[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6063803,"mediaKeyId","3262606-d25ff23917c0a80ea0356d97ae945ec7","parentId",3262606,"title","County attorney proposes adopting sheriff’s 91‑A policy; staff pursue archival solution for text messages","audioSeconds",478,"startMs",387000,"endMs",865000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3262606-d25ff23917c0a80ea0356d97ae945ec7&start=387&end=865","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3262606-d25ff23917c0a80ea0356d97ae945ec7/thumbnail_387000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6063803/Rockingham-County/New-Hampshire/County-attorney-proposes-adopting-sheriffs-91A-policy-staff-pursue-archival-solution-for-text-messages","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063803-434cf8c81d8071f996fefbd8bc167a23/orig.mp4?Expires=1773638960&Signature=KGt1RPDROe99FWboPrReAR0tqwBjHoH0VPIj41ccMMJRuMyCHqkEE6vqhnBeYAkGxfQnJ-MDQxmaENmQdWeUutseYcIclgcSwpRTvBO9iEzpbEffor5JFa9pP3N9YJjM5C7U~sB45IvwqHyWUAtdx1jeGgiRBjMGpYABwB9RgANwbr~f3sqpBHpcSWd4ghgTX8qQfbVMFb~sf4deNua8YtkaRxBlglIiKOxCIZC7ofRl9pQLrS~NqO7XZKwNAT8XBIUYpHG7DhicEOO~fMjLgKwgiTZSq6Etmgvj0NkvXwmXb7vBOzazrWpzgf~17FR1JcEfY60h4vCCYTOlFyccdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Rockingham County NH","date","2025-05-09T17:53:49Z","article","Rockingham County’s county attorney told commissioners May 8 that the county lacks a consolidated policy for responding to RSA 91‑A right‑to‑know records requests and proposed using the sheriff’s department policy as a template for the county.

The county attorney said the sheriff’s policy includes fees and practical procedures for providing records in paper or electronic formats and that the sheriff’s office had not received complaints under that approach. He recommended the commission consider adopting a similar countywide policy after legal review.

Commissioners and staff discussed fees and practical issues for electronic records. The county attorney and staff raised questions about charging per‑page fees for records delivered electronically. One commissioner warned a per‑page fee for USB copies of thousands of pages might be an impediment to access; another said legal guidance is needed because law on charging for electronic access has changed.

Staff reported that AT&T retains only about 48 hours of call‑metadata, meaning text content often resides on devices and is not available from the carrier without a subpoena and formal legal process. The meeting included a discussion of costs: a staff member said AT&T would require a formal request and a fee (noted in the meeting as about $70) to produce certain records.

To address archiving gaps for texts and other electronic records, county staff have scheduled a CivicPlus demo to evaluate a software solution that can archive messages across county systems and make compliance with records requests less burdensome. Robin Bernier and other staff indicated the demo was scheduled for the week following the meeting and that CivicPlus could centralize multiple systems’ records.

Commissioners instructed staff to compile policies and consult county counsel and vendors — including PrimeX templates and the sheriff’s existing policy — to draft a recommended county policy for commissioners’ review. No policy was adopted at the May 8 meeting; next steps are legal review and further policy drafting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Commissioners Meeting Part One 5/8/2025","oneSentenceSummary","County Attorney raised the need for a formal RSA 91‑A (right‑to‑know) records policy and recommended using the sheriff’s longer‑standing policy as a starting point; staff are testing CivicPlus archival tools to capture texts and electronic records after AT&T said it retains call metadata only 48 hours.","taxTitle","Rockingham County, New Hampshire","taxId",54226,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6063808,"Rockingham County approves 5‑year Sodexo management agreement for long‑term care services with CPI and party‑name clarifications",568,1500000,2068000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3262606-d25ff23917c0a80ea0356d97ae945ec7&start=1500&end=2068","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3262606-d25ff23917c0a80ea0356d97ae945ec7/thumbnail_1500000.jpg","/articles/6063808/Rockingham-County/New-Hampshire/Rockingham-County-approves-5year-Sodexo-management-agreement-for-longterm-care-services-with-CPI-and-partyname-clarifications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063808-56ab0f40dd772ea8f8f498783587c792/orig.mp4?Expires=1773638960&Signature=X1quUQtoTuykPepAU2ayg9IvF4nkCiQNO59CUZDhdQICCVN~aRc7pDR4oxWJ6RZ6uPySsQa0INOl8XnGKbZlrZiUqYKdPTewE1eXzX6CZrV-Ou0ZC4JiAjGhYbE0vIySaJSAKEVgxJuVPX00NBY9SI1o~Vk8m5Vfbb47j1kXnXinTG-vYsi8LMQKtlhryQ5-Hol3OTae9IAOq8PVtaHR4Mpo4ULICqeEzK4V-cD9Y4j8MwmQMOGOcJGsspPIVxxwUj6HbOXFJ6fLysWRMTUehXXYWbf2PMb46KiuSb-asHrlqDDFr9Ic29IcNJONnkclntSk1Cn-0TTw2GJCUshikg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rockingham County Board of Commissioners voted May 8 to approve a five‑year management agreement with Sodexo Operations LLC to provide food services for county long‑term care operations, with two contract clarifications requested by commissioners.

The approved motion authorized the chair to sign the agreement once Sodexo’s contract language was revised to list Rockingham County as the contracting party and to define cost‑of‑living increases using the Boston–Cambridge–Newton January consumer price index (CPI).

Commissioners and department staff discussed several contract provisions before the vote, including whether the contract’s heading correctly identified the county as the party, how meals tax would be handled for café operations, and how the contract’s CPI‑based increases would be calculated.

Several speakers identified technical edits they wanted included. One county official asked that the contract’s header read that it was between “Rockingham County” and Sodexo rather than naming a single facility, because the county — not just the nursing home — is the contracting entity. The board also asked to specify the CPI source; Finance Director Chuck Nickerson recommended using the January Boston–Cambridge–Newton CPI because it is published in February and aligns with departmental budget timing.

Other points discussed included whether the contract’s language left unlimited indemnity to Sodexo and which CPI series (food away from home or other indices) would be used to calculate annual adjustments. Board members said those items had already been reviewed by county counsel, TriNet and finance staff and that the contract had been scrubbed through negotiations before the meeting.

The final motion filed at the meeting read in part: “I make a motion to approve the Sodexo Operations LLC management agreement for a term of 5 years commencing 07/01/2025 and shall continue thereafter until terminated with additional changes to said contract reflecting Rockingham County as the party and subject to the CPI as defined by Boston Cambridge Newton January CPI. Authorize the chair to sign all necessary documents as recommended by the senior director of long term care services.”

The motion passed; commissioners recorded affirmative votes and authorized the chair to sign the revised contract once the edits were incorporated. The board also approved related long‑term‑care items on the same agenda — a day‑program rate addition for Easterseals and an annual compliance services agreement — during the meeting’s business items.

Commissioners said they and staff would continue to monitor contract language on CPI indexing, meal‑tax treatment for on‑site café sales, and indemnity language as the final paperwork is executed.","The board approved a five‑year management agreement with Sodexo Operations LLC to manage county long‑term care food services, with edits specifying Rockingham County as contracting party and tying annual increases to the Boston–Cambridge–Newton January CPI.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6063813,"Rockingham County commissioners, public express concern after sheriff’s office signs ICE training agreement",2219,3269000,5488000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3262606-d25ff23917c0a80ea0356d97ae945ec7&start=3269&end=5488","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3262606-d25ff23917c0a80ea0356d97ae945ec7/thumbnail_3269000.jpg","/articles/6063813/Rockingham-County/New-Hampshire/Rockingham-County-commissioners-public-express-concern-after-sheriffs-office-signs-ICE-training-agreement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063813-ddc22809dd3487eb21fb17b1470a51ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1773638960&Signature=D~T7OQubKoiptMEmPYDRFNpSMDUy9PSTithqWbjwsqlDOenYiGuV5X~Xbs2l8eaywlr3lArHGcTaQqwCeQaK3V9sPPt9wXjK~bhI8~KPikoRQK9t5c6qpe5yaX~Hq24~4DpkmtKQLVLdxTZUDpheZMM-S5zhyEP3rnLEN~UWUM~zqK4ZNOyBf5JUDyI4Akrc1mDBH7u6qwDXQkt2zoO9vhH39qfjTfl9d58mol9-t7J5PRmZEyq3whvgGRuRg6aCE1KLkIK~x~w9sngVraHec8RiIS~eqxnXk9DdW817wRMAUj7AaC10LNSLrvB1O-2wRACNDLhXvcbEioqTl8XUpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners at the Rockingham County Board of Commissioners’ May 8 meeting discussed a recently signed agreement between the sheriff’s office and federal immigration authorities after several commissioners said they first learned about the contract from media reports.

The topic drew a lengthy public comment period with residents warning that local participation with federal immigration enforcement risks civil‑liberties violations, lawsuits and damage to community trust.

Commissioner Foyle said the agreement should have been disclosed to the board earlier. “We weren’t given a chance to approve it. We weren’t given a chance to look at it,” Foyle said during the meeting, adding that learning about the contract from a Boston Globe article was “wrong.”

Commissioner Peter Gaudu, who serves as liaison to the sheriff’s office, told the board the sheriff’s office said the signed document was for training and that the training was provided at no cost. Gaudu described the sheriff’s statement that training would clarify procedures when deputies encounter people who may have immigration detainers and said the matter appeared operational rather than a policy decision.

Jason Henry, the county superintendent of corrections, and multiple members of the public told the board they were concerned about the scope of the agreement and whether county facilities or staff would be used to hold federal immigration detainees.

Several residents who spoke during public comment urged the commissioners to investigate. Sarah Cornell of Portsmouth said, “We are talking about our neighbors. People that we know and that we love” and urged the board to consider the human impact of local participation in federal immigration enforcement.

Other commenters raised fiscal concerns, saying training still removes deputies from regular duties and could create hidden costs; one commenter noted that cellphone records and other operational support can generate expense. Former Commissioner Kevin Coyle told the board he had obtained records via a right‑to‑know request indicating a February agreement had been signed and urged the board to consider potential legal and reputational risks from holding federal detainees.

No formal board action to approve or reject the sheriff’s agreement was taken at the May 8 meeting. Commissioners asked for follow‑up: the sheriff’s office was expected to provide more information and the sheriff’s major was reported to be scheduled to make a presentation to the board at a later time.

The discussion made clear the board’s split between viewing the matter as an operational training issue and seeing it as a policy question that warrants full commissioner review, and multiple residents said they planned further engagement with the board.

The board moved on to other business and then opened a public‑comment period where most speakers focused on the sheriff/ICE topic; commissioners indicated they would pursue additional information from the sheriff’s office and from the department that signed the agreement.","Commissioners and residents raised concerns after learning the sheriff’s office signed an agreement with federal immigration authorities that commissioners say they were not told about. Public commenters urged transparency and warned of civil‑liberties and fiscal risks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County attorney proposes adopting sheriff’s 91‑A policy; staff pursue archival solution for text messages

Rockingham County approves 5‑year Sodexo management agreement for long‑term care services with CPI and party‑name clarifications

Rockingham County commissioners, public express concern after sheriff’s office signs ICE training agreement