Committee narrows Right-to-Know appeals language, drops a fee waiver and advances House Bill 66

The Finance - Division I committee considered House Bill 66, an amendment package to the Right-to-Know law that clarifies who may request records and how electronic requests are handled. Committee members focused debate on two items: whether to waive a filing fee for appeals from the Ombudsman’s rulings, and how to define "member of the media" and the scope of electronic-request obligations.

After discussion, committee members voted 6–3 to strike the sentence on page 2, line 17 that read, "appeals shall have no filing fee or surcharge." Committee staff and some members said the Right-to-Know Office and the court system currently provide lower-cost Ombudsman review options and courts retain customary fees; supporters of fee removal said court fees could discourage access for requesters. The amendment passed 6–3 and the committee then voted 6–3 to recommend HB 66 "ought to pass with amendments."

Key points from the record: - The bill changes several references in statute from the term "citizen" to "person" to expand who can request records and allows individuals with a New Hampshire connection (residency, property ownership, business) to request electronic records and receive them in their native electronic format if the government holds them in that format. DES and municipal representatives said they will not be required to scan paper records into electronic form if records only exist on paper. - Several members expressed concern about the administrative cost of providing records electronically to large or out-of-state requests, and the bill limits the electronic-request entitlement to people or entities with a New Hampshire nexus. - Committee staff flagged the fiscal note as indeterminable in part because the Right-to-Know Office could absorb incremental costs without a separate appropriation, but that courts and local authorities might experience small changes depending on volume.

Votes and outcome: - Amendment to remove the no-fee sentence (page 2, line 17): adopted 6–3. - Committee recommendation: HB 66 recommended "ought to pass with amendments," 6–3.

Speakers (selected): - Rep. Lynn (sponsor/introducer) — explained the background and the Rochester case that raised the "citizen" vs "person" issue (first referenced at 530.215). - Melissa (committee staff) — advised on fiscal notes and implementation details (examples at 872.275). - Rep. Griffin — argued against court filing fees and for greater access; noted the Ombudsman path provides a lower-cost alternative.

Provenance (transcript excerpts): - Topic intro: "...what '66 did was it expanded the availability of people to be able to get information under the right to know law..." (Rep. Lynn, transcript block_id: "530.215"). - Amendment adoption and final vote: "All those in favor? Okay. It looks unanimous..." followed by later recorded 6–3 votes on amendment and final recommendation (transcript block_id: "1292.765").

Why it matters: The changes alter who can request records electronically and clarify municipal responsibilities for electronic formats. The committee removed a fee waiver for appeals, a decision that affects access and cost trade-offs for residents who choose court review rather than Ombudsman processes.

Searchable tags: [right_to_know, HB66, public_records, ombudsman]

Salience: overall 0.60 — public access to records is a recurring public-interest issue with fiscal and procedural implications.