N.H. high court orders audit interviews, notes made public
By The Associated Press
11.27.02
CONCORD, N.H. — The state Supreme Court ruled this week that under the New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law, a state agency must release copies of interviews and notes generated during an audit of the state's Property and Casualty Loss Program.
The Nov. 25 ruling was the second by the high court in favor of the former head of the program, Henry Goode, who believes the critical audit forced his resignation and damaged his professional reputation.
Goode, who was the risk-management administrator for the Property and Casualty Loss Program when it was audited in 1993, sought the records from the Office of the Legislative Budget Assistant.
In a ruling two years ago, the high court said Goode was entitled to draft versions of the audit, as well as notes of interviews and memos that showed how the auditors arrived at their conclusions.
But it sent the case back to Merrimack County Superior Court to allow the state to argue that some of the documents should remain confidential. It ordered the trial judge to "weigh the public's interest in disclosure against the government's interest" in confidentiality.
The Office of the Legislative Budget Assistant released most of the documents, but claimed that notes of interviews should remain confidential, because those interviewed might be less candid if they knew anything they said could become public.
The state agency also argued that auditors' "work product" — early notes and memos — should remain confidential because they might be reluctant to commit their thoughts to paper if they knew they might become public. Judge Kathleen McGuire agreed.
However, the high court rejected both arguments this week, saying the state's interest in confidentiality did not outweigh the Right-to-Know Law's mandate to "provide the utmost information to the public about what its government is up to."
"While there is a possibility that an audit investigation may be compromised if interviewees are reluctant to disclose information to investigators, we do not find that this outweighs the public's interest in disclosure," Associate Justice Linda Dalianis wrote for the court in a 3-0 decision.
The high court also ordered McGuire to reconsider whether Goode is entitled to some attorney's fees.
The law says someone who has to sue a state agency to obtain records under the Right-to-Know Law can recover attorney's fees if the state agency should have known it was required to disclose those records.