Relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.
HB 66 expands New Hampshire’s Right to Know law (RSA 91-A) in several ways. It changes the definition of governmental proceedings to refer to functions affecting any person, not just citizens, and replaces “every citizen” with “any person” in the public records access provisions. The bill also expressly allows requests for governmental records to be made electronically or by mail, and requires public bodies to provide records electronically or by mail at the requester’s election, subject to postage for mailed copies and existing lawful copying charges. It further clarifies that electronic copies need only be provided in the format the agency already maintains, unless a standard or common file format can be produced, and it includes exceptions for lack of technological capability, undue burden, or security concerns.
The bill also broadens disclosure of meeting-related materials by making preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body subject to inspection after a meeting, along with notes, tapes, and other sources used to compile minutes. Finally, it changes the appeal process for Right to Know ombudsman rulings by allowing any party to appeal to superior court within 30 days, requiring the ruling to be attached and considered by the court, and preserving the rule that citizen-initiated appeals have no filing fee or surcharge. The bill takes effect 60 days after passage.
HB 66 would amend multiple sections of RSA 91-A, New Hampshire’s right-to-know statute, to broaden who may request records, expand the categories of disclosable materials, and modernize the request-and-delivery process. It would likely increase access to public records for nonresidents, data requesters, and others who do not appear in person, while also imposing new administrative obligations on state, county, and local public bodies. The bill could also affect how agencies manage drafts, electronic records, and appeal litigation involving the Right-to-Know Ombudsman.
The available vote history suggests the bill was controversial and did not command clear consensus. One recorded vote on a motion to table failed, indicating a majority opposed setting the bill aside, while a later recorded vote on OTPA passed, showing enough support to advance the measure. Overall, the bill appears to have drawn meaningful support from members favoring broader transparency and easier access, alongside substantial opposition from members concerned about workload, costs, and expanded disclosure obligations.
The main points of contention are the bill’s expansion of access beyond New Hampshire citizens, the inclusion of preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum of a public body, and the requirement that agencies accept electronic or mail requests and provide electronic copies when possible. Opponents are likely concerned about increased request volume, burdens on agency staff, confidentiality review, and possible litigation, especially for out-of-state requesters and data aggregators. Supporters appear to favor greater public access, reduced barriers to records requests, and clearer rules for electronic disclosure and appeal procedures.