Citizens Seeking Records Don't Want To Make A Career Of This.
Disputes over municipal records in Nashua are characterized by significant contention. City officials operate through a distorted political lens. To engage with the Nashua government, one needs to align with their political views in order to receive cooperation and timely access to governmental records as required by New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know (RTK) Law (RSA 91-A). Any citizen not ‘in good graces’ with city leaders can expect Nashua’s opaque and arbitrary RTK processes to be employed to frustrate their lawful access to public records.
The court system is unfortunately susceptible to manipulation by unethical attorneys. The exploitive Nashua playlist is long:
Submitting excessive motions
Employing delaying tactics
Taking advantage of procedural rules
Conducting deadline ambushes
Increasing legal costs
Undermining the credibility of pro se litigants through personal attacks
Unethical tactics have made it difficult for Nashua citizens to obtain records, leading to a five-year legal battle. The current system focuses resources on legal practitioners, wasting taxpayer funds and frustrating citizens. To foster greater credibility and trust, the Court needs to implement meaningful improvements. Ensuring that city attorneys adhere to ethical practices and uphold professional standards is crucial for the integrity of the legal system.
I spent four years in Court trying hard to open record access in Nashua but to no avail. The City Attorneys have told the public that I win only 8% of the time. The Court believed that I had won many times and seemed to forget all the times I had won. Neither understands the greater good. The focus is narrowly on winning or losing rather than on fostering an environment of transparency, accountability, and responsiveness in government for all residents of Nashua, regardless of their political affiliations.
My initial RTK lawsuit, filed with attorneys in February 2020, remains unresolved, with records from 2019 now projected to take six years to conclude. Additionally, the scheduling within the court system has led to increased costs and delays, which hinder the timely advancement of my case to the Supreme Court. It took almost three years simply to advance my RTK petition, and it continues to await resolution. It's become a career.
My lawsuits feel like a never-ending vertical climb. In the spring of 2021, I filed an RTK lawsuit, on my own initiative, for access to email records. I was successful in the lower Court before the City appealed the case to the Supreme Court where I prevailed. It was not until June of 2024, I received the emails. Three years of persistent effort, and it's not over yet. It's become a career.
In August 2022, I initiated another RTK petition regarding the construction of the Nashua Performing Arts Center and the associated downtown barriers. This case has now taken two years to navigate through the lower courts and is currently in the appeal process at the Supreme Court.
The situation surrounding the Arts Center became unexpectedly complex due to allegations of potential fraud and the misuse of public funds—an issue that proves challenging for an individual representing themselves. While I did not initially seek to file an appeal, I felt compelled to do so when city officials pursued federal funding for the Arts Center and established shell corporations with taxpayer dollars, leading to concerns over transparency when tracking the money. I did not prevail in my claims related to the Arts Center in the lower court, but I felt it was important to bring this matter before the Supreme Court.
My understanding of the challenges in accessing the court system were admittedly naive, assuming the RTK Law is accepted as a cornerstone of participatory democracy. It appears that the interpretation by City Officials discourages citizens from exercising their legal rights. Nashua's Corporation Counsel presents a particularly hostile presence, often characterized by a strong adversarial, which complicates interactions. Civility, humility and integrity are absent.
Last summer, I was taken aback when the court issued an order regarding my motion to withdraw a training order for the City, following a ruling by the Supreme Court in October 2023 concerning my 2021 email lawsuit. I prepared for a three-day trial set for December, addressing records violations related to the Performing Arts Center and downtown barriers, I found myself facing five opposing attorneys contesting these claims. The consolidation of additional matters into this case has made the preparation process even more demanding.
Prior to the Supreme Court issued the October 2023 order from a 2021 Petition, the lower Court requested both parties submit a focused memorandum on how the City should conduct email searches. This concern arose from issues related to the City’s email storage practices, which impacted the completeness of searches for public records. In late 2021, the City transitioned to a cloud-based email server where emails are stored for 12 months. The search features were excellent, and the IT director wrote a memo stating that he would train anyone who needed assistance. What is needed now is the public policy on the City's routing of these emails and training for searching relevant documents beyond emails.
I sincerely believed I was supporting the Court and the City by not wasting time and money, which motivated me to filed a motion to withdraw the training awarded in 2021. With a major trial two months away and my lack of trial experience weighing heavily on me, I faced real stress and time constraints. The Court was lax on the rules and permitted the city legal team to violate Trial and Civil Procedure rules, which made my efforts frustrating, time-consuming, and burdensome.
The Court's order to write a training memorandum was challenging because I was unfamiliar with how to write that document. The City would object to whatever I wrote, and indeed, there was not a harmonious relationship between the City and me, so there would be no working together on this. The Court was well aware of the animus between the parties. It granted the withdrawal without a single negative remark or expressing disappointment.
Six months later, the Court issued an admonishing order and sanctions for a perceived lack of respect for the Court. Part of the admonishment was an unexpected and stinging criticism of my withdrawal from the training order, writing:
Her object is never about winning or gaining access to public records; it is instead about the thrill of confronting her perceived enemies in forums that she believes have no choice but to entertain her attacks. As part of its merits order, the Court indicated that it would require the City to undergo Right-to-Know training to help minimize or eliminate future Right-to-Know violations. However, on remand, Ms. Ortolano decided she no longer wanted such relief and moved to withdraw that relief. One could, therefore, easily draw an inference that Ms. Ortolano enjoys fighting with the City and its employees more than ensuring compliance with the Right-to-Know law.
It could easily be inferred that I was overwhelmed by an imminent Trial against five seasoned, respected attorneys. This situation impeded my ability to undertake writing a focused training memorandum that, after three years, was no longer relevant.
It is possible that the Court may not have prior experience in conducting a trial, which could lead to a lack of understanding regarding the complexities, skill, and time involved in the process, particularly for a non-attorney, It was a Trial by fire for me.
The circumstances in citizens' lives can significantly evolve in three years, rendering the value of the prior work not beneficial to the City or them. It appears that the Court prioritizes the outcome of the case above all else, and my decision to withdraw the training component was interpreted as a failure, despite my intentions to focus my limited time and not do the City’s training development for them.
While those in the legal profession chose to pursue a law career, I have not. My background includes ten years in engineering, followed by a period as a stay-at-home mother who homeschooled her children.
I have experienced distress as I became a target of disparaging attacks from my City government initially seeking records to rectify an erroneous property assessment. Despite the City Attorney’s misleading overstatement of their success in these RTK cases, I can take solace in a number of favorable rulings. However disparaged by Nashua officials, my work has been recognized by the 2023 Loeb School of Communications First Amendment Award
I have few compliments and many reservations about the legal and judicial institutions and the manner in which Nashua RTK cases are addressed. My objective was never to cultivate a legal career; I simply sought to obtain my records as ensured by Law.