Artwork by Rosemary Dery
Another citizen has stepped forward to run for one of the two Selectmen seats. We have one more day for people to declare their candidacy for a host of slots in addition to Selectman. Mr John Childs of Bittersweet Lane is now in the mix.
Hey, did you realize you could be just hanging around the Town Office and suddenly be shanghaied into a Supervisor of the Checklist slot?
I hope these candidates will have an opinion on the constant fishing expeditions going on by concerned citizens at the Town Office. I feel that before anyone asks for employees to pull every piece of paper for perusal they need to state intent. What is Brian Griset looking for? These investigations are costing us money and demonstrate a callous regard for current budget constraints . Could Aaron Sanborn dig in and get this story out for us all to discuss? I want to know why we have the same people asking the same questions over, and over , again.
What do they want? Is it a cabal? Should we ask the candidates? Is that even appropriate?
“You betcha!”
I have found in private conversation that it’s at best a loose association . They all have opinions on the other, believe me.
I wanted to insert a picture of someone on a high horse but found no image suitable.
Running for the Office of Selectman is a huge responsibility
Good Luck!
Frank Ferraro
Renee O’Barton
John Childs
Matt Quandt
In no particular order.
So make sure you find out why your candidate is running. Why wait for a debate?
Mike
The Exeter Town Crier 
NH AG’S MEMORANDUM
K. Public Inspection of Governmental Records – RSA 91-A:4, IV
Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all public bodies or public
agencies has the right to inspect all non-exempt governmental records, including
minutes of meetings of the bodies. This right of inspection is at the regular business
premises of the public body or agency. Citizens have the right to make memoranda,
abstracts, and photographic or photostatic copies of the records or minutes so
inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5. RSA 91-A:4, I.
The Right-to-Know law does not require the requesting party to identify himself or
herself and imposes no restrictions on use of the information once it is disclosed.
Associated Press v. N.H., 153 N.H. 120 (2005). It is permissible to ask the person
making a Right-to-Know request to put the request in writing. However, if he or she
declines, the individual receiving the request should create a written record for the
public body or public agency’s files. The written record should include the date of
the request and a description of the specific governmental records being requested.
Immediately available governmental records must be provided for inspection. When
this occurs, the written record should also document what governmental records were provided for inspection and/or which were copied.
LikeLike
Did any citizens on the Water & Sewer Advisory Committee ever use this device to secure turbidity logs from the Water Treatment Plant?
LikeLike
Mike what message are you sending with the German Iron Cross in the hat band?
LikeLike
Nice strawman above. No one is suggesting that the people going fishing don’t have right to do so. They’re fishing in public waters, so to speak. If they don’t to want to answer the newspaper’s questions as to what they’re fishing for, so be it. But that doesn’t mean that the questions shouldn’t be asked. Nor does it mean that the public shouldn’t be aware of the fact that the fisherman is wasting the time of public employees; probably the very same employees that the fisherman complains about. The broken irony-meter strikes again.
LikeLike
Just to get this straight. When a public employee answers a lawful request of a citizen it is a waste of time?
LikeLike
It could be. It depends on the nature & intent of the lawful request.
And just to get this straight. If one or a small handful citizens are making many such requests, might it not be a news story?
LikeLike
Again, from above: ‘The Right-to-Know law does not require the requesting party to identify himself or herself and imposes no restrictions on use of the information once it is disclosed.”
LikeLike
It certainly doesn’t. Your ability to accurately quote the law is impeccable. So the fisherman doesn’t have to ID himself to the town. But if the reporter knows who the fisherman is, he can certainly ask the fisherman about all the fishing that’s been going on. The fisherman can decline to answer. The reporter can still write the story.
Just because the law imposes no restrictions on the gathering or use of the info doesn’t mean that there isn’t time wasting going on. If 20 hours of searching for records reveals that selectmen have used 17 more paper clips than last year, one could say that particular search was, in fact, a waste of time. Was it legal? Absolutely. Does the fisherman have to ID himself? No. Can the News-Letter awake from its coma and write a story about how people are making perfectly legal right-to-know requests that are taking town employees 20 hours to come up with paper clip usage? Yes. Funny how certain people run screaming to the Local Paper with their perceived grievances, but when someone suggests that the light be shined (shone?) on them, they get a wee bit defensive. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.
LikeLike