Cited by

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 555 (2002) (proceeding directly to the privacy analysis after “[a]ssuming without deciding that the interview materials are confidential records”).

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 555 (2002) (proceeding directly to the privacy analysis after “assuming but not deciding that the [records] are confidential”).

The material would be disclosed if, under the third step of the analysis, “the public interest in disclosure” outweighs “the government’s interest in nondisclosure and the individual’s privacy interest in nondisclosure.” Union Leader Corp., 173 N.H. at 355; see Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 556, 558 (2002) (concluding trial court erred in ruling that materials were exempt under RSA 91-A:5, IV where “the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the [defendant’s] inter

l. As the City concedes, “this Court need not define every term within RSA chapter 91-A in order for public agencies to comply with it.” We have often stated that the Right-to-Know Law “helps further our State Constitutional requirement that the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.” Goode v. N.H. Office of Legislative Budget Ass’t, 148 N.H. 551, 553 (2002); see N.H. CONST., pt.

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 556 (2002) (stating that there was no evidence establishing a likelihood that disclosure would lead auditors to refrain from being candid and forthcoming).

reporting of that misconduct or the participation in such investigation, we expressed confidence “that the proper balancing of the employees’ interests in privacy and the State’s interest in nondisclosure against the public’s interest in disclosure under our established test adequately addresses any concerns about deterrence.” Reid, 169 N.H. at 533; cf. Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 556 (2002) (acknowledging “a possibility that an audit investigation may be compromise

Laws 1986, 83:6; see also Prof’l Firefighters of N.H. v. Local Gov’t Ctr., 159 N.H. 699, 707 (2010); Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 555-56 (2002); Union Leader Corp. v. N.H. Housing Fin.

rcial, or financial information” the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of privacy); Lambert, 157 N.H. at 379-86 (narrowly interpreting various exemptions); N.H. Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 149 N.H. 437, 439-42 (2003) (narrowly interpreting the exemption for records “whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy”); Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 554-58 (2002) (narrowly interpreting the exemption for “[r]ecords pertaining to.

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 556 (2002) (acknowledging “a possibility that an audit investigation may be compromised if interviewees are reluctant to disclose information to investigators” out of concern “that their responses could be released to the public,” but finding that this possibility did “not.

Although the Department acknowledges that RSA 91-A:4, I, does not require the trial court to engage in the same balancing test required under RSA 91-A:5, TV, see Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 554 (2002), it argues that the UTSA “does not contain sufficient explicit language prohibiting disclosure to fall under RSA 91-A4.” Rather, the Department contends that the trial court should have engaged in the balancing test applicable to “confidential, commercial, or financial

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 554 (2002).

at 504, and to “provide the utmost information to the public about what its government is up to,” Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 555 (2002) (quotation omitted).

“The interpretation of a statute, including the Right-to-Know Law, is to be decided ultimately by this court.” Goode v. N.H. Legislative *48 Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 553 (2002).

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 554 (2002).

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 553-54 (2002).

The Right-to-Know Law “helps further our State Constitutional requirement that the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.” Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 553 (2002); see N.H. Const. *439 pt.

Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 553-54 (2002).