Ask this: Why does the city of Rochester want to silence 'The Rochester Voice'?

City Attorney Terence O'Rourke and City Manager Katie Ambrose (City of Rochester City Council meeting screenshot)

In 1967 Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act. (FOIA) This allowed unfettered access to federal government documents and proceedings assuring accountability for "We the People."
FOIA did not apply to state and local government so every state then passed its own FOIA laws. In N.H. it's RSA 91-A the Right To Know Law.
The 91-A preamble states "Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and
records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people."
Like the FOIA, 91-A was created in 1967 and gets amended as necessary. This preamble version has been around since 1977. It was written by a citizen legislature of average people, adopted and easily understood by the same.
Think about what the preamble says and the intention of the law. The greatest public access to the actions, discussions, and records, yet public officials in Rochester are doing everything they can to make it difficult
for The Rochester Voice, the last remaining newspaper that covers Rochester news. What are they trying to hide? I subscribe to The Rochester Voice, read and rely on its reporting to keep up with the actions of my local government. The Voice is a legitimate member of the Fourth estate and does a remarkable job for the small staff they have. So what is going on with this?
As you may know, The Voice is taking the City to task for their actions as the City is taking the position the Right To Know does not apply to The Voice. Also, they do not have to give The Voice "the greatest public access" to information, (which today would be electronic via email) because The Voice is not a resident of New Hampshire, and therefore not a citizen of New Hampshire.
However, The Voice can get in their vehicle, or get on a bus, bike or horse, and then physically go to City Hall, and pursue information for "We, the people."
Then, and only then, will the city comply with an information request. This, despite having complied with said requests for years through electronic communication. What changed? Did The Voice request information the city didn't want to get out and wanted to hide or, even worse, did The Voice write an article that the City didn't like?
Let's examine the City's position that The Voice is not a citizen of N.H. as the reason to deny "the greatest public access."
The N.H. Right to Know Law, specifically RSA 91A-4 states "every citizen ... has the right to inspect all government records..." The law-91-A- does not specifically state nor define citizen as being of N.H, the position the City is taking.
The City is adding words to 91-A that simply are not there. If their argument had any standing the words "of New Hampshire would have followed citizen as it does in other state statutes. The N.H. Supreme Court has decided (See Laura Colquhoun v City Of Nashua 2022) "that when the state laws are silent on definition, they look to "other jurisdictions construing similar statutes for guidance, including federal interpretation of the federal Freedom Of Information Act, for answers.
Further, Article 14 of the US Constitution states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No
state shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
So why is the City Manager and the Mayor condoning the position and action the City Attorney is taking of denying The Rochester Voice the greatest public access to information with the argument being because the Voice, and Harrison Thorp, in particular, is not a 'citizen of N.H when you don't have to be to get public records? Why don't you ask them yourselves.
One more point on this. The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press - Author William Chapman Concord N.H. - reports in 1. Status of Requester that "Any person or entity may seek relief under the Statute. RSA 91-A:4 provides that "every citizen" has access to "public records" of public agencies and public bodies, while RSA 91-A:2 provides that "all persons" may attend public proceedings. In addition, RSA 91-A:7 provides that "any person" aggrieved by a violation of the chapter may petition the superior court for injunctive relief. Thus, there is no basis to believe that "citizen," in section 4, is a limiting term."
In my opinion, despite these strong arguments, the City is on the wrong side of this issue. The City Manager, and the Mayor are in cahoots with the City Attorney by agreeing with the "not a citizen" position to deny the greatest public access to information. How does that saying go, "If you lie with dogs, you get fleas," or something like that. Again. What are they trying to keep from us?
The Rochester Voice, a member of the free press, should not be denied easy access to government proceedings, information and records, so that they may do their job and report their findings to the citizens, like me, who read their publication and rely on The Voice to keep our government accountable.

Cliff Newton is State Rep for Strafford 1 and a lifelong Rochester resident.