Case Title: Union Leader Corp. v. Chandler

Citation: 119 N.H. 442

Docket Number: 79-097

State: new-hampshire

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Date: 1979-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
119 N.H. 442 (1979) UNION LEADER CORPORATION v. JAMES CHANDLER, CLERK OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. No. 79-097. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. June 8, 1979. *443 Malloy & Sullivan, of Manchester (James J. Barry, Jr., orally), for the plaintiff. Brown & Nixon P.A., of Manchester (Stanley M. Brown orally), for the defendant. PER CURIAM. This is a bill in equity in which the plaintiff, Union Leader Corporation, seeks to compel the defendant, clerk of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, to turn over to the plaintiff under RSA ch. 91-A (Right-to-Know Law) a certain tape recording of the proceedings of the house of representatives on Wednesday, April 11, 1979, for the purpose of duplicating and using it for "voice stress analysis." All questions of law were transferred without ruling by Flynn, J. At the opening of the 1979 session of the house of representatives on December 6, 1978, the following action occurred in the house: 14 December 1978 House Record, at 6. House sessions are completely open to the public and press. N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 8, as amended (Supp. 1977); RSA 91-A:2 II (Supp. 1977). The Permanent Journal, not the tape recordings, is the official record of the "public proceedings" of the house, RSA 91-A:1-a (Supp. 1977), required to be published. N.H. CONST. pt. 2, art. 24; Opinion of the Justices, 35 N.H. 579 (1858). Subsequent to our decision in 1590 Broadcasting Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission, 113 N.H. 258, 306 A.2d 49 (1973), the "Right-to-Know *444 Law" was amended (Laws 1975, 383:1), to require that persons attending public proceedings be "permitted to use recording devices including . . . tape recorders" and videotape equipment at such meetings. In response to that legislation, power jacks were installed in the gallery of the house to permit members of the public to use tape recorders, and the audio public address system was extended to the press room so that members of the press might listen and tape record there as well as in the house chamber. Plaintiff is the publisher of newspapers. Its reporters were entitled to attend the public session of the house of representatives on April 11, 1979, when house bill 155, proposing that public utilities' rates be based on current levels of service (the so-called anti-CWIP bill), was debated and adopted by roll call vote after extensive debate. 16 April 1979 House Record, at 1346-48. Plaintiff reported the debate in full in its newspapers. Subsequently on April 13, plaintiff's reporter Donn Tibbetts hand-delivered a letter to the office of the Speaker requesting permission to listen to the tape recording made for the purpose of the house, stating that his editor intended to subject it to voice stress analysis. The Speaker granted permission to listen to the tape or to procure partial or complete typed transcriptions and he denied permission to remove the tape from the possession of the house for voice stress analysis. On April 16, another written request for the tape was delivered by hand to counsel for the Speaker. On April 17, the Speaker reported the situation to the house, explained the basis for his ruling, and announced that if there were no dissent, that ruling would stand. There was no dissent, and on motion, adopted unanimously, the Speaker's ruling was ordered to be printed in the Journal as follows: 19 April 1979 House Record, at 1478-79. [1-3] We do not view this case as a true Right-to-Know Law case under RSA ch. 91-A, because the April 13, 1979 session was open to the public and press, an official journal was prepared of the proceedings, and written transcripts are available if the plaintiff or anyone else wishes to obtain them. See N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 8; N.H. CONST. pt. II, art. 24; Bezio v. Neville, 113 N.H. 278, 280, 305 A.2d 665, 667 (1973). The house of representatives, as a separate and coequal branch of government, is constitutionally authorized to promulgate its own rules. N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 37; N.H. CONST. pt. II, art. 22; see Opinion of the Justices, 63 N.H. 625 (1885). The house could properly decide, consistent with the right of reasonable public access required by N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 8, that its official tape should not be duplicated or subjected to a so-called voice stress analysis. Accordingly, the order is Bill dismissed.