Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends taxpayer‑funded investigations bill to interim study after sharp debate with AG
Summary
HB 17‑46, which would make records from taxpayer‑funded investigations subject to RSA 91‑A with narrow redactions, was moved to interim study after testimony from Right to Know advocates in favor and the Attorney General's Office in strong opposition citing confidentiality and investigatory integrity concerns.
Representative Dennis Manning (introduced by sponsor) and Right to Know New Hampshire supporters argued HB 17‑46 would close a transparency gap by subjecting taxpayer‑funded investigations to RSA 91‑A and allowing only narrow redactions when federal or state law requires it (for example, HIPAA or FERPA). Carla Garrick, president of Right to Know NH, said the bill would prevent blanket secrecy in publicly funded probes and protect findings, conclusions and recommendations from being withheld.
The Attorney General's Office strongly opposed the measure. Senior assistant attorneys general told the committee that confidentiality is an essential investigative tool — for witness safety, to prevent evidence tampering, and to preserve due process — and warned the bill’s current text lacked a completion requirement and could force disclosure at early stages of criminal or administrative probes. Jeff Strelson said, “Confidentiality is an important tool that allows law enforcement agencies to maximize their chances of success in solving criminal cases in New Hampshire.”
Other witnesses — county officials, police leadership and municipal associations — argued the bill as drafted is too broad and would create significant fiscal burdens for redaction and review. Supporters, including parents and open‑government advocates, described instances where taxpayers paid for investigations without being told outcomes, increasing the public distrust the bill aims to remedy.
After extended questioning on scope, the timing of disclosure and exemptions (grand-jury proceedings, DCYF, personnel records), Representative Smith moved that the committee place HB 17‑46 in interim study so members and counsel could draft clarifying amendments. The motion passed by roll call 15‑0.
What happens next: The bill will remain in interim study while sponsors and stakeholders work on language to (a) define when investigations are eligible for disclosure, (b) preserve genuine and legally required confidentiality, and (c) limit fiscal impacts.
