New Hampshire FOI Videos

FOI Guide Home
Connecticut | Maine | Massachusetts | New Hampshire | Rhode Island | Vermont | Federal FOIA


Keeping the Light On and Holding Government Accountable
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for the “right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But what does that mean and how does it work? The New England First Amendment Coalition and the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications celebrated Sunshine Week 2022 with an expert, online panel discussion.


An Executive Privilege for New Hampshire’s Governor?
Cassidy Jensen, a reporter at The Concord Monitor, discusses a public records request she and her colleagues made of Gov. Sununu and the unexpected response they received. Jensen breaks down the governor’s claim of “executive privilege” and the consequences such a privilege could have on the public’s right to know about government.


Accessing Police Records in New Hampshire: A Case of First Impression
NEFAC’s Gregory V. Sullivan discusses a public records dispute over a report on excessive force allegations against a Canaan police officer. Sullivan filed an amicus brief on behalf of NEFAC and Union Leader Corp. arguing that the report should be made public under the New Hampshire Right to Know Law.


The Laurie List: Accessing the Names of Police Officers with Credibility Issues
NEFAC’s Gregory V. Sullivan, general counsel to Union Leader Corp., discusses a recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision that could result in the release of a secret list of police officers with credibility issues.


Use of Force Policies: Police Reform Through Public Records Requests
Paul Cuno-Booth, reporter for the Keene Sentinel, explains how he obtained Use of Force policies from all law enforcement agencies in New Hampshire and how his public records requests led to two police chiefs reconsidering the use of chokeholds.


Major Wins for Transparency: How the N.H. Supreme Court Reshaped the Right to Know Law
In each case, the high court overruled a previous decision that categorically exempted from the state’s Right-to-Know Law any records related to “internal personnel practices.” With these rulings, that category of records is now more limited. A balancing test — rather than the more strict per se exemption — is now also required to determine if those records should be publicly released.