City attorney cites state statute, but refuses to cite specific verbiage in RTK denial

SPEAKING OF THE LAW OR SPEAKING IN TONGUES? City Attorney Terence O'Rourke (Screen capture/City Council meeting)

ROCHESTER - Fast on the heels of denying The Rochester Voice a Right to Know request regarding city-owned properties, the City of Rochester has denied a second request to turn over a record of current deposit accounts at city banks and credit unions.
The city attorney, Terence O'Rourke, who is solely responsible for handling all Right to Know (NH Statute 91-A) requests, denied the Right to Know request on Monday writing that "The financials you have requested are exempt from disclosure pursuant to RSA 91-A:5, IV."
Here is the entirety of the subsection:

Records pertaining to internal personnel practices; confidential, commercial, or financial information; test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examinations; and personnel, medical, welfare, library user, videotape sale or rental, and other files whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy. Without otherwise compromising the confidentiality of the files, nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a public body or agency from releasing information relative to health or safety from investigative files on a limited basis to persons whose health or safety may be affected.

The Rochester Voice asked for the specific verbiage O'Rourke was referring to, but unbelievably, when we asked him for that he sent back a cryptic reply, "Read my original email" but refused to give the exact words he was using from the statute to exempt the city from releasing such information.
Upon reading the statute, the verbiage closest to what could be construed - albeit in crabbed fashion - to O'Rourke's claim of being exempted from disclosure would be the phrase "confidential, commercial or financial.," but both City Councilor Steven Beaudoin and Strafford District 6 State rep Cliff Newton, both of Rochester, said that doesn't apply here.
"This section is all about personal information and exempts releasing personal financial information, not information that is concerning government or its business in general," Newton said on Wednesday.
Beaudoin agreed that the statute exempts confidential, commercial, or financial information about private individuals, businesses or corporations, not the city, itself.
"That would apply say if a veteran was looking for a break on excise or property tax," he said. "It doesn't apply to the government. It does not match the verbiage in the statute."
The stunning denial of releasing information on the city's deposits in financial institutions comes just days after they denied The Rochester Voice documents relative to city-owned properties, saying the DIGITAL DAILY'S request was "too vague."
Former deputy mayor and longtime city councilor Ray Varney Jr. said former city councils had released a list of city-owned properties on multiple occasions.
"Previous mayors and (city) councils have had this information on numerous occasions," he wrote in a statement sent The Rochester Voice. "Should require minimum effort for the Assessing Department to generate a list. Perhaps property has been purchased or sold in non-public session."

Since O'Rourke flatly refused to give the exact verbiage he applied to deny the RTK request, The Rochester Voice was forced to seek a match that most closely aligned itself with the city's rejection.