Citizen in a RepublicNH House Testimony

HB114

House · 2025 sessionRepublicanKilled in House

Right-to-know records fees removal

AI-generated

Removes fees and charges for obtaining governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstates potential liability for disclosing information exempt from disclosure.

removing fees and charges for governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstating potential liability for disclosure of information exempt from disclosure.Official record

Right to KnowState GovernmentMunicipalitiesAI-generated

Division of testimonyComputed by this site

42 submissions

All 10 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.

Status

Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 6, 2025
  1. Introduced
  2. House
  3. Senate
  4. Governor
  5. Law
Sponsors, hearings & roll-call votes

The record · every submission as filed

42 submissions
Expand
MATTHEW RHODES
for Myself
Unity

Dear Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I am writing to express my strong support for HB114, which removes fees and charges for governmental records under the Right-to-Know law and reinstates potential liability for the improper disclosure of exempt information. This bill represents a critical step forward in ensuring the transparency and accountability of our government while protecting the public’s right to access information. Why HB114 is Necessary Eliminating Barriers to Public Records The removal of fees for inspecting or receiving governmental records ensures that access to public information is equitable and free from financial barriers. Transparency should not be dependent on one’s ability to pay. By eliminating these fees, the bill aligns with the fundamental principles of open government and ensures that all citizens have fair access to information, regardless of their economic circumstances. Strengthening Public Trust in Government When government records are freely accessible, public confidence in governmental operations increases. HB114 removes unnecessary hurdles that often discourage citizens from engaging in oversight and advocacy. By streamlining access to records, the bill fosters a culture of accountability and openness within public institutions. Balancing Transparency with Accountability This bill reinstates liability for the improper disclosure of information that is exempt from disclosure. This provision ensures that while transparency is expanded, safeguards are in place to protect sensitive or confidential information. It encourages public bodies to exercise caution and diligence in handling records, which ultimately serves the public interest. Economic and Practical Considerations Minimizing Administrative Costs The removal of complex fee structures will reduce the administrative burden on public agencies, saving time and resources that are currently spent calculating, collecting, and justifying fees. This change allows agencies to focus on fulfilling requests efficiently, rather than on cost recovery processes. Fair Access in the Digital Age With most records now stored and shared electronically, the actual cost of providing records is often negligible. Charging fees for such records is outdated and inconsistent with the modern capabilities of government. HB114 acknowledges this reality and modernizes the Right-to-Know law accordingly. Addressing Fiscal Concerns While there may be a modest decrease in revenue for state, county, and local government entities that previously relied on fees, the benefits of increased public access and trust far outweigh these costs. Furthermore, HB114 does not impose new unfunded mandates, and its fiscal impact can be managed within existing resources. Conclusion HB114 reflects the core values of transparency, accountability, and fairness that define good governance. By removing fees for access to governmental records and reinstating liability for the improper disclosure of exempt information, this bill strikes a thoughtful balance between empowering the public and protecting sensitive data. I urge the committee to support HB114 and recommend its passage. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to upholding the public’s right to know. Sincerely, Matthew Rhodes

Support
Laura Condon
for Myself
Bedford

This bill is necessary for open and transparent government accessible to everyone. Please vote OTP.

Support
Crystal Pelletier
for Myself
Stark

Towns should be allowed to charge some fee for people who want copies of everything under the sun. I understand and agree with the right to know but you need to still provide some sort of protection for the town. People are already sue happy. Please stop the madness.

Oppose
Ronald Beard
for Myself
Campton

HB 114 Waterville Estates Village District (WEVD) is committed to transparency and believes that Right-to-Know (RTK) is an integral part of that transparency. Allowing residents to ask for governmental records encourages open and honest communication between government and the people they serve, allowing for mutual trust and respect to grow. Passage of HB 114 would not allow municipalities to recoup costs for large requests that will undoubtedly financially burden them. As a small municipality, a request meeting the requirements to be eligible for fees would present an immense staff burden and increased staff time to respond to such a request. For those reasons, we ask that the House Judiciary Committee not move forward HB 114.

Oppose
Laura Colquhoun
for Myself
Nashua

Please support this bil. Thank you.

Support
Karen Edwards
for Myself
Durham

On February 22, 2024 I received the following Right-to-Know request: "Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A), I am requesting public access, within 5 business days, to the governmental records reasonably described as follows: Any emails for the last 10 years to or from any town employee or any town council member with any of the following words contained in the email: LGBTQ, Transgender, Gender confused, CRT, Divisive, Diverse, inclusion, Drugs, Guns, Free lunch, Vaccine, Liberal, Transitioning, Safe, Triggered, Global warming, Vaping, Election, Vote, Zero tolerance, Equality Per RSA 91-A:4 IV(c) If you deny any portion of this request, please cite the specific exemption used to justify the denial to make each record, or part thereof, available for inspection along with a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the information withheld. Please email the records available in electronic format to me at jennydeck@yahoo.com. If any aren’t available in electronic format, please let me know when these records are available for inspection. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jennifer" I determined that this person was a NH resident. Thanks to RSA 91-A, IV(e), I was able to ask her if there were something specific she needed. She agreed to modify her request to emails between 10/2/23-2/21/24. Even still, there were over 10,000 emails that I had to review for personal information. I then had to send personal emails to our Town Attorney to redact, as I do not have that ability. In all it took me until June 26, 2024, four months, to complete this Right-to-Know request while still completing my regular workload. If the law is changed to allow anyone, NH resident or not, to file a Right-to-Know request, this would increase the number of Right-to-Know requests and increase the time local officials and employees would not be able to do the work they needed to do. And removing the ability to ask for a reasonable modification would mean large requests would take months, maybe even years to complete. Another concern is that expanding the definition to “person” could aid in fraudulent activities and identity theft – including, but not limited to, AI “bots” posing as individuals to harvest personal information from municipal records. In addition, creating liability for wrongful disclosure adds another layer of risk (and cost) for municipalities. I respectfully asked that you not allow this bill to move forward to the House for vote.

Oppose
Sally Haber
for Myself
Acworth

Remove "The" at the beginning

Support
Harvey Scobie
for Myself
Temple

I don't believe fees should ever be charged for copies of records under the Right to Know law and officials should be penalized for any obstruction of these requests.

Support
Cathy Stacey
for Myself
Salem

The Registry of Deeds recorded instruments are not records under 91-A, however, to ensure that exemption remains in tact, I would like to see a statement to that effect in the proposed legislation. There is a fee associated in every county for copies of instruments recorded at our offices.

Neutral
Maureen Hardy
for Myself
Londonderry

Fees should have never been implemented for 91a requests.

Support
Megan Schmitt
for Myself
CONCORD

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Deborah Sumner
for Myself
Jaffrey

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Allison Smith
for Myself
Campton

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Cheryl Dean
for Myself
Northwood

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Taci Guven
for Myself
Windham

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Selectwoman Julie Gilman
for Town of Exeter
Exeter

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Beth Scaer
for Myself
Nashua

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Jean Brown
for Myself
Hanover

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Paul Terry
for Myself
Alton

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Jennifer Mercer
for Myself
Loudon

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Phillip Warren
for City of Berlin
Berlin

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Carol Morrison
for Myself
W Lebanon

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Daniel Richardson
for Myself
Nashua

Position recorded without written comment.

Support
Paul Dargie
for Myself
Milford

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Janet Lucas
for Myself
Campton

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose