she risks arrest.” Since his stroke in December 2021, Attorney Bolton has taken an even more
hostile and aggressive tone. The material was not left in the clerk’s office for my review.
On July 6, 2021, | submitted a RTK request for the training material and on July 13, 2021, the City
denied the material under exemption RSA 91-A:5, IV confidential attorney client communications
and work product.
On July 8, 2021 | wrote to the Vice President of the NHRTK (New Hampshire Right-to-Know)
Coalition to get feedback on the City’s response. | decided to file another pro se lawsuit on this
denial and wanted to know if it was reasonable to request the court review the material to verify
confidentiality. (This is called an in camera review).The NHRTK Vice President believed that the
material was very likely not privileged and an in camera review was reasonable. | wrote up the
lawsuit but did not submit it.
In one more effort to save court and citizen time and tax dollars, | contacted Alderwoman
Elizabeth Lu and asked, in her elected capacity, if she would request the training material, and
provide her opinion on the confidentiality of the materials based on the legal office exemption
cited. She requested and received the materials and did not understand the reason for the City
exemption.
Ms. Lu was unable to ask the legal office to explain the basis for the exemption as she has been
shut out of the legal office; Attorney Bolton refuses to provide legal advice to her.
In August, | contacted DPW Commissioner Tracy Pappas and asked if she would be willing to
request the information as an elected official. She too received the confidential information and
did not understand the city’s denial. | asked Commissioner Pappas if she would inquire with the
legal office on this matter. She agreed and on August 18th emailed City Attorney Dory Clark.
Neither elected official disclosed the material to me.
On August 20, 2021, the City finally capitulated and provided the RTK training materials. It is now
public information. See attached records. On an interesting note, Attorney Neumann provided
template response letters that employees could use to respond to citizen requests. Both template
letters were for denials. This speaks volumes to the City position on open records. The Nashua
Legal office trains employees under “Right-to-NO”.
It is absolutely ridiculous that the City would deny this material as attorney client privileged
information. This exemption is being abused by legal offices around the state and Nashua is the
biggest offender. Hopefully, this case can be used in Concord this year to help change the law on
the attorney-client privilege exemption.
Commissioner Pappas and Alderwoman Lu are two exceptional elected officials who were willing
to represent the citizens who elected them. | know of no other Aldermen who would assist me.
2
