with their County Attorney, and municipal and schools officials should consult with their legal counsel. "


http://doj.nh.gov/civil/documents/right-to-know.pdf


A NH Supreme Court ruling this year also stipulates RTK request can be answered in electronic form.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The "right to know" and public meeting rules can be VERY complex and unforgiving. Meeting a fellow official in the grocery store and having a 5 minute conversation and exchanging ideas can get you in trouble. No private phone calls to discuss things or ask questions. It seems very counterproductive to getting things done.

Chance meetings, attendance at anything from a seminar to a testimonial dinner are all OK. You don't have to avoid fellow officials. There may be a fine line between gathering information and "voting". You can't vote via telephone or email, but you can certainly gather information.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Descant

Chance meetings, attendance at anything from a seminar to a testimonial dinner are all OK. You don't have to avoid fellow officials. There may be a fine line between gathering information and "voting". You can't vote via telephone or email, but you can certainly gather information.

Right! I'm quite certain under the sprit of the law having a discussion about something even if it is in an official capacity outside a formal meeting shouldn't be a problem. It seems where there is a problem in this case is that there was never any public discussion or opportunity for public discourse before a decision was made - this was all wink wink nod nod behind closed doors and that's where these guys went wrong. Or at least that is what is has an appearance of regardless of whether or not that is indeed the case.

Unfortunately it seems that our elected officials at all levels of government are becoming more and more like royalty rather than representatives and worst yet not only consider themselves above the law but have enough political clout to actually circumvent it with no repercussions. Sadly this continues so long as people continue to support and put these people in office in fact it encourages this behavior simply because it does not cost them their jobs.

[longislander]

Chance meetings, attendance at anything from a seminar to a testimonial dinner are all OK. You don't have to avoid fellow officials. There may be a fine line between gathering information and "voting". You can't vote via telephone or email, but you can certainly gather information.

The issue would be, is there a quorum; e.g. 5 member board , 3 members constitutes a "meeting".

Sequential email with a quorum would also be a "meeting".

You can't vote via telephone or email, but you can certainly gather information.

Why not vote by phone! If the quorum is recognized, then it is a legal meeting with subsequent events, and triggers RTK requirements; e.g. minutes etc. and available to public under RTK.

"Gathering information" under a quorum would constitute a "meeting".

There is no universal legal requirement for allowing "speaking" at public meetings. Some meetings, like public hearings, do allow for speaking.

[noreast]

Unfortunately, like most things in life, the scum among us ruined it for the good ones trying to help out. we have to over regulate everything to stop the thieves, since people just can't be trusted, we all loose.

[Descant]

Long Islander is right with some added info. You can vote by phone, but it still has to be a noticed public meeting in a pub;ic pl;ace where the public can hear the discussion and the motions and votes which should be by roll call if there is telephone participation.

There's more detail. That's why NHMA, and the AG offer classes. The one thing I don't think they do is video record the presentations so that those with scheduling problems can see it on their own. The AG does put out a hard copy of the power point presentation for some seminars, and a related CD. Kudos to Terry Knowles at the Charitable Trust division of DoJ. For many years she has been doing at least four presentations a year for elected and appointed Trustees. Sometimes more if there are new laws to deal with.

[Lakeboater]

There was an article in yesterdays Laconia Sun about this situation in Sandwich.