The Death of the Right to Know in New Hampshire

The Death of the Right to Know in New Hampshire: How Schulman’s Decision and the Supreme Court Betrayed Prece

The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Judge Andrew Schulman’s order in Clay v. Town of Newmarket is more than a personal injustice—it is a direct attack on decades of Right-to-Know precedent. By accepting lies, concealment, and after-the-fact ratification of an unlawful contract, the Court has effectively gutted RSA 91-A, hollowing out the very cases that once protected the public’s right to transparency.

What Happened in Newmarket

The facts are not in dispute. The Newmarket Town Council secretly approved a settlement agreement through emails with Town Manager Steven Fournier. No public meeting, no minutes, no transparency. To cover this up, Fournier submitted an official false statement claiming the Council’s deliberations and votes occurred in a “consultation with legal counsel.” That was a lie.

Newmarket’s attorneys—Christopher Hawkins, John Ratigan, Briana Matuszko, and William Warren—knew the truth, yet they lied repeatedly: first claiming no violation of RSA 91-A, then denying the Council approved the contract, and finally inventing the fiction that the Town Manager alone approved the deal. At the Superior Court hearing, Ratigan admitted—while Matuszko sat silently—that he only ever exchanged emails with Fournier. No Council meeting ever happened.

Judge Schulman brushed this aside, ruling the Town had “ratified” the unlawful deal simply by enforcing it in court. The Supreme Court then upheld his order. Worse, the Court ignored the fact that this was an appeal of a summary judgment order and failed to apply the correct standard of review, which requires facts be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Precedents Now Gutted

By blessing concealment and lies, Schulman’s reasoning—and the Supreme Court’s rubber-stamp—has placed the following landmark Right-to-Know cases on the chopping block:

• Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. v. Portsmouth / Union Leader Corp. v. Salem (2020) In these cases, the Court limited the “internal personnel practices” exemption and required a balancing test for disclosure. If government bodies can now hide decisions behind false labels (“consultation with counsel”) and secret emails, the careful protections of Seacoast Newspapers and Union Leader become meaningless.
• Taylor v. SAU 55 (2017) The Court held that public bodies must provide access to minutes and electronic records in a reasonable format, and that non-public meeting minutes must be managed under strict statutory standards. Schulman’s approach—that secret email approvals can later be “ratified”—destroys the very foundation of Taylor. Why keep lawful minutes at all if officials can simply lie later and a judge will excuse it?
• Provenza v. Canaan (2022) This case reinforced that internal records are subject to the balancing test and cannot be categorically withheld. If concealment and false claims of attorney consultation are accepted, the balancing test itself collapses—because courts will never even reach the weighing stage.
• Brandano v. SAU 16 (2023) In recent rulings, the Court reaffirmed that agencies must respond to records requests and cannot dodge disclosure by claiming convenience or technicalities. Under Schulman’s precedent, however, officials can simply lie about whether records exist, and courts will bless it after the fact.
• CaremarkPCS Health, LLC v. NH Dept. of Administrative Services Though focused on statutory exemptions for trade secrets, this case rested on the integrity of summary judgment review. If the Supreme Court can now ignore that standard—as it did in my appeal—then the protections of Caremark and every summary judgment RTK case are in jeopardy.

Why This Matters

The decision in Clay v. Newmarket signals to every town and city: you may approve contracts in secret, conceal records, submit false statements, and lie to courts. If challenged, you can ratify it later and the judiciary will protect you.

That destroys not only RSA 91-A, but the very precedents the Supreme Court itself once championed. Seacoast Newspapers, Taylor, Provenza, Brandano, and others were supposed to guarantee accountability and access. Under Schulman’s ruling, they are unenforceable.

Conclusion

The judiciary has abandoned its duty. By refusing to apply the correct summary judgment standard and by ignoring blatant lies and concealment, the Supreme Court has betrayed the people of New Hampshire. If this precedent stands, the Right-to-Know Law is dead, and the citizens have no shield against corruption.