Ed Naile, CNHT

Hear Ed Naile every Wednesday morning on WLMW 90.7 FM on the Girard at Large radio show or listen to the archives at Voter Fraud Radio



HairBiz collects another check.

This one is for $500.00 for the $400.00 haircut.

The surprising donor of the money for autism research – Mrs. John Edwards.

Is this a “Don’t touch my hair” moment by the Edwards campaign?

Actually it was a generous gesture and was accompanied by a nice handwritten note to HairBiz owner David Holden.

Now that didn’t hurt did it?

As I have thought from the beginning of this HairBiz Autism Challenge John Edwards should get in there ASAP and collect the publicity from the trim. He certainly had a few embarrassing moments when the $400.00 haircut but this simple gesture solves that.

Smart move!

Now for the rest of the field.


And Now You Really Know

I came into some insider info taxpayers and citizens of NH should find interesting. This is how you lose your rights.

Following my little history lesson is a communication from a lawyer at Orr and Reno (Bill) to Attorney John Lassey who is one of the Right to Know Commission members. This RTKC has been trying to allow secret meetings of public officials through a clever re-write of RSA 91-A. They have failed miserably since the RTKC creation several years ago.

And why do we have a RTKC in the first place?

Try Cassandra Hawkins vs. NH Health and Human Services for starters. This State Supreme Court case was decided in December, 2001. The short take is this:

HHS was sued under RSA 91-A for information regarding HHS records which have confidential information in them. HHS said no to the request but the court found that some of the info was public and had to be sorted out. This is what is known as “Vaughn Indexing” from a similar case in another state.

The NH Supremes suggested HHS put their records together in an orderly “Vaugh Indexed” fashion eliminating private info from public. So the RTKC was formed to take a second look at RSA 91-A with this in mind.

Here is what the NH Supreme Court said:

“The issues in this case foreshadow the serious problems that requests for public records will engender in the future as a result of computer technology. Unless the legislature addresses the nature of computerized information and the extent to which the public will be provided access to stored data, we will be called upon to establish accessibility on a case-by-case basis. It is our hope that the legislature will promptly examine the Right-to-Know Law in the context of advancing computer technology.”

Did the Court say “Gut the Right to Know Law?”

Did the Court Say “Allow secret meetings?”

Did the Court say “Allow sequential meetings?”

Then why is THAT what the RTKC seems to have been trying to accomplish by drafting new tricky language?

How about some PENALTIES for violating RSA 91-A? No evidence that penalties has been brought up by the RTKC as of yet. CNHT has asked for that since the inception of the RTKC.

What about Vaugh Indexing, is that a priority, or are we to be sued again and again for information that has to be ferreted out of the private material.

Read the memo for yourself. Check question # 5:


As a follow up to the Commission’s Nov. 16 meeting, I am working on a memo to press organizations and have a few questions that I thought you would be able to answer.

First, as I read the definition of “meeting” in section 2,I it covers “a quorum of the membership,” as the public body defines quorum, but subject to what may be described as section 2’s default rule that when a majority of the members convenes that constitutes a meeting for purposes of the Right-to-Know law. Stated differently, if a public body defines quorum as “more than a majority of its members,” section 2’s default rule would control so if a majority met, meaning the public body would be holding a “meeting” that would have to comply with the Right-to-Know law. Is this a correct?

Response: I believe your interpretation is correct. The intent, as I remember, is to ensure that a majority of the members of a public body that defines a quorum as a number greater than a majority cannot effectively decide things privately and then simply rubber-stamp the decisions at the next public meeting. This issue was brought to our attention by Claire Ebel a couple of years ago during discussions on HB 626.

Second, concerning a “chance, social, or other encounter not convened ….” If members do meet and discuss, but don’t decide anything, the encounter would not constitute a meeting. In other words, section 2,I does not prohibit chance discussions, and they don’t rise to the level of a meeting. Am I correct?

Response: Again, I believe your interpretation is correct. In its report of October 29, 2004, the Study Commission proposed different language, which would have imposed different results. We then recommended the clause exclude from the definition "[a]ny chance or social encounter neither planned nor intended for the purpose of discussing matters relating to official business and at which no such matters are discussed or decisions made regarding those matters. This language was included in HB 626 -- which didn't pass, as you know -- but wasn't carried forward into later proposed legislation. I believe that the House Judiciary Committee had some issues with the earlier version, but I am not sure if my memory is correct on this -- it may have been the Senate. Bear in mind, however, that such chance or social encounrters would still be be subject to the following prohibition in the proposed new 91-A:2-a, 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 the spirit and purpose of this chapter as expressed in RSA 91-A:1." In other words, no "we're just discussing; we're not deciding [wink, wink, nudge, nudge]!"

Third, why is subparagraph (d) apart of section 2 since it deals with the circulation of drafts as opposed to a gathering of members of a public body?

It is included because, at the time it was first proposed, many attorneys counseling municipalities were fearful that such communications could be regarded as illegal meetings. The following is the explanation given in the October 29 report:

The Commission recommends that subparagraph (e) be added to address situations where a public body is required to file a written decision, or notice of decision, after actually taking action at a public meeting. For example, a land use board ( e.g. , a board of adjustment) must post a "written decision containing the reasons therefor . . . within 144 hours of [its] vote."[footnote omitted]. After a vote is taken, many boards will ask one member to draft the written decision for signature by the chairman. The Commission believes that circulation of such draft documents among the members in advance of posting would be helpful to prevent error, but also believes widespread fear that such communication would be regarded as a "meeting" has tended to discourage the practice.

Fourth, I read section 2,III(a) to contemplate a situation where a one or more members participate “in a meeting by electronic or other means of communication” where their physical attendance is “not reasonably practical,” and where their participation, when added to the members who physically attend the meeting, makes a majority of the membership (but assume not a quorum), with the result the meeting is subject [t]o the Right-to-Know law. Is this correct? If so, under section 2 there can be three different types of “meetings:” (1) a gathering of less than a quorum or majority, which would not be subject to the Right-to-Know law; (2) a gathering of a majority, but not a quorum, which would be subject to the law; and (3) a gathering of a quorum which would be subject to the law and at which the body could make decisions. Do you agree?

I would agree with this interpretation. As you recall from the last meeting of the Commission, however, a number of the members expressed a desire to revisit some of the language in this proposed paragraph.

Fifth, did the Commission give any consideration to requiring a Vaughn Index (see Union Leader Corp. v. N.H. Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. 540, 548-552 (1997)) for those circumstances where a public body decides not to produce a governmental record because it comes within an exemption in section 5, or redacts portions of a record because the portions come within section 5 ?

No. To my knowledge, we have never addressed the issue of a Vaughn Index.

Finally, what is the mandate of the “cost recovery” subcommittee that the Commission formed?

I do not recall any "mandate;" however, I believe the concerns which have been raised on this issue in the past couple of years center on how to ensure that public bodies fairly charge for the cost of providng access to governmental records, while also making sure that taxpayers are not paying for an inordinate amount of time spent by public servants in responding to out-of-the-ordinary requests. A typical example which has been discussed is the contrast between a situation where an assistant takes a couple of minutes to find and photocopy the minutes from the last meeting of the selectmen and that where the same assistant has to take a day away from his or her regular duties to retrieve a massive amount of records going back several years. The first could be regarded as within the assistants regular scope of duties; however, the second might reasonably be regarded as outside such scope. One approach which has been suggested is to come up with some sort of a set fee schedule, but this approach has not received universal acclaim.

I look forward to hearing from you.



Limpus In The Morning

Imus had me spellbound – for about 36 minutes.

Then I realized his new show consists of nothing more than providing himself with a radio psychologist couch.

Too bad former tough guy!

Back to the ranch and sulk.

You were had by the George Soros’s, Media Matters for America gang who were out hunting for talk radio hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh but bagged you instead.

If you don’t realize that, so much for your show.



Put me down as IMPRESSED!

Can you imagine the horror! Hillary Rodham had to face the fact that a man with road flares taped to his waist had entered one of her 3,732 campaign headquarters here in New Hampshire and had taken as hostages some of the kids from all over America who were working inside.

The AP Wire service played it for all it was worth. Here is a sample:

“PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) - When the hostages had been released and their alleged captor arrested, a regal-looking Hillary Rodham Clinton strolled out of her Washington home, the picture of calm in the face of crisis.”

It doesn’t surprise me that “Her Regalness” could face a standoff with poise and dignity.

She didn’t bat an eye when her past administration, with Attorney Janet Reno at the helm, slaughtered 86 men, women, and CHILDREN at Waco Texas.


A Burling Game?

Let me see.

Superior Court Judge Conboy rules that the new law, Senate Bill 98 which allows, by amending RSA654, only political parties to buy the Centralized Voter List our pal Secretary of State Bill Gardner controls through the Help America Vote Act is unconstitutional.

But what were we voters really supposed to get from SB98?

For one the Libertarians got screwed because only political parties defined by RSA 652:7 can buy the list from Gardner. This definition requires the political party to have garnered at least 4% in the last election. Bye, bye, small parties! Hello back room deals.

And what did the ethical Democrat Party do with the lists?

They sold them to candidates and collected a hefty profit, $325,000.00 we know of.

They should pay the money back because it was a shady deal from the start.

Check out the last paragraph in the new law, RSA 654:46:

II. No party shall use or permit the use of voter information provided by the secretary of state under paragraph I for commercial purposes as defined in RSA 654:31, I(b). Whoever knowingly violates any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person or guilty of a felony if any other person.

Source. 2007, 377:1, eff. July 18, 2007.

Now read RSA 654:31, I(b):

(b) ""Commercial purposes'' means knowingly using, selling, giving, or receiving the checklist information for the purpose of selling or offering for sale any property or service unrelated to an election or political campaign.

652:1 Election. – ""Election'' shall mean the choosing of a public officer or of a delegate to a party convention or the nominating of a candidate for public office by voters by means of a direct vote conducted under the election laws. The term does not include caucuses or conventions. The types of elections are further defined in this chapter.

Source. 1979, 436:1, eff. July 1, 1979.

It reads like the selling of voter checklists to the two favored parties was intended to be a money maker. But the law also says the selling could only be for an election or campaign.

Unless the Democrats can prove that the $325,000.00 they leveraged out of the presidential candidates through generating and passing a NH law favorable to themselves was used strictly for an election and NOT for any portion of maintenance of the Democrat Party itself such as rent, salaries, insurance, etc., then they broke the law.

US Congressman Tom Delay has found himself indicted on an almost exact opposite circumstance.

Is this what Senator Burling intended when he drafted SB98?

“Fosters Daily Make An Excuse For Democrats” has an Opinion piece about the Conboy decision that is totally off the mark but has some interesting info in it.