03 November 2007

KingCast says it's official: Kelly Ayotte cannot produce a copy of the 2006 RSA-91 Commission Annual Report as apparently required by Law.

Yepper, as noted in this post I have repeatedly asked for it, because the work of the Commission dovetails with many of the issues presented in the litigation of KingCast v. NH AG Kelly Ayotte et al., Grafton Superior 07-E-268. Defendant Ayotte, who claims to vigorously support the Right-to-Know and who is the chief legal officer of the State, cannot point me to where a copy of it exists.

But is it really required or not? Read the comments to this post, in which we see
"3:2 Repeal. RSA 91-A:11 – RSA 91-A:15, relative to the right-to-know oversight commission, are repealed."

Then read this post containing the 3rd draft language for the 2007 Report, that I obtained from a source in NH Government. I dunno, maybe one day it will appear, just like Snuffy:


Christopher King said...

It will not appear at all.

Bud Fitch, Esq. finally responded and said that there was no 2006 report, all the while reminding me that "the decision whether to publish a report is made by the Commission, not by this office. The Right to Know Commission is a statutorily created commission, which is independent of this Office."

Nice try. Kelly and/or her Designee is on the Commission, and they have a statutory duty to issue an annual report, dammit:

"91-A:15 Report. -
The commission shall make an annual report beginning on November 1, 2005, together with its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the senate president, and the governor.
Source. 2005, 3:1, eff. May 3, 2005."

You see that operative term is "shall," not "may."

So Kelly and her designee have participated in BREAKING THE LAW.

Their failure to address the problem means that it will require people like me to sue on a piecemeal basis, and take it to the Supreme Court, as the 2007 3rd draft report stated. A copy of said report is included in the links on the front page of this entry.

"The members of the Commission strongly believe that, unless key stakeholder groups are willing to actively participate in the public debate and are willing to compromise their entrenched positions, the current weaknesses in the Right-to-Know law will never be corrected by legislative action, and the issues may be decided by the Supreme Court on a case by case basis."

Funny, Attorney Fitch asked me if I wanted a copy of the 2007 report.

Hell no, Man I've alread got that.


PS: The list of participants:

The members of the oversight commission shall be as follows:

(a) Four members of the house of representatives, one from the science, technology and energy committee, one from the municipal and county government committee, one from the judiciary committee, and one other member, appointed by the speaker of the house.

(b) Three members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate.

(c) Three municipal officials, appointed by the New Hampshire Municipal Association.

(d) One school board member, appointed by the New Hampshire School Boards Association.

(e) One school administrator, appointed by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association.

(f) Two county officials, appointed by the New Hampshire Association of Counties.

(g) Four members of the public, one of whom shall be an attorney who has knowledge of and experience with the right-to-know law, one of whom shall be an information technology professional, and one of whom shall be a telecommunications professional, all appointed by the governor with the consent of the council.

(h) The attorney general, or designee.

Christopher King said...

Just as there is no Police Report or Use-of-Force Report for Liko Kenney. See para. 2.

See we have McKay and Franconia following the lead of Kelly Ayotte, or Kelly Ayotte following the lead of Franconia.

Either way they are in patent, and blatant violation of The Law.

Also, Bud's answer to me is almost two (2) weeks late because as noted in this post, I asked them for the report on 15 October and again on 22 October and noted it again on 26 October.

Bud's and Kelly's responses to me were due in five (5) days. His letter to me (almost) cleverly reads

"By printed web-pages, sent by mail you have requested....."

But that doesn't cut it. I have repeatedly issued Right-to-Know requests from them via Internet, as I did with all of those blawg entries on the dates indicated; later I sent them in the mail. They have always responded to the email queries, even if sometimes late.

It doesn't matter how I issue the damn requests; I could write them on the back of a postage stamp if I did it legibly.

These guys are a bunch of clowns, making sport of taxpayer monies.