Amicus Briefs, Letters and Statements

NEFAC files and joins amicus briefs, letters and statements addressing important First Amendment issues. This is a listing of those documents, as well as others that may be of interest to you. While our main focus is on freedom of information concerns, we will consider supporting any effort that addresses the First Amendment. If you would like to have NEFAC sign onto your brief, or to have us file one on behalf of your cause, please email our executive director for more information. Briefs, letters and statements from previous years can be viewed here:

2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023

To N.H. Senate Judiciary Committee Re: OTP Recommendation on House Bill 1002 (April 9, 2024)

The ACLU-NH, NH Press Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, Union Leader Corporation, and N.H. Bulletin encourage members of this Committee to support HB1002. We believe that the compromise reflected in HB1002 effectively addresses the concerns raised by proponents concerning overbroad email requests while not undermining transparency and accountability.

To R.I. Senate Judiciary Committee Re: S.2256 (March 28, 2024)

We respectfully ask you to pass Senate Bill No. 2256, An Act Relating to Public Records. As we explained last year when this bill was first considered by your committee, this legislation is a much-needed common sense update to our public records law. The Access to Public Records Act has not been significantly reformed in more than a decade. During that time, there have been many changes in technology and in public sensibilities about transparency needs, particularly those within law enforcement. This bill updates APRA to reflect those changes by allowing, for example, public records requests to be filed electronically, certain police records to be released in a reasonable time, and fees to be waived when the information being requested is in the public interest.

To City of Worcester Re: Open Checkbook (March 13, 2024)

We write to raise serious concerns about your decision to end the City of Worcester’s Open Checkbook program and ask you to reverse course and restore the program as soon as practicable. Fiscal transparency is a hallmark of open government. Taxpayers, journalists, and civil society organizations must have access to information about government expenditures to ensure government is functioning appropriately, without corruption or mismanagement. While cybersecurity is a serious issue and should be prioritized by government at every level, there is nothing about Open Checkbook data that poses a unique cybersecurity threat. In fact, the records accessible in Open Checkbook are public under state law and other municipalities and the state government continue to use their own portals. Concerns about hacking related to this data, like any other public data online, can be addressed by implementing and adhering to basic cybersecurity practices and policies.

Opposition to Section 2-5 of the Massachusetts Municipal Empowerment Act (Feb. 27, 2024)

“The Municipal Empowerment Act falls short on ensuring access to public meetings. It will shut people out of the democratic process by only allowing — and not requiring — municipalities to provide hybrid participation options. Giving every government body complete discretion about how to provide public access to their meetings means people with disabilities or other reasons they can’t attend meetings will be completely shut out when city councils, select boards, or school committees decide to hold meetings exclusively in person.

To Mass. Gov. Healey Re: Hybrid Access to Public Meetings (Feb. 27, 2024)

“Respectfully, the Open Meeting Law provisions of the Municipal Empowerment Act are a step backward. These reforms will shut people out of the democratic process by only allowing — and not requiring — municipalities to provide hybrid or remote participation options.”

Trustees of Boston University and Boston Globe Media Partners v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Cambridge District Court (Mass. 2024)

This sex-for-hire matter has attracted wide public attention and media coverage. The matter, unlike neighbor disputes and other minor matters of low public interest typically before a clerk-magistrate, cries out for open proceedings and open access to named individuals and evidence submitted during the hearing. This matter is of significant public importance and interest. . . . The press’s ability to keep the public informed is premised in large part on open access to the court system, and on its ability to examine and report on submitted judicial documents. Non-disclosure to the public would inhibit the public’s understanding of the process and serve to dimmish or undermine the credibility, authority, and integrity of the Clerk-Magistrate’s decision.

To N.H. Ombudsman Thomas Kehr Re: Rules 100, 200 and 300 (Jan. 22, 2024)

Our first concern relates to proposed rule Rko 203.06(b), as it does not contain the language contained in Rko 203.07, allowing for electronic filing, i.e. “unless an electronic system has been instituted pursuant to described in Rko 203.02(b) so as to allow for electronic submissions…” We believe that the electronic filing language should also be inserted as a sub-paragraph (4) to Rko 208.01(a).

To N.H. House Judiciary Committee Re: HB 1002 and HB 1696 (Jan. 16, 2024)

The proposed paragraph VIII to R.S.A. 91-A:4 is a monumental step in the wrong direction that, if enacted, will discourage and prevent the citizenry of New Hampshire from gaining access to public records. The purpose of R.S.A. 91-A is to provide New Hampshire citizens with “…both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people”. Passage of proposed bill 1002 would ensure the opposite result. It should be noted that the proposed language of sub-paragraph (e) is not opposed by NEFAC as it is consistent with the advice given by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the case of Salcetti v. City of Keene.

To N.H. House Judiciary Committee Re: Amendment to HB 1002 (Jan. 18, 2024)

The ACLU-NH, the New England First Amendment Coalition, the N.H. Press Association, the N.H. Union Leader, and the N.H. Bulletin have reviewed the January 18, 2024 amendment (2024-1097h) to HB1002, which would continue to allow labor, search, retrieval, and redaction costs to be imposed on requesters.  We oppose this amendment for the same reasons that we oppose the original bill.

Support of HB307 as Amended By the N.H. Senate Judiciary Committee (Jan. 3, 2024)

HB307 would significantly improve government transparency by, in the form of mandatory fee shifting, creating incentives for government actors to be more transparent in response to requests made by the public under the Right-to-Know Law. This bill addresses the question of — if a request for public records was meritorious as found by a court — who should bear the burden of the expense of that litigation. The two choices are either the requestor or the public body. Currently under the law, the requester bears the expense of that successful litigation in most cases unless it can be shown, under a high standard, that the public body “knew or should have known that the conduct engaged in was in violation of this chapter.” This bill corrects the error of the current system by ensuring that the public body, not the requester, bears that expense. After all, a court decision requiring public disclosure benefits the entire public, not just the requesting party. Given this public benefit secured by the requester, the requester should not be punished by having to be made to pay the costs of this successful litigation.