This week, we discuss the novel concept of self-ownership, whether the necessary systemic reform of government is possible, the wind down of Covid, and more!
Dear Honorable Committee Members:
My name is Carla Gericke, former Republican state Senate candidate in District 20. I live in Manchester, NH, am an author and attorney, and serve on several nonprofit boards, including Right-to-Know NH, a nonpartisan citizens’ coalition that works to improve government transparency, a crucial component to maintaining public trust in our institutions.
RTKNH supports this bill, and I believe another representative will be testifying on the organization’s behalf, so I am testifying today in my personal capacity as a voter, political candidate, and reformer. I will also submit this testimony in written form to the Committee via email afterwards, and ask that it form part of the permanent hearing record for the bill.
I ask you to SUPPORT HB480 in order to ensure the utmost transparency in the election process by allowing ballots to become part of the public record, subject to RSA 91-A, open to inspection by interested parties, and available to anyone who wishes to set their minds at ease.
Election integrity is a crucial part of any functioning government. More transparency leads to more accountability which in turn instills trust. Without transparency and accountability, Granite Staters will lose the last vestiges of trust in the system.
The NH Constitution says our government shall be “open, accessible, transparent, and responsive” to the people. In 1977, the legislature added a preamble:
“Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter 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.”
HB480 increases accountability by increasing checks and balances.
In 2018, I was the Republican candidate for state Senate in District 20. During the primary, the Libertarian Party launched a write-in campaign, meaning, if I got 30 write-ins, I would appear as a fusion candidate as both the Republican and Libertarian candidate on the general election ballot.
District 20 has 6 wards, and I picked up twenty-something write-ins in five of the wards, but only 1 write-in in Ward 11 (my home ward, where I know many voters, and where I could easily have expected at least 30 write-ins). It was clear when the Ward 11 results were read that something was amiss. I filed for a recount, and yes, something was amiss. The moderators failed to record the write-ins correctly, and I did in fact, receive enough votes to qualify as a fusion candidate.
Why were the write-in votes recorded incorrectly? I’m sure it was, as everyone claims, a mistake, an oversight, something “went wrong,” and that the checks and balances put in place “worked” to “fix it.” But the question also begs to be asked: Why did the system fail in the first place? Why was the original tally wrongly recorded? How often does this happen? Where?
Everyone here is aware of the current investigation of the Windham Incident, where 300+ votes were found for EACH 3 Republican candidates during a recount. Much like my case, this raises more questions than it answers.
HB480 will help address these sorts of troubling scenarios by allowing follow-up audits BY ORDINARY CONCERNED CITIZENS who are registered New Hampshire voters to ensure we have the most unimpeachable and solid election process.
This would also help identify, say, if there is an isolated polling station where there are identifiable problems and repeat “offenders.” Part of the goal of the bill is to ensure the accuracy of the vote count and *evaluate the performance of election officials.* In other words, it is the check and balance on the check and balance, and given the strange occurrences we are now seeing with increasing regularity, the time to pass this bill is NOW.
Increasing transparency serves to increase accountability and trust. Let’s empower Granite Staters to be able to exercise their own audits to ensure the trust remains. Please support HB480 to increase election transparency, accountability, and trust.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
West Manchester
Secretary of State testifies IN OPPOSITION TO BILL!
I received this response from Heidi Hamer (D), Ward 10 Representative. I wonder why she thinks transparency is “dangerous”?
My sign from two years ago today says: “Why protect bad apples?!?” Why, indeed…
Two years ago, I attended the Superior Court hearing about making PUBLIC the “Laurie’s List,” a secret list of bad cops. The NH AG’s office, headed by Gordon MacDonald, who was recently appointed as Chief Justice of the NH Supreme Court (read my testimony against his appointment here), was arguing that there is NO PUBLIC INTEREST in knowing which NH law enforcement officers have been found by their own police chief after a 20-page procedure to be so untrustworthy that they cannot testify in court.
You have to lie, cheat, steal or beat people up to get on the list. At that time, the “Laurie’s List” had about 270 officers on the list. I believe that’s about 10% of the full-time NH force.
Judge Temple rightly sided with Granite Staters, and in April 2019, issued an order saying the list must be released, stating there was a COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST for us to know who these law enforcement officers are. Doh!
The NH AG APPEALED this decision (yes, the same guy who is now in charge of the NH SC), making NH taxpayers again PAY to support an argument that the list should be kept secret from us. Rude!
I remind you the NH Constitution says: “All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government.”
You’d have to be a statist to think keeping a secret list of bad cops hidden from the public they purport to serve is in any way OK.
The matter ended up in the Supreme Court last summer, where the Court finally overturned the wrongly-decided Fenniman decision from the Nineties, finding that, after almost 30 years, state agents cannot claim information placing officers on the “Laurie’s List” falls under “confidential personnel matters.” Doh!
In the meantime, cities across America burned with people protesting the profound lack of police accountability nationwide. Even here in NH, we saw marches and confrontations.
Sununu cleverly convened a “Look! We’re Doing Something!” task force called the LEACT, stacked with… you guessed it, 50% law enforcement. The commission made a few good recommendations, most of which, if I have to bet money, won’t be implemented. But, “Look! It Looks Like We’re Doing Something!”
At the start of the 2021 legislative session, along comes Senator Carson, who gallingly introduces SB39, which basically aims to REVERSE the transparency and accountability progress that took us TWENTY SEVEN YEARS TO FIX.
This horrendous bill did not have any other co-sponsors when it was introduced, but, after pro-transparency and pro-accountability activists testified to stop SB39 (me, RTKNH, ACLU-NH, etc.) several law enforcement officers jumped on the Zoom call to give, let me be polite here, very conflicting testimony about whether this bill would implement any of the LEACT Commission’s recommendations. (It doesn’t).
This bill must die if transparency is to live.
Granite Staters have the right-to-know what our government is doing in our names. Granite Staters have a right-to-know who the bad cops are. Granite Staters have a right-to-know everything and anything about our government, because if we don’t, then who do they serve and work for if it is not us?
You can follow my RTK work and other open government issues on my blog, The Art of Independence:
https://www.carlagericke.com/tag/government-accountability/
https://www.carlagericke.com/tag/open-government/
Due to technical difficulties in the studio, I only have the Facebook Live link for this week’s Manch Talk. Tune in while you still can!
This week, we delve into the election recount that took place in Windham, NH, where, strangely, 300 votes for all four the Republican candidates were picked up. An anomaly? A suspicious anomaly? I think so…
Senator Bob Guida has been covering this issue quite closely. This is what he had to say earlier today:
As the Windham Incident gains notoriety, I’ve received hundreds more emails, text messages and phone calls from you – our People – than for any other issue I’ve encountered in my 10+ years in the State House.Do not be discouraged because we’re having to fight this fight. It must be our legacy to our children and future generations. To those of you who are upset, please channel that energy into taking back your towns, your cities, your state, your nation from the special interests that are slowly destroying it, from the liars that antagonize us for their own political gain, from the treachery and retribution that threaten the Republic. Government cannot save it. Only we can. Only you can.Our fight today is right here in New Hampshire, and I will continue the fight to find out what happened in Windham. If it turns out not to be the machines, I am good with that. But we cannot relent because unless we can prove it was NOT the machines, there’s no way to be sure none of the 200 or so towns that use these machines weren’t compromised as well. This is not conspiracy theory. These machines are old and tired, and could well be having software issues. Some of you have shared that you are discouraged and losing faith in our electoral system. To be sure, there are forces in government that are supposed to work for us that are using every tactic at their disposal to make you quit, to make this go away. But I offer the following for your consideration. We need to realize that WE are the political system, unless we cede that right and responsibility to those in “government.” Many have, much to our detriment. Whenever I get discouraged, I hearken to George Washington at Valley Forge. His only encouragement was his faith, as he and his ragtag army had lost every battle they had fought, he was out of money to pay his men, they had no shelter other than tents against the bitter cold, and food, blankets and firewood were in desperately short supply. But he BELIEVED in a free America, and never gave up on it, and never gave up fighting for it until the Revolutionaries prevailed. He fought for me, for us – and we must do the same for every future generation, who won’t know our names but will be free because we took a stand and refused to lose. Washington once said, “Government, like fire, is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master.” Thanks for staying in the fight.
Here’s the Union Leader’s coverage.
UPDATE 2/18/21: Listen to this insightful take on the Windham situation… which appears to have happened statewide… 6% flip from Republican to Democrat… guess how much I lost my race by? Dundunduuuuuuuun!
Copied below is my testimony submitted in support of HB481 to establish a RTK Ombudsman.
Dear Committee Members,
Please support HB481 to establish a Right-to-Know Ombudsman.
My name is Carla Gericke, former Republican state Senate candidate in District 20. I live in Manchester, NH, am an attorney, and serve on several nonprofit boards, including Right-to-Know NH (RTKNH), a nonpartisan, statewide citizens’ coalition that works to improve government transparency and accountability.
RTKNH supports this bill and will be submitting testimony in support, so I am testifying in my personal capacity as a citizen.
Sadly, despite strong language in the NH Constitution regarding a citizen’s right-to-know, New Hampshire ranks very poorly for open and transparent government.
In 2015, the Center for Public Integrity found in the category of “Public Access to Information,” New Hampshire earned a grade of F, and ranked 49th out of 50 states. In the category titled “In practice, citizens can resolve appeals to access to information requests within a reasonable time period and cost,” New Hampshire received a score of 0. [Report HERE].
Surely with the NH Constitution stating that the government should “at all times” “be open, accessible, accountable and responsive,” we can do better than zero?
Why is it that Granite Staters do not have access to public information in a reasonable time frame and/or at a reasonable cost?
(1) Because the burden on citizens to resolve Right-to-Know complaints is very high. When state departments, for whatever reason, deny a RTK request, citizens are forced to file a lawsuit in Superior Court. This is intimidating, expensive, and time consuming.
(2) Municipalities seem mis- or ill-informed and/or lack proper training about citizens’ Right-to-Know. They now regularly, as a matter of course, deny requests without any solid legal footing, forcing citizens into the courts. Some departments are even on record as saying filing Right-to-Know requests is regarded as a “hostile act.” This view is unacceptable.
In 2017, a task force was convened to try to rectify New Hampshire’s lack of open government. After months of meetings, stakeholders from different sides unanimously agreed that citizens need an easier, cheaper, faster grievance resolution process which reduces cost for all parties. As a result, establishing an independent Right-to-Know Ombudsman position was recommended. (Final report HERE.)
Initially, I was against this notion, thinking, “Here we go again, instead of fixing a problem, we’ll just end up growing government.” But in the past four years, as I have struggled with my own open record requests, been denied access to police body camera footage (did you know police body cam footage is secret in all but a few situations? Yeah, me either!?!), and watched high profile and expensive cases wend their way through to the NH Supreme Court, I have changed my mind.
We need a Right-to-Know Ombudsman ASAP. Even though there is some expense to hiring this position, which will be borne from the Secretary of State’s office, the savings from expensive lawsuits and attorney’s fees should easily counteract this. Also, sometimes we have to incur an expense to fix a problem, and with the courts overwhelmed, and slow, an Ombudsman seems like a reasonable compromise to increase government transparency, which in turn increases accountability.
Speaking of accountability, this legislative body has now had several years to pass this bill, and transparency is getting worse, not better. Please don’t make it almost thirty years, like with Fenniman, before we start to fix what is clearly a growing problem.
Let’s move in the right direction. Let’s establish a cheap, fast, easy, streamlined, credible, and impartial way for citizens’ to ensure our government is “open, accessible, accountable and responsive” to us.
This bill also includes a sunset clause, so on the off-chance we find the Ombudsman is not serving Granite Staters well, we can change course. Let’s give this a try in the meantime!
I ask that you support HB481. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
West Manchester
Yesterday, several bills relating to police accountability and YOUR right-to-know what your government is up to were heard remotely via Zoom before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sharon Carson of District 14, who is rated a C+ by the NHLA.
I sat in on on more than four hours of testimony on three bill, which I will break down for you below. Fair warning, don’t freak out at the summary headings. I pulled these from the bills themselves, and they are framed to improve the chances of a bill passing (know your audience–statists–as they say).
You can read RTKNH’s positions HERE, my submitted written testimony HERE, which I summarized in my oral remarks, while also trying to address some of the issues and questions the committee raised, while also trying to comply with the arbitrarily imposed “three minute” rule, which was not equally applied to state agents and the public.
Guess which side was consistently given more time? Hint: Public hearings about government transparency and openness where the public is marginalized at the expense of the state. Say it isn’t so!?! To be fair, I have attended other committee meetings that were even more egregious with their time allocations, so hopefully, if we continue with these kind of remote sessions, we can actually just apply the rule equally to all… with a timer. Easy-peasy!
SB40: This bill permits a warrantless search of a motor vehicle with the informed consent of the motor vehicle operator
Currently, LEOs will trick unsuspecting drivers into “consenting” to searches where they don’t have probable cause or a warrant, thus allowing them to go on fishing expeditions which often end up with an arrest for non-violent, recreational drug use that had NOTHING to do with the original traffic stop. This bill aims to rectify this subterfuge by compelling officers to “expressly inform the operator of the motor vehicle that:
(a) The operator has the right to refuse to consent to a search;
(b) Any refusal to consent to a search shall not constitute a basis either for probable cause to arrest the operator or reasonable suspicion to detain the operator;
(c) The operator cannot be charged with any crime or violation for refusing to consent to a search; and
(d) The operator cannot be further detained for refusing to consent to a search.
II. If the operator of a motor vehicle refuses to consent to a search, the law enforcement officer shall cease any further questioning concerning consent to a search.”
Introduced by Senator French (B rating from the NHLA, the best we can do in the Senate until you elect better candidates, ahem :P) and followed by testimony in support from the ACLU-NH, Rights & Democracy, defense attorney Penny Dean, law professor Buzz Scherr, State Representative Leah Cushman, and others. Everyone from the private sector spoke in support of this bill, many commenting on the fear and nervousness most people feel when they get pulled over.
Several law enforcement officers also testified (Joseph Ebert, Marc Beaudoin, David Goldstein), claiming to be “neutral” or “take no position,” but also making several suggestions to change the bill in various ways. One of proposals is to add the word “solely” in the sentence, “The operator cannot be [solely] further detained for refusing to consent to a search.”
Another suggestions was to create a standard form that must be signed before a roadside search without a warrant can take place. A concern raised in response is that non-English speakers are often advised by legal assistance organizations to not sign forms they cannot read, understand, and thus provide “informed consent” to, so it is possible that some people will be negatively impacted, whether through signing something they didn’t fully understand (probably an issue for a large portion of folks in such a frightening situation), or by refusing to sign the form.
My take: There seems to be an appetite to pass something, codifying what appears to be general practice already. Some towns in New Hampshire already have forms like this. Promoting informed consent is always a good idea, but we’ll have to see if that is really the result.
SB41: This bill provides that a party may petition to close a portion of a police disciplinary hearing
Again, don’t have a brain-melt at that summary. These proceedings are currently ALL SECRET, so this bill will actually improve transparency and accountability by setting the default to “open,” with the option to “close” some parts. The bill language: “Police Standards and Training Council; Powers. Amend RSA 106-L:5, III to read as follows:
III. For the purposes of a disciplinary hearing, subpoena and examine witnesses under oath, take oaths or affirmations, and reduce to writing testimony given at any hearing[. Any] provided that any person whose rights or privileges may be affected at such a disciplinary hearing may appear with witnesses and be represented by counsel, and further provided that any disciplinary hearing shall be public, but a party may petition to close a portion of the hearing to the public if the party seeking closure proves that such portion of the hearing would disclose confidential information and that the disclosure creates a compelling interest outweighing the public right of access.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.”
Senator French introduced the bill. Afterwards, Senator Carson rightfully asked who gets to decide about “the compelling interest” that “outweighs” the public right to access. I agree there is a problem with the current wording, and that it should be clarified. Some suggested “the hearing officer,” “a neutral party,” and “the council.”
Several people brought up the especially egregious case of MPD racist cop, Aaron Brown, who was ordered under arbitration to be reinstated, and, after Chief Capano rightly refused, Manchester taxpayers got saddled with a $200,000 settlement payment. (<— And people wonder why there is no trust?!? LOL)
My take: This bill is long overdue and a crucial step to maaaaaaaaaybe restoring trust in law enforcement. The default should be for more openness and transparency. In order to close down any portion of the hearings under this bill, I’d like to suggest the determinations should be part of the Right-to-Know Ombudsman’s duties. The RTK Ombudsman bill (which is a bill that RTKNH has been championing for several years, since Sununu’s last “Let’s Pretend to Do Something Task Force”) is again up to be heard this year. Maybe tying some of these issues together will give the Ombudsman Bill a better chance of finally passing?
SB39: This bill exempts information and records contained in personnel files, internal investigations, and pre-employment background investigations of any state or local law enforcement officer from public access or disclosure under the right-to-know law
I can’t lie, I was deeply disappointed that Senator Carson would introduce what must be the most galling, in-your-face, fuck-you-guys, anti-liberty, anti-transparency bill that I have seen in a long time. Frankly, it’s shocking to me, given the current climate regarding much-needed police reform, and given the fact that it took twenty-seven years to overturn the wrongly decided Fenniman decision (during which time Granite Staters have purposely been kept in the dark about state agents’ malfeasance, compounding problems that will take years to reform) that Senator Carson would attempt to pass this bill, which did not have any co-sponsors.
This bill flies directly in the face of the police reform measures suggested by the LEACT Commission, which, go figure, was made up 50% of law enforcement, so you know those recommendations are already pretty watered down. During SB39’s hearing, LEOs gave confusing and contradictory testimony about whether this bill would actually support the LEACT Commission’s recommendations or not (it sounded to me like it did not but that they didn’t want to admit that, even when Senator Whitley asked in different ways several times).
In my oral testimony, I pointed out that police reforms is happening because we are now able to record police officers (in part due to my landmark 1st Amendment court case affirming the right to film police officers in the execution of their public duties). Video recordings mean there is finally PROOF of bad cops. Beforehand, LEOs would just lie, deny the truth, falsify reports, etc. and the courts and the Regime would play along, nothing to see here, until you start to SEE it. Seriously, do yourself a (dis)favor… spend an hour on Youtube clicking through police brutality videos. You may come away with the right impression that there is an “epidemic of isolated incidences.”
I tried to address some of the red herrings proffered by Carson, including:
1. Not hiding police personnel records would result in a “chilling effect” on hiring and retaining officers. How about this: If you’re concerned about that, maybe don’t become a police officer in 2021. We want honest, good cops, thanks.
2. Concerns about “doxxing” or exposing private information like “blood types,” “home addresses,” and “medical records.” This is an absurd example, and can easily be dealt with through redactions of the portions of private information not needed to be shared publicly.
3. Officers will get swept up in “unfounded or unfair” accusations… Well, let’s see, your jobs are literally to investigate shit, so either you are competent at your job and we can dispel with this concern, or you are incompetent at your job, in which case more transparency is 100% warranted.
I also pointed out that as written, this bill violates several provisions of the NH Constitution (including Article 10, by creating a special “class of men,” and Article 8, our Right-to-Know) and that it would not stand up to legal scrutiny. I ended with an impassioned plea to not push New Hampshire back thirty years again by returning to darkness. Instead, let’s choose sunlight, openness, and love.
ACTIVIST ALERT! We need to KILL THIS BILL. Based on the testimony in support of this bill, all from state agents, they’re taking the “oh-so-reasonable approach” of, “well, of course we need to address your concerns, and carve out a few exceptions for you,” and “oh, we should totally make this apply to all government agents and municipalities, not just police” but that is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what needs to happen. This bill MUST die if transparency is to live.
I will post some suggestions about what we can do, but it starts with informing the public that the NH Senate is trying to reverse progress on police reforms by writing a law to hide ONLY law enforcement personnel records, internal investigations (you know, literally, their disciplinary stuff) and pre-employment info (where it might tell you a cop got fired from his previous gig). So, tell people you know, track the bill, sign up to testify at future hearings, write your senators now to demand they kill this bill, write local Letters-to-the-Editor, call radio shows, etc. Together, Granite Staters from all walks can say, NO! This is NOT good enough!
Other News Coverage
Union Leader: “Secrecy with respect to law enforcement decisions and agencies is no longer acceptable,” Sullivan said. More…
NHPR: “At a state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, members of the public testified on Senate Bill 39, which would bar public access to police officers’ personnel files.
Senate Bill 39 would directly exempt any information in an officer’s personnel file from becoming public under the New Hampshire right-to-know law, which allows citizens to request and receive government documents. Currently, police personnel files can only be disclosed if there is a compelling public interest, a determination that can only be made by a judge.” More…
InDepth NH: “But opponents of the bill, which outnumbered supporters two-to-one, said it would harm the state’s push for greater transparency and accountability for law enforcement after George Floyd was killed last year by a police officer in Minnesota.
“This would be a perfect avenue for bad cops to be protected,” said Ronelle Tshiela, founder of Black Lives Matter Manchester and a member of the governor’s Commission on Law Enforcement Accountability, Community and Transparency. “This bill is an enemy to both accountability and transparency.”
The bill could negate a recent state Supreme Court decision that the Laurie List for police officers with a history of dishonesty, excessive force or instability is a public document.” More…
Below is my testimony for two Senate bills regarding police accountability being heard later today.
OPPOSE SB39:
Dear Judiciary Committee Members:
My name is Carla Gericke, former Republican state Senate candidate in District 20. I live in Manchester, NH, am an attorney, and serve on several nonprofit boards, including Right-to-Know NH, a nonpartisan, statewide citizens’ coalition that works to improve government transparency and accountability.
Today, I’m submitting my written testimony in my personal capacity, and ask that you OPPOSE SB39. I have also signed up to testify orally, but I ask that this email testimony be submitted into the permanent record for this bill.
I also ask that today’s Union Leader editorial, Assaulting your right to know, be formally submitted into the record.
For more than a decade now, I have been working on police accountability issues in New Hampshire, starting with my own arrest in 2010 for filming police officers during a routine traffic stop. After all charges were dropped against me, I filed and, four years later, won a landmark First Circuit, 1st Amendment court case affirming the right to film police officers in public (Gericke vs. Begin et al).
Thanks to my determination to create a binding legal precedent to ensure citizens can (and one may argue, should) record police officers in the execution of their public duties, more than 13 million people in the First Circuit can now legally record police officers. Indeed, the Court found that the right to film police officers was so clearly established, they can no longer invoke qualified immunity as a defense.
It is undeniable that recordings of police brutality and excessive force have highlighted a very serious problem in our country, and that we need more, not less, transparency and accountability.
Therefore, this proposed bill, SB39, which reduces transparency and codifies hiding ONLY police officers “personnel files, internal investigations, and pre-employment background investigations of any state and local law enforcement officer,” is an affront to police accountability activists everywhere, and is, frankly, an insult to all decent Granite Staters.
Why? Because it took TWENTY SEVEN YEARS to overturn the wrongly decided Fenniman vs. Union Leader decision that originally created an exception saying that government employees’ personnel files are exempt from RSA 91-A.
That’s twenty seven years of secrets, unaccountability, and actively, purposefully hiding abuses, leading to the distrust of law enforcement we see today.
Yet, here is Senator Carson, endorsed in the past by several law enforcement agencies, introducing a bill to again shield police officers’ malfeasance from the public it purports to serve.
This anti-accountability bill also tramples on the NH Constitution by creating a special, separate, protected class solely for law enforcement, in direct violation of Article 10 of the NH Constitution that states: “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men…”
Then there is the Laurie’s List/Exculpatory Evidence Schedule issue. If you have been following along, you will know this is a secret list of bad cops that is actively being kept secret from the public despite now two court cases ordering that it be made public. Even the stacked Law Enforcement Accountability Task Force recommended the EES should be disclosed.
A reminder: The EES is a list of New Hampshire law enforcement officers with sustained findings of misconduct for credibility or trustworthiness, for things like lying, falsifying reports, stealing, and excessive force.
In a court order dated April 23, 2019, Judge Charles Temple ruled the EES is “not confidential,” and “is not exempt from disclosure under RSA 91-A,” and “that it should be made public”.
Judge Temple ruled there was a compelling public interest in knowing which law enforcement officers have been deemed by their own police chiefs, after a 20-page process, to be so untrustworthy that they cannot testify in court.
Let’s repeat that for the folks in the back: There is a secret list of about 270 New Hampshire law enforcement agents that are deemed so untrustworthy they cannot take the stand in court, that your Attorney General has spent several extra years now, despite court orders to the contrary, fighting to continue to keep secret from you. I also remind you, we saw last summer what happens when you create an institutional process that protects “bad apples,” exactly what SB39 wants to do.
The NH Constitution says: [Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government.”
Hiding police personnel files and disciplinary actions is NOT “open, accessible, accountable or responsive” government. Everyone knows, police reform, with more accountability and transparency is needed, not less. In order to institute reforms, we must know what is going on. It starts here today, with you. Please OPPOSE SB39.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
West Manchester
***
SUPPORT SB41
My name is Carla Gericke, former Republican state Senate candidate in District 20. I live in Manchester, NH, am an attorney, and serve on several nonprofit boards, including Right-to-Know NH, a nonpartisan citizens’ coalition that works to improve government transparency, a crucial component to maintaining public trust in our institutions.
Today, I’m submitting my written testimony in my personal capacity, and ask that you SUPPORT SB41 in order to increase police accountability by opening police disciplinary hearings to the public. Even though I have also signed up to testify orally, I ask that this email testimony be submitted into the permanent record for this bill.
Last summer, during the nationwide protests, we saw quite clearly that without trust in the people enforcing our laws, everything starts to break down. For years now, law enforcement officials have been overly protected at the expense of your constituents. Today, you have an opportunity to start to right that wrong.
More transparency leads to faster reforms. You can’t fix what you don’t know is broken, and you can’t know what’s broken when you hide the truth. Opening disciplinary actions to public scrutiny must happen in order to restore trust.
Police officers do not have a privacy interest when acting in their official capacities. Other professions have public disciplinary hearings… why not police officers, especially when considering the nature of their work?
Any disciplinary action before the Police Standards and Training Council, of course, creates a significant and compelling public interest, both with regard to the officer and the Council that is supposed to be providing the oversight.
Based on the number of officers that are being hidden from the public on the Laurie’s List/Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (more than 270 at one time), there is an immediate and urgent need for more public scrutiny of this entire process.
The New Hampshire Commission on Law Enforcement Accountability, Community, and Transparency, concurs, recommending under #22 in its Final Report to “Make the existing Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES)” a public record. Both the ACLU-NH and the NH Press Association also support this bill to increase transparency and accountability.
Public scrutiny is our best check and balance to hold law enforcement officials accountable. It starts with this bill, and your appetite to do what is right in the name of restoring public trust. Without trust, everything will crumble… Don’t let this happen on your watch.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
West Manchester
Following please find the letter I sent to the Executive Council regarding the potential appointment of Gordon MacDonald as New Hampshire’s Supreme Court Judge. If you’re interested, you can participate in this process in three ways, sent to me from ReBuildNH: “1) Go to the meeting on the 21st in person (they’ll probably make you wear a mask—resist if you are so inclined), 2) attend the meeting using their call-in number, or 3) email the Executive Councilors (gcweb@nh.gov) and give them your reasons why Gordon MacDonald should not be trusted with the highest judicial office in New Hampshire.”
***
Dear Councilors,
I ask that this email be read into and form part of the official record. I, Carla Gericke, former Republican State Senate candidate in District 20, ask you to vote AGAINST Gordon MacDonald’s nomination as New Hampshire’s Supreme Court Justice.
On top of the fiasco created by Sununu’s unConstitutional Emergency Orders, fully supported and enforced by the AG, for which there is NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, you should NOT confirm MacDonald based on his appeal of Judge Temple’s 2019 order to release the secret list of bad cops, aka, the Laurie’s List.
If, as MacDonald claimed by filing the appeal, he believes Granite Staters have no right to know which law enforcement officers have been found by their own police chiefs after a 20+ page process to be too corrupt to testify in court–officers who lie, cheat, falsify police reports, and use excessive force–then what sort of Supreme Court judge will he be? MacDonald’s misreading of this issue is so egregious, the NH Supreme Court late last year remanded the case back to the lower court, saying this information is, of course, in the public interest and must be disclosed. Due to MacDonald’s decision to file the appeal, his actions directly protected known bad actors for several extra years, years during which we have seen massive social unrest due to lack of police accountability or any appetite for real policing reform. This lack of judgement has wasted tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in unnecessary legal fees, and, rightfully, led to a deep mistrust in the justice system.
I remind you, the NH Constitution says:
MacDonald has proven time and time again, he will protect the Establishment at the expense of the people he purports to serve. In fact, thinking people might argue it is a de facto conflict of interest for a former Attorney General to become a Supreme Court Justice because he will be incapable of protecting New Hampshire’s citizens against Constitutional overreaches by the state. We need a bench with judges who serve the law, not politicians, their cronies, and unions. MacDonald, through his own actions, has proven he is not up to the task.
I ask you to vote AGAINST Gordon MacDonald as New Hampshire’s Supreme Court Justice.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
Former Republican State Senate Candidate, District 20