In an interesting line item on his September invoice, the selectmen’s attorney Richard Sager billed Tuftonboro taxpayers $73.50 for “Email from/to Karen with details on the redaction process (and why her suggestions are more time consuming or potentially violative of 91-A).”
It would be interesting to find out what Karen, the selectmen’s administrative secretary, suggested that Sager thought was “potentially violative of 91-A.” RSA 91-A is the Right to Know law, and the selectmen have spent much of the past year, as well as more than $20,000, attempting to make it harder for the public to gain access to public documents.
This is not the first “suggestion” Karen has made that can be considered “potentially violative of 91-A.”
In June of 2016, Karen Koch suggested in an email to Bob McWhirter, that she would not comply with the Right to Know law if she didn’t like the way requests were made. Karen wrote:
I will be glad to respond to legitimate Right to Know requests that are requested in a respectful manner. If requests are neither legitimate Right to Know requests or asked in an aggressive manner, I will refrain from responding. [Emphasis added.]
There is no “ask politely” requirement in RSA 91-A. If Karen ever did refuse to respond to a Right to Know request because, in her subjective opinion, it was “asked in an aggressive manner,” then that would be concerning — and “potentially violative of 91-A.”Published in