If City of Rochester doesn't appeal case, Judge Will's ruling could rule the roost

Inset, from left, Bob Lynn, a former chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and New Hampshire House Judiciary chair;and Gregory V. Sullivan, Esq., president of the New England First Amendment Coalition (Courtesy photos)

Editor's note: This is one in an occasional series focusing on The Rochester Voice v. City of Rochester complaint over the city's refusal to honor digital Right to Know requests made by The Rochester Voice. The city of Rochester contends it doesn't have to comply with such requests, because Rochester Voice editor Harrison Thorp is not a New Hampshire citizen.

The president of the New England First Amendment Coalition and a former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice said on Wednesday that the remedy to resolve a dispute between The Rochester Voice and the City of Rochester over the definition of the word "citizen" may have been achieved thanks to a ruling handed down on Tuesday by a Strafford Superior Court judge.
In Strafford Superior Court Judge Daniel E. Will's order, he affirmed the state Right to Know Ombudsman's order ruling that the definition of what the Legislature intended as defining "citizen" had to be settled either through legislative or judicial action, not by his office.
If the City of Rochester chooses not to appeal Will's order to the state's High Court, the president of the New England First Amendment Coalition believes the Legislature might not need to get involved.
"If the City of Rochester decides not to appeal this to the Supreme Court, this ruling may stand as precedent," said NEFAC President Gregory V. Sullivan. "Justice Will's Order is a well-reasoned and solid decision. It recognizes the importance of a free press and of governmental transparency, both of which are mandated by the New Hampshire Constitution and our Right to Know law."
Bob Lynn, a former chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the New Hampshire House Judiciary chair who this spring sought to change the wording of 91-A from "every citizen" to "any person" agreed with Sullivan.
"Yes, I can see that happening," he told The Rochester Voice on Wednesday.

In Judge Will's 11-page order he chastised the City or Rochester for its crabbed argument that because the owner of The Rochester Voice lives in Maine, they are not allowed the Right to Know protections of 91-A, the statute that regulates Right to Know provisions.
"(The court) is skeptical that (Rochester's intended) result was intended by the General Court when it considered the language of RSA 91-A," Will noted in his decision. "The City's construction would create logical inconsistencies within the Right to Know law that further augur against the City's narrow construction of 'citizen.'"
The word "citizen" never appears in New Hampshire's Right to Know law and only appears once in the 91-A statute, but during a hearing on May 2 in front of Judge Will in Strafford Superior Court, City of Rochester Attorney Terence O'Rourke argued that the protections of 91-A only apply to New Hampshire citizens.
Judge Will further stated that the value of The Rochester Voice to Rochester is viable and sound.
"Although Mr. Thorp is neither a citizen nor a resident of the State of New Hampshire, the respondent in this case, the Rochester Voice (as the Ombudsman found and the City does not challenge), is a news organization with a mailing address in New Hampshire and a tradename registered in New Hampshire," Will wrote. "And the Rochester Voice has covered issues of public interest concerning the City of Rochester since as early as 2017, and serves, as a practical matter, to advance the constitutional ends of open and responsive government and the parallel purpose of the Right to Know law."
In fact, Judge Will found that The Rochester Voice was, indeed, a party "aggrieved" by the City of Rochester's actions.
Finally, and of vital importance to Right to Know advocates, pushback from the New Hampshire Municipal Association and cities and towns across the state that cry foul over the amount of time they spend on Right to Know requests is immaterial to fostering an open and accountable government and freedom of the press.
"One final note concerns the scope of this appeal. At oral argument, the City (of Rochester) identified practical concerns and difficulties from lengthy records requests by, for example, persons from outside the United States or companies from across the country," Will concluded. "Whatever the merits of Rochester's concerns, the Court cannot, without legislative guidance, tailor the otherwise broad language of the statute and its broad purpose to ease the government's asserted compliance burden."
The Rochester Voice has emailed Rochester City Manager Kathryn Ambrose multiple times regarding Tuesday's ruling, including asking her if the City of Rochester intends to appeal Judge Will's ruling to the state's Supreme Court.
She has not gotten back to us.
O'Rourke has also refused comment on the ruling.
It should also be noted that earlier this year The Rochester Voice incorporated in New Hampshire as an LLC, which as argued in many court cases, further strengthens its inherent rights as a news entity that resides in the state of New Hampshire.