Ed Naile, CNHT
Here we go! Liberal Democrats in charge and the first thing they do is:
GUT THE RIGHT TO KNOW LAW!
They tried it last year and lost. This is the worst part of the old HB626.
Here is the way it works:
“Communications” AMONG A QUORUM outside a legal meeting taxpayers can attend, record, videotape, or read about ARE NOW LEGAL as long as those communications (read e-mails and phone calls) are DISCLOSED AT THE NEXT MEETING!
Of course there is no reason THAT meeting can't be another “Communication Outside the Meeting,” at least until AFTER town meeting is over – wink, wink.
How stupid do these guys think people are? Apparently not very because this bill is getting the bums rush.
Taxpayers wind up in court all the time as it is over public documents that are absolutely public. See Dover for an example. This lawyer-created language guarantees more of the same.
Below is the bill. Read it for yourself. Its unconstitutional by the way.
(The good part is overreaching like this is what will lose the legislature for the Democrats once voters find out. Voters added the Right To Know to our State Constitution by over 80%. It can be reversed when sane people are back in charge if it does pass.)
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seven
AN ACT relative to communications outside meetings under the right-to-know law.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Communications Outside Meetings. Amend RSA 91-A by inserting after section 2 the following new section:
91-A:2-a Communications Outside Meetings.
I. Any communications, in whatever form, outside a meeting among the members of a quorum of the membership of a public body which bear upon matters over which such body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power shall be disclosed at the next meeting of the body before any decision may be made, including a decision not to act. If such communications are in writing, copies or printouts shall be made a part of the public record. Communications among less than a quorum of members need not be disclosed.
II. Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit of this chapter.
III. The disclosure requirements of paragraphs I and II shall not apply to communications specifically exempted from the definition of a “meeting” under RSA 91-A:2, I.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2007.
HOUSE BILL 82
AN ACT relative to communications outside meetings under the right-to-know law.
SPONSORS: Rep. J. Thomas, Belk 5; Rep. J. Garrity, Rock 6; Rep. Espiefs, Ches 3
ANALYSIS: This bill clarifies communications outside a meeting for the purposes of RSA 91-A.
This bill "clarifies" all right! It calrifies how far you can trust and official that votes for it.
So far, the media and the liberals in the Democrat party have played their hand well during the Buckley-gate scandal.
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt is in the process of being demonized for not having “solid proof” of Democrat party star, Ray Buckley, having kiddie porn. He is now on media-trial for engaging in what is being portrayed as phony a political hit. (Do THEY have any solid evidence this is a phony story?)
This helps avoid the tough question which is: What in the heck was the Governor thinking calling the Democrat Party to tip them off to a criminal investigation of their newly knighted heir to the Party throne?
The Democrats and the media are in a fix.
How to do a good, thorough, smear-job on Vaillancourt for writing the letter about Ray Buckley, while not dragging the issue out in the papers too long.
Releasing the original letter by Vaillancourt late Friday was logical.
The only trump card the Dems have left to play beside that old trick is standard operating procedure.
Get a few “prominent” Republicans to denounce Steve Vaillancourt.
I will be happy when the Buckley/Vaillancourt part of this story is over and we go from the “low level break-in - to the obstruction of justice” phase of the story.
There are only 50 Governors in the US and we get one who tips possible offenders off that the cops are coming during a kiddie-porn raid.
Governor Lynch called Democrat Party Chair Kathy Sullivan???
Kind of gives you a glimpse into his thought process doesn't it?
A State Representative gives you a letter saying he had seen, as the 16-year landlord for a person YOU BOTH KNOW, child pornography regarding single digit-aged children. And that he knew of this same material being brought into the country by this same person from overseas where much of this illegal material originates.
Would you think it was a crime worth reporting - if you were the Governor who campaigns on child protection?
It has been reported that Governor Lynch turned the letter detailing kiddie porn to the NH Attorney General - and Kathy Sullivan the alleged possessor of the material's close friend.
How come the NH media isn't asking tough questions of anyone but Steve Vaillancourt?
649-A:1 Declaration of Findings and Purposes. –
I. The legislature finds that there has been a proliferation of exploitation of children through their use as subjects in sexual performances. The care of children is a sacred trust and should not be abused by those who seek to profit through a commercial network based upon the exploitation of children. The public policy of the state demands the protection of children from exploitation through sexual performances.
II. It is the purpose of this chapter to facilitate the prosecution of those who exploit children in the manner specified in paragraph I. In accordance with the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York v. Ferber, this chapter makes the dissemination of visual representations of children under the age of 16 engaged in sexual activity illegal irrespective of whether the visual representations are legally obscene; and the legislature urges law enforcement officers to aggressively seek out and prosecute those who violate the provisions of this chapter.
Source. 1983, 448:2, eff. Aug. 23, 1983.
649-A:3 Offenses. –
I. A person is guilty of a felony if such person:
(a) Sells, delivers or provides, or offers or agrees to sell, deliver or provide, any visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity; or
(b) Presents or directs a visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity, or participates in that portion of such visual representation which consists of a child engaging in sexual activity; or
© Publishes, exhibits or otherwise makes available any visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity; or
(d) Possesses any visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity for purposes of sale or other commercial dissemination; or
(e) Knowingly buys, procures, possesses, or controls any visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity; or
(f) Knowingly brings or causes to be brought into this state any visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity.
II. An offense under paragraph I shall be:
(a) A class B felony if such person has had no prior convictions in this state or another state for the conduct prohibited by paragraph I;
(b) A class A felony if such person has had one or more prior convictions in this state or another state for the conduct prohibited by paragraph I.
Source. 1983, 448:2. 1991, 27:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992. 1998, 361:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1999.
642:3 Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution. –
I. A person is guilty of an offense if, with a purpose to hinder, prevent or delay the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he:
(a) Harbors or conceals the other; or
(b) Provides such person a weapon, transportation, disguise or other means for avoiding discovery or apprehension; or
© Warns such person of impending discovery or apprehension; or
(d) Conceals, destroys or alters any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension or conviction of such person; or
(e) Obstructs by force, intimidation or deception anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of such person; or
(f) Having knowledge that an investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization under RSA 570-A to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication, or under RSA 570-B to install and use a pen register or trap and trace device, gives notice of the possible interception or installation and use to any person.
II. The offense is a misdemeanor unless the actor knows that the charge made or liable to be made against the other is murder or a class A felony, in which case it is a class B felony.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1988, 25:6. 1995, 280:10, I, eff. Aug. 20, 1995.
Calls for restraint are flowing in regarding Buckley-gate and it is only fair to heed them. After all, an accusation is just that- an accusation until all the evidence can be examined and fashioned into an excuse for not prosecuting.
So I reached back in time and gathered some examples of restraint during a past administration. Guess what Party website these samples are from.
Sullivan Calls on Executive Council to Demand Answers from Craig Benson on Reported Efforts to Influence Attorney General’s Pepin Report
New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan today called for the Executive Council to conduct its own inquiry into Governor Craig Benson’s alleged efforts to influence the Attorney General’s official report on the Linda Pepin investigation, and into the possibility that Heed’s forced resignation was retaliatory.
“What did Craig Benson ask the Attorney General to put in the report?
Was he trying to protect his “volunteer” and former employee Linda Pepin?
When the Attorney General refused, what did Craig Benson do?
Is the apparently forced resignation by Peter Heed related to his refusal to permit Benson to influence the report?
Is Heed being forced out because Heed recommended that Benson’s friend and former employee Joe D’Alessandro be removed as personnel director?
Before the Executive Council accepts Heed’s resignation or approves the Ayotte nomination, the Council has an obligation to the people of New Hampshire to demand answers.” Sullivan said. Posted: 6/22/2004
Benson’s Own Record Demands Explanation
Governor Hides Behind Tough Talk, but Record Against Women is Clear
Governor Craig Benson owes the people of New Hampshire an explanation for his own record of discrimination against women while he tries to hide that record behind tough talk and the resignation of Attorney General Peter Heed.
In light of Attorney General Peter Heed’s resignation over sexual harassment charges, Gov. Craig Benson needs to explain his own – far worse record – on women and sexual discrimination. Posted: 6/18/2004
Attorney General Should Re-Open Linda Pepin Investigation
New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan today called on Attorney General Peter Heed to reopen the investigation into Linda Pepin and Joe D’Alessandro, and to appoint an independent counsel to lead the investigation.
“The revelations from the Department of Insurance’s investigation – including the deliberate attempts by Gov. Benson’s aide Linda Pepin and his personnel director Joe D’Alessandro to conceal their wrongdoing – makes it clear that the Attorney General’s investigation did not dig deep enough,” Sullivan said. “Linda Pepin walked away with $187,000 in taxpayer money, and the consequences of her actions are still reverberating. The Attorney General should reopen its investigation, and appoint an independent attorney to lead it.” Posted: 6/14/2004
Governor Must Release Information on Volunteers
NHDP Wins Right-to-Know Case
A Merrimack County Superior Court Judge has ruled in favor of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, ordering Gov. Craig Benson to release a list of the names and duties of the so-called volunteers who have served in his administration, and almost all communications written or received by two of those “volunteer” aides, Ray Marshall and Linda Pepin.
The New Hampshire Democratic Party filed the right-to-know request in November 2003. The Concord Monitor had earlier requested similar information.
“Citizens should not have to go to court to get basic information about who is running their government,” said Kathy Sullivan, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “While we are obviously pleased, it is sad that Gov. Benson has so stonewalled the public that it took more than a year, and a court case, to get this most basic information.
“This is the most secretive and unaccountable administration in New Hampshire history. We hope that Governor will now finally stop stonewalling and release this basic information,” Sullivan said. “The Governor should release this information, and also require his volunteers to release information about their outside business interests. As we have already seen with the Linda Pepin case, those interests can have a direct influence on how the people’s business is conducted.”
Pepin, a Benson volunteer aide and former Cabletron employee, colluded with former Personnel Director Joe D’Alessandro (also a former Cabletron employee) to improperly collect $187,000 in state health insurance brokers’ fees. Posted: 6/4/2004
Let's see how many serious questions about who knew what and when crop up from the ancient NH media.
What did the Governor do with an accusation of kiddie porn?
Who else did he share it with?
When did Buckley get wind of it? Before or after the police contacted him. If they did.
How did so many Democrat leaders know what was in the letter so they could denounce it.
What did they know and when did they know it?
Ed Naile, Chair
Coalition of NH Taxpayers
Ed can be heard on NH Taxpayer Radio every Thursday evening from 6-8PM on WLMW 90.7FM
NH Taxpayer Radio