Most city councilors reluctant to comment on city's war against The Voice

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.
ROCHESTER - While the City of Rochester ponders whether to appeal a Superior Court judge's ruling that sidetracked their efforts to deny The Rochester Voice the protections of 91-A, the City Council, the city's pre-eminent ruling body, shows little appetite to weigh in on the 16-month battle the city has been waging against the critically acclaimed digital daily.
Earlier this month Strafford Superior Court Judge Daniel E. Will handed the City of Rochester a scathing rebuke on its appeal of the state's Right to Know Ombudsman's decision handed down in November that deferred all remedies to the legislature or judiciary.
In an 11-page order Strafford Superior Court Judge Daniel E. Will chastised the city 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.'"
Since April of 2023 the City of Rochester has denied The Rochester Voice access to digital requests for government documents. In some cases they have simply ignored Rochester Voice Right to Know requests.
While few councilors agreed to comment on the matter, two who did couldn't have been more diametrically opposed.
":I think 91-A gives everyone the right to know," said Matt Richardson. "And I'm not sure if it makes a difference if you're a citizen of Maine or New Hampshire. People have a right to know."
At the other end of the spectrum is former city manager Dan Fitzpatrick.
"The city is just going with state law," he said. "I'm satisfied, I'm happy with it."
There were also a few in the middle like Tim Fontneau,
"Because there's ongoing legal wrangling, I can't comment," he said. "I would love to see this resolved without relying on the courts; it's an unfortunate situation. If everyone would come together, it's in everyone's best interest."
Chuck Creteau said he believes in transparency, "but there's litigation. I can't comment on the case."
In Judge Will's decision he noted that, "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. 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.
Meanwhile, councilors Patricia Turner, Brian Karolian, David Herman, Alex de Geofroy, Kevin Sullivan and Mayor Paul Callaghan all refused comment following multiple emails and phone calls asking for their input for this article.
The Rochester Voice did not include Les Horne in the City Council survey because he just recently joined the Council and could easily not have been aware of the yearlong Right to Know battle between the city and The Rochester Voice.