However, he questioned Frydman’s choice to cite the 2008 Grafton County Superior Court case of KingCast.net, Christopher King v. Norelli, Rep. Martha McLeod, Franconia Police Chief Mark Montminy and Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. King had petitioned Norelli and McLeod to turn over e-mails they received concerning House Bill 1428, which sought to rename part of Interstate 93 after Bruce McKay, a Franconia Police corporal who was fatally shot in 2007. He also sought information from Ayotte and Montminy concerning the shooting and McKay.
Grafton County Superior Court Judge Timothy J. Vaughn dismissed King’s complaints. The judge said the law does not require individual legislators or government officials to personally make documents available and that such e-mails are not “governmental records.” ″... the question is whether e-mails involving individual legislators were created or received ‘on behalf of’ a public body,”
Gagliuso wrote in his e-mail. “It seems to me that this determination may require a review of the particular e-mails in question, and it is not clear that the Court in the King case undertook that kind of review.” He indicated the state’s Right-to-Know law could be updated to include a review of legislators’ e-mails to ensure they are not governmental records."In other words the lawmakers got away with a fast one, hiding behind their individual emails.
In Washington State I am correct. (AP Jan 19, 2018).
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Lanese sided with the group that sued in September, challenging the Washington Legislature’s assertion that lawmakers are excluded from stricter disclosure rules that apply to other elected officials and agencies.
While Lanese said the offices of individual lawmakers are subject to the Public Records Act, the Washington Legislature, the House and Senate were not. But regarding the individual lawmakers named, Lanese said the statute was clear. The law “literally says that representatives and senators and their offices are agencies under the Public Records Act,” he said from the bench. “The defendants have raised many different arguments contending that that is incorrect in this case.
However none of the arguments advanced by the defendants here can escape the fact that the plain and unambiguous language of the statute literally has a definitional chain that goes from agencies to state agencies to state offices to state legislative offices.” He noted lawmakers can always amend the law, but unless they do they are subject to the state’s public records law.