CONCORD, N.H. (AP) – About a year and a half ago, the state was pursuing a chance to buy more than 7,000 acres for all-terrain-vehicle trails in Berlin. ATV Watch, which opposes allowing ATVs on public land, used the Right-to-Know law to request more information.

No one disputes that some of the documents requested were not produced within the five days required by the law. But the group eventually got what it asked for.

Both sides now say the state Supreme Court should determine what, if anything, should be the consequence for the delay. The decision also might clarify at what point certain documents become public.

“Our democracy isn’t just voting people in and voting them out. It’s based on being able to influence our decision-makers,” said Andrew Walters, who leads ATV Watch. “Timely information is key to effective action.”

Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards said the state Department of Resources and Economic Development, which bought the land for a proposed state park, did its best to meet the deadline despite some initial confusion.

A lower court agreed, finding that while the department “was in technical violation of the statute, some violations were not its fault and others were harmless.”

Walters disagrees the delays were harmless, particularly when he didn’t get the property appraisal until after the Executive Council voted to buy the land.

“He lost his opportunity to question the deal and to raise whatever issues he had,” said lawyer Joshua Gordon, who is representing ATV Watch in the appeal. “When it comes to timetable, time matters. It’s there (in the law) for a reason.”

Also at issue is whether Walters and others are entitled to items like handwritten notes from a meeting and documents like letters of intent or appraisals when the state was still negotiating a land sale or purchase.

“It’s time for it to go to the Supreme Court again,” Edwards said.

Gordon agrees.

He said the department went overboard in declaring documents exempt from disclosure. A letter of intent and an appraisal should have been exempt only if the department could show that releasing them would harm the state’s negotiating position, he said. A letter in the case suggests the appraisal had already been shared with the sellers, he said. And the letter of intent was just an agreement to “work cooperatively” to arrange a sale and said nothing about the terms, he said.

Edwards said the department properly released both documents when they went on the council’s agenda.

It was human error when Walters was mistakenly given two copies of one appraisal instead of one copy of that appraisal and one copy of a related one, she said.

Walters remains skeptical. In the end, he didn’t get the appraisal he had asked for until a month after the deal was approved.

The lower court did not rule on when the appraisal should have been released because once the deal was done, ATV Watch got a copy and the court decided the dispute was moot.

Though Walters expressed concern that the deal was being pushed through, the Executive Council did delay its vote on the purchase in order to hold public hearings.

The proposed park is popular in the North Country, where it’s expected to be an economic boon to the region. Even many who fought ATVs in other state parks said they were more comfortable allowing them in Berlin.

In the end, ATV Watch never took a position against the land purchase or the park’s potential use by ATVs, and the project is progressing.

Since the lower court ruled, Edwards said the department has received training and made changes to improve its ability to follow the Right-to-Know law.

But Walters and Gordon say the case is worth pursuing because there’s bound to be a next time – if not for ATV Watch, for others.

“Tell us everything and let the chips fall where they may. Then let democracy work,” Walters advises. “This is not about stopping the ATV park.”

—

On the Net:

Right-to-Know law:

www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm

AP-ES-07-08-06 1049EDT