Judiciary hears bill to change ‘citizen’ to ‘any person’ in right-to-know law

CONCORD — The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 66 on Feb. 5, a bill that would replace the word “citizen” in New Hampshire’s right‑to‑know law (RSA 91‑A) with the broader term “any person” and add clarifications about electronic delivery and preliminary drafts.

Representative John Linn, the prime sponsor, said the change is meant to remove uncertainty about who may request public records and to confirm that requesters can ask for records in a preferred format. He told the committee that the bill “would permit any person to make a request for any information that is subject to the right to know law,” and that government bodies should provide records electronically when reasonably possible. Linn also said the bill explicitly lists “preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or a majority of the public body” among records subject to disclosure to avoid questions about whether those drafts are covered.

Supporters said the bill codifies existing practice and prevents a single municipality’s restrictive interpretation from becoming precedent. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, testified that, in his view, the proposed wording “is clarifying” and does not expand the law’s scope because case law and long practice already treated right‑to‑know requests as available to nonresident requesters. Catherine Coco of Right to Know New Hampshire said the statutory wording would help prevent municipalities from requiring in‑person appearances or otherwise deterring ordinary requests.

Opponents — largely municipal officials and clerks — said the change would oblige towns to accept and deliver records to requesters anywhere in the world, potentially at substantial cost. Cordell Johnston, an attorney representing several municipalities, testified that some out‑of‑state commercial requests are “fishing expeditions” that currently end when requesters are told the records are available at town hall. He warned the bill’s page‑1 requirement that a public body “shall provide” records electronically or by mail could force small clerks’ offices to print and mail thousands of pages at their own expense. The New Hampshire Municipal Association’s Sarah Bert Cohen said NHMA opposes HB 66 for those reasons and argued the constitutional and statutory framework can be read to focus the right to those with ties to New Hampshire.

Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on multiple points, including: whether the 24‑hour calendar requirement would be met for non‑germane amendments, how the fiscal note would be calculated, whether a domiciliary test would be more appropriate, and how electronic delivery should be handled where municipalities lack technical capacity. Witnesses pointed to HB 1002 (adopted last year) as a recent statutory accommodation for voluminous electronic communications, and ACLU and Right to Know witnesses said municipalities already have tools and options to limit burdened requests.

The hearing included repeated calls for clearer local policies, more training for municipal staff, and, from several speakers, proposals for narrower definitions that would limit requests to those with taxing or residency ties. No formal vote or motion on HB 66 occurred during the hearing.

Ending: Committee members left the hearing with follow‑up questions about fiscal impacts and implementation details; sponsors said they would provide further drafting notes and that the committee could take the bill up again at a later work session.