Open Government Day

24 Comments on Open Government Day

Paul on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 7:00 pm


---

Nicely done!


granite stater on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 7:24 pm


---

Nice posse you got there to harass the ladies in the clerks office.


Jeff on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 7:38 pm


---

So is it asking the bureaucrats to do their job according to their own rules that is harassment? Or is having multiple peaceful witnesses accompany you harassment?

Granite Stater, you statists have a very strange understanding of the english language.


Paul on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 7:41 pm


---

What I’d like to see is the government of the city of Keene to stop extorting money from peaceful people by threatening to kick them out of their own houses. Now that’s harassment. I’d also like them to be willing to be open and accountable for their actions while on the job. A guy can dream …


granite stater on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 7:46 pm


---

Jefft

You say I am a statist like it is a bad thing.


AnarchoJesse on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 7:57 pm


---

Granite Stater–

If you consider the idea that you, as well as all the rest of humanity, is incapable of best deciding for theirselves what occurs in their lives, you’re a pretty awful person in my book.


granite stater on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 8:20 pm


---

I believe in the collective Anarcho……..We are polar opposites. I have been watching your antics Anarcho, and I admire your in your face style.


AnarchoJesse on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 8:21 pm


---

By how do you mean, collective?


granite stater on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 9:21 pm


---

All contributing to the common good of the nation and her people by following the ideals of our elected officials. i.e. paying taxes and not breaking the laws.


Ian on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 9:35 pm


---

-silence-
“ma’am, are you going to respond?” – Golden!

I love the painting joke!


AnarchoJesse on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 9:37 pm


---

Pray tell, what is a common good? Is it something we can objectively qualify? This aside, let me give you the benefit of the doubt in relation to what the common good is– assuming it exists, how do we know what it is, especially give the very real evidence and circumstance of us disagreeing if the notion is even valid in the first place? But lets say we did all know what it is, and agree on it– how do we go about implementing it? History has shown us that social and economic engineering often have inhumane and atrocious consequences for the individuals involved.

Now, why the “elected official” worship? Aren’t they humans all the same, just like you and me? Am I to believe that they’re better people because of an arbitrary position of authority?

Spare me your jingoism, plebe.


Vix on Tue, 14th Jul 2009 11:58 pm


---

Granite stater is just another drone mindlessly following orders like a good serf.


Paul on Wed, 15th Jul 2009 12:09 am


---

Granite Stater, for starters, I’m interested in your response to the following thought experiment:

Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.

Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?


LSNL on Wed, 15th Jul 2009 3:47 am


---

Statist..

“All contributing to the common good of the nation and her people by following the ideals of our elected officials. i.e. paying taxes and not breaking the laws.”

That is one misinformed perspective. The “common good” delusion aside, the “by following the ideals of our elected officials”, rather then the intended; “election of officials to perform a specific function, designated by, and derived from, the ideals of the populace”, is a rare level of state adoration. Not surprising coming from someone proudly claiming to be a statist, and collectivist, since to think either could be righteous requires faulty logic.

I’m not trying to defend the original intentions for the state. The “populace” having a set of definable ideals is a fantasy. I’m just pointing out how far from a competent “American” you’d seem to those who thought creating a state was a good idea.

I know this is going to hurt (which, believe it or not, is not my intention) but, yes, even Mr. Nims would have thought you’re a fool.

I assume you’re appreciation for the rule of law will fall short of your worship of one of your masters, and keep you from considering holding Patty accountable for her violation of the law, and neglecting of her duties. Perhaps if Patty failed when another, favored, bureaucrat requested access to the records she’s supposedly responsible for providing, then you’d focus on her dereliction, rather then on the interruption of her day, and how rude you & she find it (though it is why her position exists).


Curt Springer on Wed, 15th Jul 2009 7:40 am


---

RSA 91-A:4 IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release. If a public body or agency is unable to make a governmental record available for immediate inspection and copying, it shall, within 5 business days of request, make such record available, deny the request in writing with reasons, or furnish written acknowledgment of the receipt of the request and a statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied. If a computer, photocopying machine, or other device maintained for use by a public body or agency is used by the public body or agency to copy the governmental record requested, the person requesting the copy may be charged the actual cost of providing the copy, which cost may be collected by the public body or agency. Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from paying fees otherwise established by law for obtaining copies of governmental records or documents, but if such fee is established for the copy, no additional costs or fees shall be charged.


Paul on Wed, 15th Jul 2009 9:41 am


---

Yes, Curt, it seems the law is a little more complicated. Here’s a link to RSA 91-A:4 http://www.eppingnospinzone.com/NH_Sunshine_Law/Section%2091-A4%20Minutes%20and%20Records%20Available%20for%20Public%20Inspection.htm

Here are the first three portions:

I. Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all public records, including minutes of meetings of the bodies or agencies, and to make memoranda, abstracts, and photographic or photostatic copies of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.

I-a. Records of any payment made to an employee of any public body or agency listed in RSA 91-A:1-a, I(a)-(d), or to the employee’s agent or designee, upon the resignation, discharge, or retirement of the employee, paid in addition to regular salary and accrued vacation, sick, or other leave, shall immediately be made available without alteration for public inspection. All records of payments shall be available for public inspection notwithstanding that the matter may have been considered or acted upon in nonpublic session pursuant to RSA 91-A:3.

II. After the completion of a meeting of such bodies or agencies, every citizen, during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all notes, materials, tapes or other sources used for compiling the minutes of such meetings, and to make memoranda, abstracts, photographic or photostatic copies, or tape record such notes, materials, tapes or sources inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.

III. Each body or agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such body or agency shall be kept in an office of the political subdivision in which such body or agency is located or, in the case of a state agency, in an office designated by the secretary of state.

This certainly seems to indicate these records shall be kept on file and made available for recording immediately. As you note, however, section 4 provides provision for records which are not on file.

My interpretation of this is that the records specifically listed must be available for immediate inspection, but that other records may not be — they may be made available after a few days.

I certainly do think it’s ambiguous, though.


SamIam on Wed, 15th Jul 2009 10:11 am


---

Curt – covering for YOUR government as usual eh?

RSA 91-A:4 IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release.

Yes not all records are available for immediate inspection. If the records are reasonably described, then they have 5 days to gather them if they are not “within it’s files”

Unfortunately they have no choice on keeping lawsuits and other documents on file and available for immediate public inspection. It’s kinda like a “Shall issue” concealed carry permit. They have no choice, but don’t let that stop you from making excuses for the criminals. . .

Of course this completely misses the point that cameras simply cannot be banned from the office. What excuse do you make for them handing vital records on the phone at the front desk, and taking notes where anyone could see them. Should they be able to ban cameras so they can continue violating even basic privacy precautions?


Curt Springer on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 12:47 am


---

I just watched the video.

My comment was only about 91-A. I have direct experience with 91-A, complying with it myself and expecting others in my town to comply with it.

I don’t have much experience or knowledge about laws for or against video recordings in public places. I have no reason to dispute the impression I have gotten from you and others that it is generally OK to do it in places open to the public, although I think that the 1978 constitutional amendment giving judicial rules the force of law might play into your situation with the court. So I don’t defend the “no video” sign in the clerk’s office or any of the efforts to stop you from videotaping. But none of that has anything to do with 91-A. 91-A clearly gives you the right to photograph or video a document. It does not address capturing people or conversations in a municipal office.

Regarding your requests:

The request for architectural plans of the Keene District Court clearly falls into the category of stuff that they can take up to 5 days to respond to. I’m sure you didn’t expect that somebody would just walk to a file cabinet and just pull them out. I don’t even expect that the city clerk even has the plans on file. You might have to go to the city facilities department or something. You kept talking about a “custodian of the records.” If your expectation is that one person is responsible for all of the records of the city, that is not correct. Each person or office is responsible for complying with 91-A for the records that they have.

Regarding the request for records of court settlements, you seem to think that “available”, per the section pertaining to court settlements, means “available for immediate inspection and copying”, per the section about all documents. I’m not convinced of that. They are required to keep such records going back 10 years. It’s quite possible that some of the older stuff is in a back room or off site, or that the one person who knows where the stuff all is is out sick on the day you visited. If they respond within the statutory 5 days, I don’t think you will be able to make the case that they were not in compliance with the statute.


SamIam on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 1:17 am


---

1978 decision or not, the so called order is not a judicial rule. Those only allow judges to set rules over the proceedings. Not the lobby. This is a tyrant who got embarrassed, drafting legislation and jailing people so they can’t make fun of us anymore. . . He’ll show us by costing taxpayers whatever it takes to win!

This is also not an educational how-to video, as that would be boring to watch and would be almost pointless to make. If somebody wants to do this they would have to look up local laws if they were not in NH, and reading the statutes before hand is a must.

I didn’t expect blueprints to be available. 5 days is reasonable. On the settlements you left something out Curt. It says “shall be kept on file at the municipal clerk’s office and made available for public inspection”

Is in a box in some other warehouse down the street the what you would consider “on file at the municipal clerk’s office”? By getting to the person responsible for the records it saves a go around with the lower clerks.

The city has responded BTW, they need to know the specific records I’m looking for.

Wow, they must have thought this was my first rodeo. Now I’m going to have to give them another 91-A Request to make sure I understand what records are available. This would be so much easier on them if they would stop fighting.


Paul on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 1:41 am


---

Yeah, I agree, the 5 day rule is for documents which do not fall under the “shall be available at the clerks office” rule.

Of course, the details of the law are really immaterial to the morality of the situation, but it certainly does appear that they violated their own rules — as well as moral laws, which goes without saying.


Curt Springer on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 8:20 am


---

Sam,
I have never understood the basis for the distinction you make between authority over the court room and authority over the adjacent lobby when it is occupied by court personnel and equipment performing the court security function.

But I expect that you and your lawyer will put forth a strong argument at your trial, and then we will get some clarity.

Regarding RSA 91-A:4 VI pertaining to records of court settlements, the main point is records retention. Other documents could be destroyed on any time length, but the minimum for these documents is 10 years. Your position seems to be that “available” is the same as “available for immediate inspection and copying.” You might be right, but you might not be. As a practical matter, if you were to request access to court settlements, and they asked you to put it in writing and come back in two days, and you went to superior court to file a complaint, which receives priority handling, and if the city responded that Suzy the deputy clerk who knows where everything is was off on a personal day, and that they would have the stuff ready for you the day after their response, do you really think that the court would order them to respond faster? I don’t.


SamIam on Thu, 16th Jul 2009 8:57 am


---

Suzie being on vacation. . . Not my problem. The law is the Law Curt. If the statute says on file and made available for public inspection, not knowing where they are is not on file or available for public inspection.

On the Court Lobby, Rule 1.4 of their district court rules use the words “in the courtroom” and “a proceeding” quite often. What’s never mentioned is the lobby. Unless under very special circumstances, there are no proceedings that go on in the lobby. Edward Burke has lost his mind when he (or whoever wrote the words on paper, as nobody is standing up to say I wrote it since it’s not signed) drafted legislation and ordered the men with guns to hurt people who don’t follow along with his little fiefdom.


Bill Gates on Sat, 18th Jul 2009 6:17 am


---

I’m still wondering where it was that I signed up for this crap.

I never signed no damn constitution. Other assholes did that.


Alex on Sat, 25th Jul 2009 4:00 am


---

The statute states that records must be made available within 10 days, not necessarily immediately. She said she would stamp date received. Did you receive the records within 10 days? If so, your argument is null and void. If you did not, then you have a valid argument against the Clerk.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!