Opinion ID: 6334157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: rsa 91-a:5, iv

Text: Turning to RSA 91-A:5, IV, as we earlier observed, the purpose of the Right-to-Know Law is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people. RSA 91-A:1. “The party resisting disclosure bears a heavy burden to shift the balance toward nondisclosure.” Union Leader v. N.H. Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 554 (quotation omitted). We have previously recognized that an “expansive construction” of the language in RSA 91-A:5, IV 8 that establishes exemptions would allow “the exemption to swallow the rule and is inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of the right-to-know law.” Mans v. Lebanon School Bd., 112 N.H. 160, 162 (1972); see Herron v. Northwood, 111 N.H. 324, 327 (1971) (observing that the legislature “has placed a high premium on the public’s right to know”). Here, Provenza contends that the trial court erred in its balancing of the public right to access governmental information against his privacy interests. Courts must engage in a three-step analysis when considering whether disclosure of public records constitutes an invasion of privacy under RSA 91- A:5, IV. Union Leader Corp. v. Town of Salem, 173 N.H. at 355. This balancing test applies to all categories of records enumerated in RSA 91-A:5, IV. See id. at 357; N.H. Ctr. for Pub. Interest Journalism v. N.H. Dep’t of Justice, 173 N.H. at 659. First, the court evaluates whether there is a privacy interest that would be invaded by the disclosure. Union Leader, 173 N.H. at 355. Second, the court assesses the public interest in disclosure. Id. Third, the court balances the public interest in disclosure against the government’s interest in nondisclosure and the individual’s interest in nondisclosure. Id. On appeal, in the absence of disputed facts, we review the trial court’s balancing of the public interest in disclosure and the interests in nondisclosure de novo. Union Leader v. N.H. Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 555. We conclude that Provenza’s privacy interest here is not weighty. As the trial court explained, the Report does not reveal intimate details of Provenza’s life, see N.H. Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 149 N.H. 437, 441 (2003), but rather information relating to his conduct as a government employee while performing his official duties and interacting with a member of the public. Cf. Lamy v. N.H. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 152 N.H. 106, 113 (2005) (noting that purpose of Right-to-Know Law is to ensure that government’s activities be open to the sharp eye of public scrutiny, not that information about private citizens that happens to be in the warehouse of the government be so disclosed); Kroeplin v. Wis. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 725 N.W.2d 286, 301 (Wis. App. 2006) (stating that when an individual “becomes a law enforcement officer, that individual should expect that his or her conduct will be subject to greater scrutiny. That is the nature of the job.”). With respect to the government’s interest in nondisclosure, we first note that the Town makes no argument on appeal that it has any interest in nondisclosure. Indeed, the Town has filed neither a brief nor a memorandum of law in this court. Rather, before the trial court, the Town requested that certain information — specifically, medical information, license plate numbers, and the names of minors — be redacted from the Report. Without objection, the trial court agreed that those redactions would be made. To the extent that Provenza argues that the government has an interest in nondisclosure because disclosure will have a chilling effect on future investigations, we agree with the Valley News that Provenza has not carried his burden of demonstrating that 9 disclosure, in light of the facts of this case, is likely to have any such chilling effect. Cf. Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 556 (2002) (stating that there was no evidence establishing a likelihood that disclosure would lead auditors to refrain from being candid and forthcoming). As for the public interest in disclosure, we conclude that it is significant. The public has a substantial interest in information about what its government is up to, see Lamy, 152 N.H. at 111, as well as in knowing whether a government investigation is comprehensive and accurate, see Reid v. N.H. Attorney Gen., 169 N.H. 509, 532 (2016). In balancing the interests in disclosure and nondisclosure, the trial court concluded that Provenza failed to carry his heavy burden of shifting the balance toward nondisclosure. After considering all of the arguments of the parties, we reach the same result. Lastly, we note that Provenza argues that disclosure of the Report will violate his right to procedural due process. We conclude that this argument lacks merit, and warrants no further discussion. See Garrison v. Town of Henniker, 154 N.H. 26, 35 (2006). Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed. HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred. 10