Versions of SB123:
Senate Index
[SJ 2394] SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right-to-know law. (Splaine)
253, psd (RC) 404-410, 421, conc H am 918, enr 1402 (Chapter 184)
House Index
[HJ 1034] SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right to
know law.
620, am 647, psd 659, S conc 661, enr 758 (Chapter 184)
From 1983 Senate Journal, House Journal, and Laws of 1983
Thursday, April 7, 1983
[SJ 253] INTRODUCTION OF SENATE BILLS
Sen. White offered the following resolution:
Resolved, that in accordance with the list in the possession of the Clerk, Senate Bills numbered 123 through 221 and SB 1, SB 2, SB 4-FN, SB 5, SCR 5, and CACR 23 shall be by this resolution read a first and second time by the therein listed titles, laid on the table for printing and referred to the therein designated committees.
Adopted.
First and Second Reading & Referral
SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right-to-know law. (Sen. Splaine, Dist. 24 - To Internal Affairs)
Tuesday, April 19, 1983
[SJ 325] COMMITTEE REPORTS
[SJ 404] SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right to know law. Inexpedient to legislate. Sen. Carswell for the committee.
[SJ 405] SEN. CARSWELL: I think all of you know pretty much the exclusionary clauses under which you can meet in executive session under the right to know law. SB 123 asks that when you meet in executive session under the right to know law that you sign that you only took up the subject matters that you had voted to go under executive session with, and if you took up any other matter that you indeed would have to sign that and say so. We thought it was very cumbersome. For example, you could move to have an executive session for one subject only and while you were having the session a member might relate a story that would reveal something new that you hadn't voted to go into executive session for, so then the question would be, what do you do now? You all disband and you go back and vote again to go in to executive session? We just thought that part was a little bit unworkable. There was a portion of it that I think was entirely reasonable and that said that the minutes would have to be extended, that they would have to be made public from 72 hours. I know that in the House Record on the consent calendar today was HB 477 which was ought to pass and indeed does that and does it to 144 hours and at which time any records or tapes would be available to anybody who wanted to go and look them over. I certainly will approve of that bill when it gets over here. I think that is a plus and that is a portion of your bill. I hope you support the committee's report of inexpedient to legislate.
Sen. Splaine moved that the words "ought to pass" be substituted for the committee report of "inexpedient to legislate."
SEN. SPLAINE: I think that this is a darn good bill. If we recognize that we have problems, not only with state government sometimes and some of our agencies and commissions, but just as importantly, towns, cities, boards of aldermen, school districts. The public's right to know is not something that ought to be compromised. I have three parts of this bill that I think are important. One is simply that if you go into executive session - please understand that executive sessions of governing agencies are a lot different than what we meet in executive session for, we meet in executive session, usually open, to vote on legislation, it is actually a voting session - executive sessions for the purposes of school boards and city [SJ 406] councils is to throw the public out, throw the press out, and meet behind closed doors. So under this legislation you would have to state the reasons, specific reasons under the right to know law exemptions, why you are going into executive session. Secondly you would have to have a recorded roll call vote. If you have 12 members of a school board you would have to have a recorded roll call vote, 3/5's would have to agree to go into executive session. Thirdly, and it is very unique I think in the basic issue of how to control what happens in executive sessions when you come out all of the participants of these excutive sessions would have to sign a statement saying that is what we talked about, exclusively. We didn't go into executive session and talk about anything else. I just had a letter given to you from Tom Gerber, one of those supporting this. Tom is editor of the Concord Monitor and he is really a watchdog of the right to know law in the state. He has been involved in this issue for years. Two paragraphs I think he eludes to in his statement that I hope you take to heart. They are on the bottom of the first page. "This provision" - and he is talking about SB 123 - "strikes to the heart of the public whose very existence depends on informed electorate. The people whose business is being conducted must have access to the process by which they are being governed. Over the years the principle pitfall of the state's right to know law has been the tendency of governing bodies to discuss and act upon the public's business behind closed doors, often by inadvertence. There is a natural inclination here for members of governing bodies when discussing such topics as acquistion or sale of public property behind closed doors to slip in to discussions on other issues which should be aired on in an open forum as required by the law." Then he goes on to conclude "SB 123 would make these public servants more fully aware of their obligations and the principles of open government upon which they are based and is closing a loophole." I think SB 123 is a move in the right direction in making the state's right to know law work. I was one of the two co-sponsors of legislation in 1977 which did pass and which updated the state's right to know law. The way it is now written is from the result of our legislation, by James Birchall, a state representative from Rochester, and myself. However, the biggest problem as Tom Gerber points out, has been in trying to guarantee that people don't go [SJ 407] behind closed doors and do anything they want. You have seen the lawsuits. You have seen the editorials. You have seen the horror stories throughout the state. I think this legislation ought to pass because it is a way of tightening up the problems without a lot of bureaucracy, without requiring a lot of paper work so that the public's right to know is preserved.
SEN. LAMONTAGNE: Sen. Splaine, why don't you tell us why this bill has been introduced? It is because you had a problem with the school board in Portsmouth.
SEN. SPLAINE: No, not at all. I pointed out to the press and I pointed out in my testimony when I presented it to your committee, that I have had the opportunity to see the problem first hand. I was on the school board in Portsmouth for 3 1/2 years and the state's right to know law was very often abused. I was using that just as an illustration. It is not a question of a problem in Portsmouth. It is a question of a problem throughout the state. And every newspaper editor in the state will tell you that they have similar problems to those in Portsmouth where we used to go into closed door executive session to talk about personnel and since the press and the public had gone home, the members of the school board conveniently began talking about anything they wanted to while nobody's eyes were looking at the board. I think we know that happens. It happens at our selectmen's meetings. It happens at city council meetings. It is not a problem in Portsmouth, it is a problem in every city and town in the state.
SEN. LAMONTAGNE: But you appeared before our committee and when you did appear before our committee isn't it so that your complaint was that they talked about something else and not about the questions for which they went in to an executive session?
SEN. SPLAINE: Exactly, Sen. Lamontagne. I was using that as an illustration. I have seen it firsthand in Porsmouth. I was on the city council and eventually I was very concerned about the reasons we were going into executive session. I was using the school board in Portsmouth, which I was on for 3 1/2 years, as an illustration that the current state's law, the right to know law, is grossly abused. I think every newspaper editor in the state will tell you that. We have to do something to police it. That is why I introduced SB 123. It is a very unique way of achieving that policing.
[SJ 408] SEN. BERGERON: I will try to be brief. Everyone is familiar with the right to know laws. If Sen. Splaine has a problem in Portsmouth it should be addressed in Portsmouth. I have been involved for nine years, I'm in my ninth year, I have never once heard a complaint on an abuse under the right to know law. Now along comes Sen. Splaine who has a particular problem with the Portsmouth school board or the Portsmouth city council and its a big problem statewide. I have never had a newspaper editor contact me and tell me he had a problem. I have never had a member of the public contact me to tell me he has had a problem, but because the Senator from the 24th District has a problem in Portsmouth he wants to take the twenty-three other members of the Senate back to kindergarten and have them sign a card. You know until there is a need as seen by other people other than my colleague from the 24th District, I think we ought to stand by the committee report.
SEN. SPLAINE: I just want to speak a second time because it happens to irritate me when a Senator will say that somebody has a problem in his own district and he is introducing some legislation to remedy that problem. I am trying to communicate to you that there happens to be a lot of abuses of the state's right to know law and if somebody hasn't seen that in their local newspapers, and I certainly have by reading the Foster's Daily Democrat on a somewhat regular basis, then they haven't been listening to the media. Several editors throughout the state, including the Manchester Union Leader and the Concord Daily Monitor and the Portsmouth Herald and the Foster's Daily Democrat, and I've seen it in the Nashua Telegraph, as well as numerous other newspapers have pointed out time and time again deficiencies, particularly in enforcement, concerning the state's right to know law. This is not an issue a Senator happens to have with a city council or a school board in his own district. It happens to be a question and a problem that a lot of people, a lot of public members who elect us, happen to have in 24 senatorial districts.
Sen. Lamontagne moved that SB 123 be indefinitely postponed.
SEN. LAMONTAGNE: My motion is legal. There is no question about that. My motion is legal. But there seems [SJ 409] to be some piece of legislation that I didn't know about that is coming from the House. If you adopt my motion then it would hurt other legislation that would come, so therefore I withdraw my motion.
Sen. Lamontagne withdrew his motion.
SEN. CARSWELL: I hope you will support the report of inexpedient. I would like to keep my word and support HB 477, which increases the hours in which you must have the material printed and available for the public to peruse. That is a decided improvement. It is very, very difficult for some communities to get their minutes typed up and get them out under the current statute which requires 72 hours. This bill had asked to increase the time requirement and the House bill has increased it to 144 hours. You can listen to the tapes or anything you want inbetween. I would like to be able to support that later. In light of that I think we give Sen. Splaine half a loaf. I hope you support the report inexpedient to legislate, and then, later on, support the increased hours for public printing.
SEN. SPLAINE: Just so there is no confusion. You say half a loaf and actually they have nothing to do with one another. Isn't it true that the legislation coming in from the House in fact weakens the state's right to know law and is opposed by many of the members of the media because it does expand to 144 hours instead of 72 hours the length of time that those minutes are going to be available?
SEN. CARSWELL: Sen. Splaine, in my judgment it does not weaken it, only if you couldn't see the material and tapes, then I would have to agree that it weakened it. But it made clear that you could have access to them. It is very difficult and the testimony bore this out. It is difficult in many small communities where there may be parttime clerks and all, to get this material out. I rescue the bill. I hope for you to at least get part of it so that the subject is not closed off. I hope the rest of the Senate will endorse it.
Roll Call requested by Sen. Bergeron.
Seconded by Sen. Lessard.
[SJ 410] The following Senators voted yes: Allen, Hough, Blaisdell, Boyer, Kelly, McLane, Johnson, Stephen, Champagne, Lessard, Preston, and Splaine.
The following Senators voted no: Lamontagne, Poulsen, Freese, Bergeron, Wiggins, Carswell, Stabile, Podles, and Bartlett.
12 yeas 9 nays
Motion adopted.
Adopted. Ordered to third reading.
[SJ 420] Sen. White moved that the Senate now adjourn from the early session, that the business of the late session be in order at the present time, that the reading of bills ordered to third reading be read a third time by this resolution and that all titles be the same as adopted, and that they be passed at the present time; and that when we adjourn, we adjourn until Wednesday, April 20, 1983.
Adopted.
[SJ 421] LATE SESSION
Third Reading and Final Passage
SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right to know law.
Tuesday, April 26, 1983
[HJ 619] Rep. Rounds offered the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that in accordance with the list in the possession of the Clerk, Senate Bills numbered 145, 164, 205, 93, 49, 168, 217, 193, 211, 123, 200, 142, 198, 180, 90, 99, 108, 210, 59, 141, 143, 165, 167, 150, 189, 129, 2, 157, 126, 219, 178, 152, 149, 137, 204, 194, 135, 134, 60, 3, 151, 177, 184, 79, 112, 113, 115, 176 and 110 shall be by this resolution read a first and second time by the therein listed titles, and referred to the therein designated committees.
Adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF SENATE BILLS
First, second reading and referral
[HJ 620] SB 123, relative to holding executive
sessions under the right to know law.
(Judiciary)
Tuesday, May 17, 1983
Rep. Rounds moved that the Consent Calendar with the relevant amendments as printed in the day's House Record be adopted.
Adopted.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
(Consent Calendar)
[HJ 647] SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right to know law. Ought to Pass with Amendment.
The Committee felt that a body subject to the "right to know law" should state in their motion to go into executive session which exemption under the statute they are claiming. Vote 17-1. Rep. Kendall W. Lane for Judiciary.
Amendment
Amend the bill by striking out section 2 and renumbering section 3 to read as section 2.
[HJ 658] Rep. Rounds moved that the House now adjourn from the early session, that the business of the late session be in order at the present time, that the reading of bills be by title only and resolutions by caption only and that all bills ordered to third reading be read a third time by this resolution, and that all titles of bills be the same as adopted, and that they be passed at the present time, and when the House adjourn today it be to meet Tuesday, May 24 at 1:00 p.m.
Adopted.
LATE SESSION
Third reading and final passage
[HJ 659] SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right to know law.
Thursday, May 19, 1983
[SJ 917] HOUSE MESSAGES
[SJ 918] HOUSE REQUESTS CONCURRENCE IN AMENDMENTS
SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right-to-know law. (See House Permanent Journal page 647.)
Sen. Carswell moved adoption.
Adopted.
Tuesday, May 24, 1983
[HJ 661] SENATE MESSAGES
CONCURRENCE WITH AMENDMENTS
SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right-to-know law.
Thursday, June 2, 1983
[SJ 1402] ENROLLED BILLS REPORT
SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right to know law.
[SJ 1403] Sen. Chandler for the committee.
Tuesday, June 6, 1983
[HJ 758] ENROLLED BILLS REPORT
SB 123, relative to holding executive sessions under the right-to-know law.
Rep. Francis X. Donovan
Sen. John P.H. Chandler
For the Committee.
[Laws 151] Approved June 10, 1983.
Effective Date August 9, 1983.