HippoPress -- The Hippo -- Guide to Manchester and Nashua NH

While you’re busy preparing for the holidays, the business of government goes on. And one piece of business being debated in the State House right now is an update to the state’s Right-to-Know law.

What is the Right-to-Know law? It’s a set of statutes that spells out the public’s access to the business of publicly elected bodies, such as city councils or boards of selectmen.

It’s an important group of laws. Why?

Often, due to the society we live in, we assume that public officials are inherently accountable to voters. Sure, we can throw the bums out. But what about what they do while they’re holding office? There’s nothing anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees you or me access to the discussions, debates and decisions of public boards.

Minutes? Don’t we have the right to see them? Don’t boards have to keep them? On this, the U.S. Constitution says nothing; neither does our state’s Constitution.

That’s where the Right-to-Know law comes in, in New Hampshire and elsewhere. Because of the need to spell out clearly the obligation of public officials to disclose information, each state has a set of laws. They’re often called “Sunshine” laws, and some are better than others.

In New Hampshire, our set resembles a leaky boat that’s constantly in need of bailing out. There are legitimate exceptions, but public officials seemingly always find loopholes and ways to circumvent it. Also, no specific penalties are attached to violations.

I’m sure public officials don’t take the oath of office intending to violate the public trust by conducting business in secret. But once elected, it’s sorely tempting to do business behind closed doors, because it’s just so much easier and faster.

A great example of how public officials try to get around the law was in Nashua some years back. As I recall, former Mayor Donald Davidson needed to discuss something with the board of aldermen, but didn’t want the public to know. To beat the Right-to-Know law, he met with aldermen in small groups, so a quorum wasn’t ever present.

The Telegraph of Nashua called him on it, and a judge ruled against Davidson. But the judge wouldn’t have had anything to rule on if we didn’t have a Right-to-Know law.

Now, in the 21st century, we need to update the law to include e-mail and instant messages and voicemail. What constitutes a public record?

We urge the legislators working on this update to remember that the Right-to-Know law is intended to protect the public. It’s not an impediment to good government; rather, it’s a way to ensure that public access to the activities of elected officials remains as broad as possible.

It’s a set of laws that, if anything, should be strengthened, not weakened.