Are NH public records really public? A test case.
By Granite State Report
TL;DR
New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A) promises broad access to public records and meetings. In practice, access depends on where you live, what you’re asking for, and how persistent (or well-resourced) you are. Recent court rulings have expanded disclosure—especially for police accountability records—and lawmakers created a (now-vacant) state ombudsman to resolve disputes faster. But a 2024 law also lets agencies charge new fees for large electronic records pulls, with carve-outs for media, indigent requesters and matters in the public interest. Our “test case” walks through real-world pinch points—from a city that told an out-of-state reporter he didn’t count as a “citizen,” to long-running fights over internal police files and the once-secret “Laurie List.”
What the law says on paper
New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A) opens with a clear preamble: openness is “essential to a democratic society,” and the purpose is to guarantee “the greatest possible public access.” The statute covers both records and meetings of public bodies. For records, agencies must respond within five business days by providing the records, denying with reasons, or acknowledging and giving a reasonable timeline. Minutes of public meetings must be available within five business days.
The Attorney General publishes a detailed Right-to-Know memorandum (last updated in 2024), which officials and the public often use as the state’s how-to guide. It is not binding law, but it reflects the most current interpretations and best practices.
Exemptions exist—some in RSA 91-A:5 (e.g., internal personnel practices, certain law-enforcement records, privacy, and attorney-client materials), and others in separate statutes. Precisely how those exemptions apply has been the center of important Supreme Court cases over the last five years.
Big changes since 2020: courts narrow secrecy around police files
In 2020, the New Hampshire Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions—Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portsmouth and Union Leader Corp. v. Town of Salem—that narrowed the “internal personnel practices” exemption. The Court said many misconduct and disciplinary materials are subject to disclosure, often with a privacy balancing test rather than blanket secrecy. That was a pivot from older precedent that let agencies redact extensively. Municipal lawyers immediately flagged the rulings as a major expansion of what must be released.
The Court’s direction was consistent with a longer trend: when in doubt, lean toward transparency. That principle was evident in Green v. SAU 55, where the Court held that if a record exists electronically, agencies generally must provide it in electronic form, not only on paper or in-person inspection.
The “Laurie List” (Exculpatory Evidence Schedule): from secret to searchable
For decades, New Hampshire maintained a confidential list of police officers with sustained credibility or misconduct findings—commonly called the Laurie List, now the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES). After litigation and a 2021 law (RSA 105:13-d), the Attorney General must publish the list once officers’ appeal rights lapse. The DOJ now posts periodic updates with names and categories of misconduct. Media outlets and watchdogs have used the releases to scrutinize departments statewide.
Transparency is still imperfect: details can be sparse, and some names remain under litigation. But the arc has bent toward disclosure—so much so that a long-running lawsuit demanding release of the names was dismissed as moot last year because the law now requires publication.
A new “Right-to-Know Ombudsman”… now in limbo
To make enforcement cheaper and faster than a Superior Court lawsuit, lawmakers in 2022 created an Office of the Right-to-Know Ombudsman. Filing there costs $25 versus $280 in court, and is supposed to yield quicker decisions. The office launched in 2023—but by mid-2025 it had been moved under a new state labor-relations umbrella and the ombudsman position became vacant, pausing case work until it’s filled.
The enabling law also included a 2025 “sunset” clause; legislators have been debating how (or whether) to continue and fund the office on a part-time basis. For requesters, that means the fastest, lowest-cost path is not consistently available—at least for now.
New fees arrive (with important carve-outs)
In 2024, Gov. Chris Sununu signed HB 1002, authorizing new fees for large requests, especially those involving hundreds of emails and electronic communications. Municipal guidance describes a “reasonable per electronic communication charge” (capped at $1 per item) for requests exceeding 250 communications; earlier versions contemplated hourly “search and retrieval” fees after 10 hours. The final law includes exemptions: news media, people who can’t afford to pay, and requests whose disclosure would serve the public interest should not be charged. Agencies still can bill the actual cost of copies under long-standing law.
Whether that discourages “fishing expeditions” or chills legitimate oversight will depend on how agencies apply the carve-outs—and how aggressively requesters appeal. For journalists and nonprofit watchdogs, the media exemption is crucial; if enforced uniformly, it should preserve no-cost access even for large, complex pulls.
The test case: three pressure points that decide whether “public” really means public
Rather than running a months-long audit (and racking up fees), we examined three real NH episodes that mirror the most common roadblocks citizens and reporters hit. Together they answer the question we started with: Are public records really public?
1) Who counts as a “citizen”? Rochester vs. an out-of-state reporter
In 2023, the City of Rochester told Harrison Thorp, editor of The Rochester Voice who lives just over the border in Maine, that only New Hampshire “citizens” may use RSA 91-A—interpreting “citizen” to mean resident. The city cited a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case about Virginia’s FOIA (which limits access to state residents), though NH’s statute does not expressly restrict access to residents, and the Attorney General’s 2024 memo doesn’t adopt that narrow reading. The incident spurred legislative talk of changing “citizen” to “person” and explicitly covering members of the press regardless of residency. The House passed HB 66 in 2025 to that effect.
Bottom line: As of today, nothing in RSA 91-A plainly limits access to NH residents; some municipalities have tried anyway. Expect more requests—and likely court or ombudsman challenges—testing this edge case until the Legislature clarifies the term statewide.
2) What about sensitive police records? The Salem and Portsmouth rulings
After years of blanket denials, the 2020 Supreme Court decisions in Union Leader v. Salem and Seacoast Newspapers v. Portsmouth narrowed the “internal personnel practices” exemption. Agencies can’t simply stamp “personnel” on internal affairs audits or discipline files and refuse release; they must apply a balancing test and make targeted redactions. That’s a sea change for requesters probing police performance—and it’s why the public ultimately learned more about the Salem Police Department’s internal affairs and culture issues than would have been possible pre-2020.
Bottom line: Today, many police accountability records are public—often after a fight and with redactions, but the default is no longer secrecy.
3) Can you insist on getting records electronically?
Yes—within reason. In Green v. SAU 55 (2016), the Supreme Court held that when a record exists electronically, providing it electronically is generally required, not optional. Agencies can adopt reasonable delivery logistics (for example, putting files on a new USB drive rather than emailing if security is a concern), but they cannot force requesters into paper-only access if a digital copy exists.
Bottom line: If your town keeps emails, spreadsheets or PDFs, you can ask for them as emails, spreadsheets or PDFs. That’s cheaper for everyone and easier to analyze.
What to expect when you file a request (and how to win)
1) Use the five-day clock. Agencies must respond within five business days with records, a written denial, or a timeline. Silence after five days is a red flag; ask for a status update citing RSA 91-A:4, IV.
2) Narrow your scope. Overbroad email sweeps can trigger the 2024 electronic communications fee if you’re not covered by an exemption. Focus your query by date range, senders/recipients, and keywords. If you are press or indigent—or your request is clearly in the public interest—say so explicitly.
3) Ask for native formats. Request CSV/XLSX for data tables and .msg/.eml or PDF for emails. Point to Green v. SAU 55 if necessary.
4) If you’re denied, appeal strategically. You can file a $25 complaint with the Right-to-Know Ombudsman (when the position is filled) or go to Superior Court (filing fee ~$280). Fee-shifting is available in court when a lawsuit was necessary and the agency knew or should have known it was violating the law—strong leverage for clear-cut cases.
5) For police records, cite the 2020 cases. Remind agencies that the Supreme Court narrowed the “internal personnel practices” exemption and required a balancing analysis.
Learn the playbook, see the debates
WMUR CloseUp: Right-to-Know fees debate (2024)
Loeb School / NEFAC: “Keeping the Light On” (transparency panel)
Right to Know NH: How to write a request (training)
(These videos give a quick survey of current issues, legal basics, and practical steps requesters can follow.)
Field notes from newsrooms and watchdogs
The Granite State News Collaborative has documented longer response times, policy barriers, and recurring disputes over who counts as a requester. Their project page and partner coverage highlight cases from police discipline files to tax records. It’s not a formal statewide audit—but the pattern rhymes with what readers tell us: responses can be fast and courteous in one town, and litigated in the next.
Sunshine Week coverage by outlets like the New Hampshire Bulletin and Loeb School partners shows the conversation shifting year to year—from remote meetings during COVID to fee policies in 2024 to definitional fights over “citizen” in 2025. If you care about access, keeping an eye on the Legislature is as important as knowing the case law.
FAQ: five questions readers ask us most
Q1: Do I have to say why I want the records?
No. Motive is generally irrelevant under RSA 91-A, though the public-interest nature of your request matters for 2024 fee exemptions. If you’re press or indigent, say so.
Q2: Can the town charge me staff time?
Historically, agencies could bill the actual cost of copies. Under HB 1002 (2024), they may also charge up to $1 per electronic communication beyond 250 emails/communications—but not if you qualify for an exemption (press, indigent, or demonstrable public interest).
Q3: The city didn’t respond in five days. What now?
Ask for a written update and cite RSA 91-A:4, IV. If the delay persists, consider ombudsman (once staffed) or Superior Court. Courts can award fees and costs when litigation was necessary and the agency knew or should have known it was violating the law.
Q4: What if the town says I’m not a NH “citizen”?
Point to the statutory text (no residency requirement) and the AG memo’s statewide perspective. The Legislature is weighing a change to “person,” with explicit press coverage (HB 66, 2025). If necessary, appeal.
Q5: Can I get police internal affairs files?
Often, yes—with redactions. Cite the 2020 Supreme Court decisions requiring a balancing test and narrower view of “internal personnel practices.”
Mini-guide: a model request you can copy
Here’s plain-language wording that works across agencies. Edit the bracketed parts and send via email or portal:
Subject: Right-to-Know Request (RSA 91-A) — [topic]
Pursuant to RSA 91-A, I request the following governmental records:
- [Describe records precisely: e.g., “emails between [names/offices] from [date range] containing the keywords “[X]” and “[Y].”]
- Please produce records in their native electronic formats (e.g., CSV/XLSX for tables; PDF/.eml for emails), consistent with Green v. SAU 55 and RSA 91-A:4.
- If any portion is withheld, please provide a written denial identifying the specific exemption(s) and a brief explanation for each redaction.
- If responsive records are voluminous, please prioritize by [narrow date range/sender/keyword], and let me know if rolling production is possible.
I am [press/indigent], and this request concerns matters of public interest. Under HB 1002 (2024), please waive any new fees that would otherwise apply to large electronic pulls.
As required by RSA 91-A:4, IV, please respond within five business days by providing the records, a written denial, or an acknowledgement with a reasonable time estimate.
Thank you.
(For more context and examples, see the AG’s 2024 memo.)
Bottom line: So… are NH public records really public?
Often, yes—after you push. The statute is strong on its face, and the Supreme Court has reinforced transparency in key areas, notably police accountability and electronic formats. The Laurie List is public. The ombudsman could be a game-changer when staffed. But the new fee authority is a wild card, and local interpretations of “citizen” show how a single word can become a gate. Persistence, precision, and a working knowledge of recent cases remain the difference between “we’ll send that today” and a months-long slog.
Sources & further reading
- RSA 91-A (Right-to-Know Law) — official statute & preamble; 5-day rule and meeting minutes deadlines.
- NH Attorney General (2024) — Right-to-Know Memorandum (overview and guidance).
- Seacoast Newspapers v. City of Portsmouth (2020) & Union Leader v. Town of Salem (2020) — narrowed “internal personnel practices” exemption; required balancing.
- Green v. SAU 55 (2016) — electronic records should be provided electronically.
- ATV Watch v. DRED — fee/costs standards; remedies under 91-A.
- Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (Laurie List) — DOJ landing page & updates; news coverage on releases.
- HB 1002 (2024) — fees for large electronic pulls; exemptions for media/indigent/public interest.
- Right-to-Know Ombudsman — creation (HB 481-FN-A), process, current office status.
- Rochester “citizen” dispute & HB 66 (2025) — definitional fix to cover “any person” and press.
- Granite State News Collaborative: Know Your News — reporting on access challenges & legislative debates.
References
- Chapter 91-A: Access to Governmental Records and Meetings (NH General Court). Preamble; records & meetings provisions; exemptions cross-refs.
- Memorandum on NH’s Right-to-Know Law (NH DOJ, 2024). Plain-English guide to RSA 91-A.
- NH DOJ — Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES) portal & lists. Statutory basis (RSA 105:13-d), periodic list publications.
- NH Municipal Association (NHMA) advisories and case updates. Post-2020 disclosure obligations; electronic format cases; fee discussions.
- New Hampshire Bulletin & partner outlets. Coverage of HB 1002; Sunshine Week transparency reporting.
- NH Judicial Branch & case repositories. Union Leader v. Salem; Green v. SAU 55; NH Right to Life v. Dir., Charitable Trusts.
Editor’s note (how we reported this)
This report synthesizes primary law (RSA 91-A), recent case law, official guidance (AG memorandum), and on-the-record news coverage of discrete disputes. We did not submit original Right-to-Know requests for this story; instead, we analyzed litigated examples that function as “test cases” showing how the law works (or doesn’t) in practice. Where facts might have changed since publication (e.g., office staffing and fee implementation), we cited official pages and recent coverage. If you encounter an access barrier in your town, send tips to the newsroom—we’ll follow up.
