Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that records identifying retirees and the amounts of their retirement benefits were subject to disclosure under the state Right-to-Know Law. Although RSA 91-A:4, I-a was ambiguous and did not independently mandate disclosure of regular retirement annuities, the records were not exempt as an invasion of privacy under RSA 91-A:5, IV because the public interest in transparency and oversight outweighed the retirees’ privacy interests. The court affirmed the disclosure order but declined to consider Union Leader’s request for attorney’s fees and costs because it was not raised by cross-appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether RSA 91-A:4, I-a requires disclosure of records identifying public retirees and the amounts of their retirement benefits.
- Whether RSA 91-A:4, I-a is ambiguous and therefore permits consideration of legislative history.
- Whether the requested names and retirement-benefit amounts are exempt from disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, IV because disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy.
- Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the government and individual interests in nondisclosure.
- Whether Union Leader could obtain attorney's fees and costs without filing a cross-appeal.
Holdings
- RSA 91-A:4, I-a is ambiguous because both a temporally proximate-payment interpretation and a broader post-retirement-payment interpretation of "upon" are reasonable. Legislative history establishes that the provision was intended to cover incentive or severance-type payments made in connection with an employee's departure, not regular retirement annuities; therefore, RSA 91-A:4, I-a does not independently compel disclosure of the requested records.
- Although retirees have a privacy interest in associating their names with the amounts of their retirement benefits, that interest is comparable to the privacy interest public employees have in their names and salaries and does not outweigh the public interest in knowing how public funds are spent and in detecting error or corruption in the administration of NHRS. Disclosure therefore does not constitute an invasion of privacy under RSA 91-A:5, IV.
- The court would not consider Union Leader's request for attorney's fees and costs because Union Leader failed to file a cross-appeal.
Key quotations
“The legislative history clearly supports NHRS’s argument that RSA 91-A:4, I-a was intended to apply “only ... to incentive payments made to employees to bring about their retirement,” not to regular retirement annuities.” (678)
“In sum, we find that retirees have a privacy interest in information associating their names with the amount of their retirement benefits, but conclude that it is not appreciably different from public employees’ interest in keeping the amount of their salaries private.” (682)
“Public employers contribute to the fund used to pay annuities. ... “[K]nowing how a public body is spending taxpayer money in conducting public business is essential to the transparency of government, the very purpose underlying the Right-to-Know Law.”” (684-685)
Factual background
Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper publisher, requested the names and annual pension amounts of the 500 NHRS members who received the highest annual pension payments during 2009. NHRS denied the request but offered to provide an anonymized ranking of annuities by amount, identifying only the annuity type, member category, and whether the last employer was the State or a political subdivision. The requested benefits were paid through NHRS, a defined-benefit pension trust funded by member and employer contributions and investment income.
Procedural history
Union Leader requested the identities and 2009 annual pension amounts of the 500 highest-paid NHRS retirees. NHRS denied the request but offered an anonymized ranking of annuities. The superior court ordered disclosure, concluding that the records were subject to mandatory disclosure under RSA 91-A:4, I-a and were not exempt under the privacy provision of RSA 91-A:5, IV. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed and declined to consider Union Leader's request for attorney's fees and costs because it had not filed a cross-appeal.