NH Alert! The DoS Has Changed the P&R License Application Form!**UPDATE POST 406

[terraformer]

So if I understand you correctly the redaction should not have been done on these documents?

What I am saying is that redaction is suspect. Given the context of the preceding half of the sentence, the second half appears to be an opinion of Sgt. Haggerty's re: the law and given the length of the redaction, a justification for said opinion. The form's changes by that point had been made public and therefore are post deliberative, to the extent that exemption even covers inter agency communication without a nexus to an elected official. Additionally, Sgt Haggerty's email does not appear to be covered by the exemption for law enforcement documents as it is not related to a specific investigation nor does it appear to discuss investigative techniques.

Given I can't actually see what the redaction says, I can't say for sure but smells like 3 days old rotten fish from this vantage point.

 

[ninemilshooter]

What I am saying is that redaction is suspect. Given the context of the preceding half of the sentence, the second half appears to be an opinion of Sgt. Haggerty's re: the law and given the length of the redaction, a justification for said opinion. The form's changes by that point had been made public and therefore are post deliberative, to the extent that exemption even covers inter agency communication without a nexus to an elected official. Additionally, Sgt Haggerty's email does not appear to be covered by the exemption for law enforcement documents as it is not related to a specific investigation nor does it appear to discuss investigative techniques.

Given I can't actually see what the redaction says, I can't say for sure but smells like 3 days old rotten fish from this vantage point.

Thanks for the clarification! Lawyer-speak is not native to me ...

 

[KBCraig]

I'm just going to post the interesting snippets that I see.
View attachment 116315

Okay guys, knock it off with the "excusatory fashion".

 

[nhpoke]

@terraformer - I know you aren't an expert in NH laws on this, but in general...

There are a number of cases where the list of people on the TO: and CC: lines are redacted. My belief was that even if the discussion itself is covered by privilege, that the fact that the conversation happened and the people who took part in the conversation is not covered and the names of the people on the TO: and CC: lines should not be redacted. Correct?

 

[terraformer]

@terraformer - I know you aren't an expert in NH laws on this, but in general...

There are a number of cases where the list of people on the TO: and CC: lines are redacted. My belief was that even if the discussion itself is covered by privilege, that the fact that the conversation happened and the people who took part in the conversation is not covered and the names of the people on the TO: and CC: lines should not be redacted. Correct?

Depends on the person's contact info they redacted. If you are joe schmo who sent in some feedback on the new form, should your privacy be protected? Likely yes. If the recipient or sender of the email is important to proving a point, exposing a problem, etc a court can open it up. While I would consider the redactions of to:'s and cc:'s as presumptively correct, a policy that simply redacts contact information of anyone not specifically mentioned in the FOIA is likely over broad and they may have redacted information they shouldn't have. But fight that fight if it matters who is in those to: or cc: lines. A way we have dealt with this is we specifically state what we expect them to redact, and let them tell us if they went further. Wording FOIA requests is an art.

 

[nhpoke]

Depends on the person's contact info they redacted. If you are joe schmo who sent in some feedback on the new form, should your privacy be protected? Likely yes. If the recipient or sender of the email is important to proving a point, exposing a problem, etc a court can open it up. While I would consider the redactions of to:'s and cc:'s as presumptively correct, a policy that simply redacts contact information of anyone not specifically mentioned in the FOIA is likely over broad and they may have redacted information they shouldn't have. But fight that fight if it matters who is in those to: or cc: lines. A way we have dealt with this is we specifically state what we expect them to redact, and let them tell us if they went further. Wording FOIA requests is an art.

I must spread some reputation blah, blah, blah...

Thanks.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Depends on the person's contact info they redacted. If you are joe schmo who sent in some feedback on the new form, should your privacy be protected? Likely yes.

Actually, it's likely no.

This came up in a recent issue with an FOIA request that came from the guy who runs the "Girard at Large" radio show in Manchester. He requested info from one of the Manchester Aldermen (Levasseur IIRC) and the Alderman didn't want to release emails he had received from constituents. It turns out he had to release them because as soon as those emails were received by the city's servers, they became public record.

I think that's why my request included emails from Cohen and a few others outside the DoS.

 

[cekim]

Actually, it's likely no.

This came up in a recent issue with an FOIA request that came from the guy who runs the "Girard at Large" radio show in Manchester. He requested info from one of the Manchester Aldermen (Levasseur IIRC) and the Alderman didn't want to release emails he had received from constituents. It turns out he had to release them because as soon as those emails were received by the city's servers, they became public record.

I think that's why my request included emails from Cohen and a few others outside the DoS.

In MA, the public schools (at least at the elementary level) often warn parents of this when sending emails to teachers and admin.

At least those schools who have experienced "discovery".