Bill that would allow Rochester Voice to get Rochester gov records moves to Senate

Former state Supreme Court Chief Justice and House Judiciary chair Bob Lynn speaks in favor of HB66 prior to a vote to move the bill on to the Senate (General Court screenshot)

Editor's Note: This is one in an occasional series focusing on The Rochester Voice v. City of Rochester complaint over the city's refusal to honor digital Right to Know requests made by The Rochester Voice. The city of Rochester contends it doesn't have to comply with such requests, because Rochester Voice editor Harrison Thorp is not a New Hampshire citizen.

CONCORD - A bill that would change New Hampshire's Right to Know law so that The Rochester Voice would have access to digital delivery of government records is moving through the state legislature again.
On April 10 the full House voted 271-164 to move HB66 on to the Senate, which will hold a public hearing on Thursday.
Prior to the April 10 vote opponents to the bill said if the Right to Know law changed its verbiage from "every citizen to any person" that would cause an "onerous burden on municipalities that would bring higher government fees and higher taxes."
That notion was rebutted by Bob Lynn, a former state Supreme Court Chief Justice, who championed a similar bill last year that died in a Committee of Conference.
Lynn, R-Windham, said the state's Right to Know law never defines the word citizen.
"The statute doesn't describe what the word 'citizen' means," he noted. "Is it citizen of Rochester, citizen of the country, citizen of the world?"
Lynn mentioned the City of Rochester, because it has been denying The Rochester Voice Right to Know requests for more than two years.
"This newspaper (The Rochester Voice) serves Rochester, but the owner lives in Maine," he said. "But some clever attorney said, 'I'll say that that reporter cannot get records cause he's not a citizen of Rochester.'
"The case eventually ended up in superior court where the judge wrote a well-thought out decision in favor of The Rochester Voice.
That judge was Daniel E. Will, who in an 11-page August ruling chastised the City of Rochester for its denial of government records to The Voice because the owner lives in Maine.
"(The court) is skeptical that (Rochester's intended) result was intended by the General Court when it considered the language of RSA 91-A," Judge Will noted in his decision. "The City's construction would create logical inconsistencies within the Right to Know law that further augur against the City's narrow construction of 'citizen.'"
Judge Will further stated that the value of The Rochester Voice to Rochester is viable and sound.
In fact, Judge Will found that The Rochester Voice was, indeed, a party "aggrieved" by the City of Rochester's actions.
"From the conclusion that The Rochester Voice is properly viewed as eligible to make public records requests flows the further conclusion that The Rochester Voice counts as a "party aggrieved" by the City's refusal to honor the records request at issue," he wrote.
Prior to the April 10 vote Lynn stated that HB66, in fact, will actually reduce the number of Right to Know requests, because only those who do business or have connections in Rochester will have access to digital delivery.
"If someone calls from Beijing and wants a government record they'll be told to show up at city offices during regular business hours," he said. "I don't think they're going to fly over."
Thursday's Senate hearing at the State House begins at 1 p.m.