"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
Alexander Hamilton

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Tuftonboro Right to Know Suit Rescheduled to February 22nd.

Judge Ignatius of Carroll County Superior Court has granted a Motion to Continue filed by Tuftonboro Town Counsel Rick Sager. The hearing in Town of Tuftonboro v. Maxim A.A.L. Blowen-Ledoux and Robert McWhirter has been rescheduled to February 22, 2017, at 1 PM. It will be a two-hour hearing.
At issue is whether a governmental entity can charge for the cost to print emails requested in a Right to Know request because of the need to redact confidential information, even though the request was to inspect the governmental records. 


Joseph Cormier said...

"Maxim Ledoux claims he is illegally being denied access to Tuftonboro emails"


AG's memo on RTK


Page 40 and following text is interesting:

"The cost of converting a record into a format that can be made available to the
public is not a factor in determining whether the information is a public
record. Hawkins v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, 147 N.H. 376 (2001)."

If communication is done electronically (email, Microsoft Office, etc.) and are capable of having sections deleted, rather than redacted, electronically, and then forwarded to requester, maybe town refusal is unreasonable. Why print at all? Save a tree(and taxpayer money)!

Anonymous said...

Why no comments allowed on your re-election post??? If you want our support, you will strongly advocate for eliminating the changes to Policy #2......that are driven by our new DPW director and not what the Planning Board was even asking for....see their recent tape. Remember, the current policy #2 has been in effect for over 23 years and I do not recall any major issues with private roads during this time period. So changes are not needed after 23 years. You must also STRONGLY advocate for continued plowing of private roads and ensuring that the DPW director does the correct job and not just a wink at the issue. We are all watching your response to this MAJOR issue across the town. If you want to represent ALL citizens, then this is one issue you need to stand up to and fix !!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I find it too much of a coincidence that at the same time there is discussion about plowing private roads, a proposal to amend Policy #2, which of course deals with private roads appears. How long does Town Counsel need to provide the opinion he was apparently asked for back in October. As far as the issue of plowing “not being driven by the DPW Director, see the except below from the October 27, 2016 meeting of the Selectmen. Beginning with “The Board addressed the concerns expressed by the DPW Director":

"At the Board’s
request both the DPW Director and Fire Chief have reviewed the existing recommended
minimum road standards and offered comments and recommendations. Walter provided
copies of the written recommendations and comments for both and reviewed them with
the Board. After discussion, the Board agreed to amend the policy with the specific
recommendation of the DPW Director and to schedule a public hearing soon on the
amendments. The Board also discussed making the standards part of the Town’s Land
Use ordinances and regulations as a requirement for existing and future private roads.
The Board addressed the concerns expressed by the DPW Director regarding the winter
maintenance of private roads and the legality and liability surrounding this practice. The
Board unanimously agreed to have Town Counsel and the Town’s insurance carrier
review the matter, and based on that information, to take the question to continue the
winter maintenance of private roads to the voters at the 2017 Town Meeting."

Moultonboro Blogger said...

There is no conspiracy or sub plot and I stand by my comment that the decision to investigate the issue of plowing private roads was not driven by the DPW Director. The BOS as a board made the decision.

Anonymous said...

I hope that is true. However the quote above regarding the "concerns expressed by the DPW Director" leave me wondering if we are being fed alternative facts. I agree that the Board voted to investigate but the real question is whether "the concerns expressed by the DPW Director" was the reason the Board voted to investigate.