To wit: Respondents argue that the individual legislators are only part of a "public body" and so they don't have to produce any emails because RSA 91-A deals only with "public bodies." They then cite United we Stand America, Inc. v. IRS, 359 F.3d 595 (D.C. Cir. 2004) and Banks v. Lappin, 539 F.Supp.2d 228 (D.D.C. 2008) in support.
The problem is, Petitioner had already noted in Tennessee that other lawmakers view things differently under virtually the same exact wording. Emails to one individual commissioner, clearly not sitting in a quorum situation, are subject to the Act, period. A copy of the County Attorney's opinion, and of other applicable law will be provided to the Court prior to Oral argument. Here's the Political Knoxville story:
"Law Director John Owings and Chief Deputy Law Director Mary Ann Stackhouse cited Tennessee Code Annotated 10-7-301(6) in offering that opinion, which defined public records as all documents, papers, letters, electronic data files, and similar material “made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency."
When asked if that included a constituent’s letters or emails to a commissioner, Owings replied, “If it is in connection with the transaction of official business, then the answer is yes.”
Owings also stated that, in the case of email, it wouldn’t matter if such communication was sent to the commissioner’s government account or to any private account the commissioner has.
“If [an email] relates to the transaction of official business, it wouldn’t matter if it were sent to an official Knox County account or a private account. It would be public record, in my estimation,” Owings said.
Turns out the Mayor was sanctioned for shady expenditures.
So regardless of what anybody has to say good, bad or indifferent about Martha McLeod, Kelly Ayotte, Christopher King, or KingCast, we are going to split hairs, and there will be an adjudication of this issue, which must be heard before the Court and not dismissed outright. Contrary to Respondents' naked assertions, there most certainly is a colourable case here and the New Hampshire public has a right to see and hear a full adjudication on this. For another analysis again read the Colorado case in the comments.