Thanks to Free Staters like me, New Hampshire is uniquely equipped to resist the growing surveillance state—from Article 2-b of our state constitution to HB 1059, RSA 261:75-b, and some of the strongest license-plate-reader protections in the country.
But the time has come for Granite Staters to unite against this one-sided Panopticon.
My solution: In the Free State, every government query submitted through companies like Flock should appear in a searchable, auditable public ledger—maintained and paid for by the for-profit firms monetizing our movements without our consent.
No more black-box surveillance. If government agents are watching us, we get to watch them back.
Watch the show. We’re taking a hard look at the “shepherd.”
Core Proposal (summarized by GROK):
Require companies like Flock Safety (and similar ALPR/data platforms) to maintain and fund a publicly accessible, searchable, auditable database containing every query submitted by state agencies or law enforcement. Each entry would log who queried what (plate/data), when, and the stated reason/purpose. This would serve as a transparent public ledger, treating the surveillance infrastructure as having public-interest obligations because it feeds government power.
Pros
- Strong Deterrence Against Abuse — Public visibility makes fishing expeditions, stalking, or political targeting risky. Officers know their queries can be reviewed by journalists, defense attorneys, activists, or citizens.
- Real Accountability & Oversight — Shifts from black-box secrecy to sunlight. Enables pattern detection (e.g., “This department queried 5,000 plates last month with vague ‘investigative’ reasons”). Complements existing NH audit requirements in RSA 261:75-b.
- Cost Internalization — Companies profiting from surveillance (subscriptions, data access) bear the expense of transparency. Taxpayers don’t subsidize yet another oversight bureaucracy.
- Libertarian-Compatible Check — Avoids outright bans while addressing the “private power evading constitutional limits” paradox. Forces private actors partnering with the state to operate with public scrutiny.
- Chilling Effect on Overreach — Makes mass, warrantless querying politically and reputationally costly. Empowers the public to “watch the watchers” without needing constant FOIA battles.
- Precedent & NH Fit — Builds naturally on NH’s privacy framework (Article 2-b, RSA 236:130, HB 1059) and existing audit trails for LPRs.
Cons / Challenges
- Implementation & Resistance — Flock and similar firms would fight it (cost, engineering burden, competitive concerns, potential liability from public logs). Requires strong enforcement (fines, license suspension, private right of action).
- Privacy Trade-offs in the Logs — Query logs could inadvertently reveal sensitive patterns (e.g., protected medical, political, or religious travel) if not properly anonymized or redacted. Needs careful design (delayed release for active cases, role-based access, aggregation).
- Gaming the System — Agencies might use vague “reason codes” or workarounds (e.g., informal requests). Requires clear definitions, mandatory fields, and audits of the auditors.
- Potential Over-Deterrence — Legitimate investigations could slow down if officers fear public scrutiny. Balance needed (e.g., exemptions for time-sensitive exigent circumstances with after-the-fact review).
- First Amendment / Operational Concerns — Companies might claim trade secrets or argue it chills law enforcement cooperation. Technical burden of building/maintaining a secure, tamper-proof public system.
- Scope Creep Risk — Once established, pressure could grow to expand logging or apply it more broadly, potentially creating new bureaucracy.
Overall Assessment: This is a strong, pragmatic reform that aligns with libertarian skepticism of unaccountable power (both state and corporate) while being more feasible than a total ban. It turns the “worst of both worlds” problem into a manageable “transparent hybrid” system. The biggest hurdles are political will and technical design details around privacy protections in the logs.
This week on The Independents, Carla Gericke takes you inside New Hampshire’s transparency fights—starting with a Right-to-Know bill that tackles one of the most abused habits in local government: nonpublic session.
What’s allowed behind closed doors?
Reputation. National security. Bidding wars.
That’s basically it. And yet… somehow the doors keep closing.
Carla covers:
- HB 1233 and the push to narrow (and track) what gets withheld
- Why start/end times for nonpublic session matter
- The “reasonable” carve-outs that quietly became a secrecy culture
- The NH Liberty Alliance Gold Standard highlights for this week’s session
- A pro-liberty bill ending the Hep B mandate (and why it matters)
- A bad housing-tax idea targeting “non-primary” homes (and why it hits regular people)
Plus:
- A real-life Granite Stater good neighbor story (yes, getting stuck in the snow counts as civic education)
- A Porcupine Day clip that lands the core point: movements survive on how we show up
- And a closing reflection on character, projection, and why accusations often tell you more about the accuser than the accused.
Two reminders worth keeping:
Unspoken expectations are premeditated resentments.
Accusations are often confessions.
Peace, love, and understanding—see you next week.
Spent the morning at House Judiciary with Laurie Ortolano to testify on HB 1233, which is just a technical tweak to make public minutes reflect the motion citing the reason for the non-public session (from 91-A), and record the start and end time of the non-public session. Our testimony is at the start of the video.
Testimony (I did go off script):
Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Right To Know NH in strong support of this act to amend RSA 91-A:3, III, relative to the minutes of nonpublic session.
My name is Carla Gericke, and I am president of Right To Know NH, a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizen coalition dedicated to promoting open government and strengthening New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, RSA 91-A. Our mission is to ensure the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions, and records of all public bodies, fostering accountability and trust in our institutions.
This bill addresses longstanding gaps in transparency that have allowed public bodies to withhold more information than necessary from the public eye during nonpublic sessions. Under the current law, minutes and decisions from these sessions must generally be disclosed within 72 hours, with limited exceptions. However, without clear guidelines, entire sets of minutes are sometimes sealed indiscriminately, even when only a small portion qualifies for exemption. This practice undermines the spirit of RSA 91-A, which emphasizes openness as essential to democracy.
The amendments in this act provide critical clarifications and safeguards. First, by specifying that only the portion of minutes or decisions directly covered by the motion may be withheld from public disclosure, the bill prevents blanket secrecy and ensures that unrelated discussions are released promptly. This targeted approach respects legitimate exemptions—such as protecting personal reputations or sensitive security matters—while maximizing public access to the rest of the record.
Second, requiring the list of withheld minutes to include the start time and end time of the nonpublic session adds a layer of accountability. This simple addition allows citizens to better understand the scope and duration of secret deliberations, helping to track patterns and ensure that nonpublic time is used judiciously and not as a default for routine business. In our experience, reviewing cases under RSA 91-A, we’ve seen instances where lack of such details has led to prolonged withholding and reduced public oversight, eroding trust.
These changes align with recommendations from the Attorney General’s Memorandum on RSA 91-A. They will make compliance easier for public officials while empowering citizens to hold their government accountable without resorting to costly litigation.
We urge the Committee to pass this act as written, effective 60 days after passage, to further New Hampshire’s commitment to transparent governance. Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any questions.
PROBLEMS SOLVING FOR:
This proposed amendment to RSA 91-A:3, III targets several persistent transparency issues in how New Hampshire public bodies handle minutes and decisions from nonpublic (executive) sessions under the Right-to-Know Law.The core problems it solves stem from longstanding practical challenges and complaints about overbroad or indefinite secrecy, which undermine public trust and accountability. Here’s a breakdown of the key issues addressed, based on guidance from sources like the New Hampshire Municipal Association, Attorney General memoranda, ombudsman cases, and common citizen experiences:
Indiscriminate or blanket sealing of entire minutes
Under current law, when a public body votes (by 2/3 in public session) to withhold minutes/decisions due to one of the narrow exemptions (e.g., adverse effect on someone’s reputation, rendering action ineffective, or terrorism-related security), the practice has often been to seal the entire set of minutes—even if only a small portion actually qualifies for protection. This leads to unnecessary withholding of non-sensitive discussions, violating the law’s emphasis on openness.
The bill’s new language—”Only the portion of minutes or decisions directly covered by the motion may be withheld from public disclosure”—forces a more precise, redaction-style approach. This ensures the rest of the record is released promptly (within 72 hours), preventing overuse of secrecy for routine or unrelated matters.
Lack of clarity and detail about what is being withheld and why
Citizens and watchdogs frequently struggle to understand the scope of sealed sessions because public records often lack specifics on duration or exact basis. Without details like start and end times, it’s hard to spot patterns of abuse (e.g., excessive nonpublic time for non-exempt topics) or verify that sessions stayed within the allowed exemptions under RSA 91-A:3, II.
By expanding the required public list of withheld minutes to include “start time, and end time” (in addition to date, public body, exemption cited, decision dates to withhold/release), the bill adds meaningful accountability. This helps the public monitor compliance without needing costly litigation or ombudsman complaints.
Prolonged or indefinite withholding without adequate review
Minutes can be sealed indefinitely in some cases (though not ideal practice), and there’s sometimes lax follow-up on whether the justifying circumstances (e.g., ongoing negotiation sensitivity or reputation risk) no longer apply. While the law allows release by majority vote when conditions change, transparency suffers when the public has no easy way to track these sessions.
The enhanced list requirement indirectly promotes timely review and release, as citizens can more readily identify old sealed items and push for reconsideration.
Broader erosion of trust in open government processes
Nonpublic session minutes have been described in municipal guidance as one of the “thorniest problems” under RSA 91-A, with issues around sealing decisions leading to complaints, ombudsman rulings (e.g., cases where boards failed to properly justify or document nonpublic reasons), and calls for reform. Over-sealing reduces public oversight of government actions, fuels perceptions of hidden dealings, and increases reliance on formal disputes.
By clarifying limits on withholding and improving record-keeping, the bill aligns with the law’s core purpose: maximum feasible openness while protecting only truly sensitive information.
In short, these changes make compliance clearer for public bodies (reducing accidental violations), empower citizens to hold officials accountable more effectively, and prevent secrecy from becoming the default rather than the narrow exception. They build on prior reforms like the Right-to-Know Ombudsman role and aim to reduce friction in an area that’s long been a flashpoint for transparency advocates like Right To Know NH.
From RTK Member in Grafton:
We all know that non-public meetings are abused to discuss matters in secrecy that shouldn’t, but even when there is a legitimate reason, after the non-public too often there is a vote to seal the minutes.
There are a few allowable reasons under statue:
- Reputation, other then members of the board.
- The decision would render ineffective if public.
- All the new stuff, terrorism, emergency, etc.
it is often too easy to use the exemptions in a broad manner, hence introducing the new language makes the minutes as a whole available but redactions would be made to only the portions that fall under this exemption.
With this amendment, boards will no longer be able to hide entire meetings by using one of the few options when it only narrowly applies.
What’s happening this week in the Free State? Join me now…
Short answer: YES. Long answer: Also YES.
This week, I sit down with First Amendment firebrand Laurie Ortolano—winner of the 2023 Nackey Loeb Award and the 2025 NEFAC Award—to talk about why New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know system is… let’s call it “quaint.” As in: charming if you like rotary phones, not so charming if you think government should actually be accountable.
Join us for a fast, funny, no-BS conversation about transparency, citizen power, and what needs to change right now if we want to keep New Hampshire truly free.
I’m Carla Gericke, the voice of New Hampshire. Let’s shine some damn light. 🌲✨
