Relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.
The anticipated impact of HB66 on state laws revolves around extending civil liberties for accessing governmental information. The changes may increase the workload for departments tasked with handling public records requests, as the bill may lead to a surge in the number of requests filed. This increase could result in higher administrative costs for recording and managing these requests, particularly if individuals from outside the state begin filing. The Right-to-Know Ombudsman (RKO) has indicated that this could lift caseloads significantly, potentially leading to costs that could reach up to $100,000 in administrative expenses in future fiscal years.
House Bill 66 (HB66) is an act aimed at enhancing transparency in government operations by modifying New Hampshire's 'Right to Know' law (RSA 91-A). This legislation broadens the scope of who can file requests for public records, allowing any person, not just citizens of New Hampshire, to request documents. The bill also includes preliminary drafts shared among public bodies as materials that must be disclosed and allows for these requests to be made electronically or via mail. These changes are designed to improve accessibility and operational efficiency in the public's interactions with government records.
The sentiment around HB66 is generally supportive, particularly from advocates of government transparency and accountability. Proponents argue that the expanded access to public records reflects a commitment to openness, enabling citizens to better engage with and hold government accountable. However, concerns have been raised regarding the operational challenges that increased requests may pose on public offices. While supporters perceive the bill as a means to foster greater trust between the government and the populace, detractors worry about the bureaucratic burden that the law might impose, especially in smaller governmental entities.
Key points of contention surrounding HB66 include the logistics of managing an influx of public records requests and the implications for confidentiality and data security. With the inclusion of preliminary drafts as disclosable documents, questions arise about how freely ideas and discussions can flow among public officials without the fear of such drafts being exposed. Critics may argue that while transparency is essential, the added pressure may lead to inefficiencies and an inability to protect sensitive discussions from public scrutiny. These tensions underscore a fundamental debate about the balance between transparency and the practicalities of governance.