N.H. tries to balance open government with civil liberties

[Neil D]

By Katharine Webster, Associated Press Writer | March 11, 2006

CONCORD, N.H. --Maybe it's New Hampshire's historic suspicion of big government. Maybe it's the state's fierce dedication to individual rights, summed up in the motto, "Live free or die."

Whatever it is, New Hampshire has mostly resisted a national trend toward greater government secrecy and less individual privacy since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Since then, federal and state laws have closed government proceedings and records while subjecting residents to greater scrutiny -- all in the name of homeland security.

But in New Hampshire, the Legislature and courts often have enhanced the public's right to scrutinize government while protecting individuals from greater government intrusion into their private lives. When public access to government records has been limited, the restrictions usually have been to protect information about individuals collected by government: for example, the names, addresses and medical records of people filing worker's compensation claims.

"Unlike what seems to be happening at the federal level, New Hampshire legislators by and large agree with the old saying that, `Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty,'" said lobbyist and former legislative adviser Curtis Barry, citing Benjamin Franklin.

One notable exception was an update to the state's Right to Know Law passed in 2002 that allows government bodies to go into closed meetings to discuss "security," then vote to keep the minutes secret indefinitely.

Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, said the change created a huge loophole without making residents safer. Now state agencies can refuse to release information about bridge safety or plans to deal with a nuclear emergency.

Local governments can abuse the loophole as well, he said.

"Under this law, police departments, fire departments can use this exclusion for almost everything, if they want to," Splaine said. "They could refuse to tell you about their plans for covering a local parade on the basis of, `We can't release that information because of security concerns,' so there's a lot of potential for abuse."

Jim Van Dongen, spokesman for the state Bureau of Emergency Management, said the state delivers calendars to every address within a 10-mile radius of the Vermont Yankee and Seabrook nuclear power plants with emergency information such as evacuation routes.

But since 9-11, the agency has stopped routinely giving out the entire emergency response plan. When a reporter for The Keene Sentinel asked for the Vermont Yankee plan, she was told she could read it and take notes, but could not have a copy, he said.

"The plan is and always has been public information, but since September 11 we're a little more cautious about how that information could be put out," Van Dongen said. "It's not top secret -- it wouldn't tell a terrorist how to attack the plant -- but the information in aggregate could be used by terrorists in a scheme to kill a lot of people."

Boston.Com News