So to recap:

• NH DCYF sent my personal information to people I don’t know so they could contact the Granddaughter that we are caring for (6/30).
• I demanded, via RSA 91-A Right To Know, how DCYF decides who gets to give it to those people I don’t know – what are their protocols.

And now, I demanded information on the system / subsystem that is in use by DCYF that creates that list of people that would receive the private info (re: location) of where care givers. My granddaughter was amazed at the names that were reeled off over the phone by the DCYF representative. MY response was “what system do they have in order to get that information, determine the correct relationships, and who has access to that information?”.  So, another RTK – this time on some of the technical aspects of such a system (assuming it is computer based – and I have no reason to believe it isn’t).

BTW, DBMS stands for Database Management System:

Right to Know Request per RSA 91-A: “Family Connections” DBMS

Article 2-b of the NH Constitution by which all agents of NH Government (elected and administrative workers) shall obey:

[Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.

Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A), I am demanding access, within 5 business days, to the following governmental records:

First:

• Produce the form that which my wife and me, as currently unlicensed Grandparents, signed giving DCYF permission to share our personal contact information to those people that we don’t know (or they, us).

Second – (IF an in-house system, even if hosted by an outsourced hosting service):

For the Division of Children,Youth and Families, provide the name of the database system (along with its supporting subsystems) that, when queried by DCYF staff with single given name, returns non-accused family members (immediate, secondary, tertiary, including those no longer part of a family due to divorce, et al) and their personal information such that DCYF can send them notification where any placed child can be reached.

Example: enter the name of an alleged abuse/neglect suspect and the DBMS returns records (and their personal information such that those people can be notified where a placed child can be found to foster family communications after being removed from the home.

Second – To also be included in the Responsive Records to this part of this RSA 91-A demand, provide the following if being used as an in-house system (if a software-as-service solution is being used, see Third, below):

• The commercial name of the database management system (e.g., Microsoft SQL, Oracle, RDB, MySQL, Neo4J, MongoDB, et al) used to house “family connections” as described above.
• Type of DBMS:
  • SQL/Relational
  • Non-relational
  • Object-oriented
• The name of the hosting company as applicable (if not installed in-house):
  • AWS
  • Azure
  • Liquid Web
  • Other(s)

Audit Trail:

• The Request For Proposal (“RFP”) sent to prospective vendors.
• The listing of vendors contacted to demonstrate their wares
• The scoring results of each according to the RFP.
• The methodology used to evaluate the prospective DBMSs in processing the DCYF sample load including the methodology’s point/scoring system
• The “point/scoring award” results for each of the vendors after the testing phase

 

• The name of the winning vendor
• The final contract and pricing, including (but not limited to):
  • purchase price
  • Pricing model: seats, capacity measurements
  • ongoing maintenance pricing per time period
  • automatic maintenance price increasing (if automatic)
  • training classes
  • webinars
    • on-site (e.g., admin, programming, in-house support)
    • off-site (including travel costs)
    • manuals (as applicable)
• The implementation project plan showing major milestones and those costs vs (estimated vs actual)
• Names of the NH State Government (employees, elected officials)
  • sign off of the winner
  • signing the contract.
• The final cost of the implementation project management process.
• The number of times that the support contract has been renewed and each version’s pricing.
• Promised uptime/availability of the system as a whole

Current:

• Actual uptime/availability since “Go Live” to now
• Approximate size (in TB)
• Capacity utilization (all standard measures).
• Number of queries/day average
• Number of search results/day average
  • Non-zero
  • Null
• Personnel training/certification

 

• Rate of growth of content
• Enumerate the external sources / methodologies utilized in content lifetime for DBMS content:
  • acquiring
  • modifying
  • deleting
• Number of data breaches
  • Timestamp
  • Number of records exposed/each incident.

Third – IF a commercial software-as-service solution is used instead of an in-house system (even if then hosted by a commercial entity such as AWS or Azure):

• Repeat the above Responsive Record demands as applicable

Per RSA 91-A:4 IV(c) If you deny any portion of this request, please cite the specific exemption used to justify the denial to make each record, or part thereof, available for inspection along with a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the information withheld.

As you are aware, in 2016, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a governmental body in possession of records is required to produce them in electronic media using standard common file formats: Green v. SAU #55, 168 N.H. 796, 801 (2016). Unless there is a valid reason that it is not reasonably practicable for you to produce these records in the requested format, I ask that you either do so or explain why it is not practicable for you to comply.

Please also note, per RSA 91-A:4 III, III-a, and III-b, you are required to maintain the safety and accessibility of such responsive records. This also includes such responsive records (e.g., emails) which may have been deleted from respective In mailboxes/Sent mailboxes or local folders but are still available on the applicable email server or in your / email host’s backup systems or file server(s).

Please let me know when these records will be sent to me for inspection. If you have questions, don’t hesitate to reach out. You may email the responsive records to me at Skip@GraniteGrok.com. If the volume turns out to be substantial, I have already set up a Dropbox folder for all of your responsive records to which they can be uploaded.

Thank you for your lawful attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

-Skip
Skip Murphy
Skip@GraniteGrok.com

I do wonder if anyone else that DCYF decides to pick on has the gumption and know-how to fight back without a lawyer? Would love to shake their hand!

The post DCYF – So How Did You Determine to Send TMEW’s and My Personal Information To? appeared first on Granite Grok.

We got ourselves a presidential election, and Americans for Prosperity Action is getting involved. They sent out a mailer with the happy lead that “America’s Best Days Could Be Ahead.”  I agree. Then I flipped it over.

I’m curious how they know that and why, if they are so certain, they aren’t spending money to help fix the problem. It’s the sensible way to go. Trump is blowing away everyone almost everywhere except Minnesota, where he only has a one-point lead on DeSantis.

But otherwise, Republican voters want Trump.

I get it. The whole Trump is undesirable to the independent’s thing—and the alleged threat of a down-ticket washout. I actually have a cure. We treat the Trump candidacy the same way the same folks tell us to take the next political class RINO they put in front of us, regardless of office. Hold your nose and vote for them.

And what makes them think the Democrats won’t do the same thing to whomever Republicans pick or that it matters? If we get the 2022 treatment, the left is going to wash out the down-ticket races the same way they wash out the top of the ticket.

The cure for that is an unstoppable freight train and people willing to vote for anyone but a Democrat, no matter who that is, because we’ve articulated the separation correctly.

AFP Action decided to tell us we need someone besides Trump. They can’t say who that would be. It is outside their approved advocacy. So you are welcome to speculate.

Is Chris Christie better than Trump? Traitors Pence or Haley? Vivek. Gov. Ron? I’d take them over Biden or any Dem, but are they the people we need to de-weaponize the FBI, CIA, IRS, DOE, Big Tech, CDC/FDA, and the rest?

I just don’t see it. I also don’t see it much mattering unless we can convince Mary Ann Williamson and RFK jr to run as third-party/indies off-ticket. If we can’t divert millions of votes, the Democrats would then also need to steal in swing states no Republican is winning.

AFP should be working on mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting campaigns, and every lefty-legal loophole they can find to match the Dems ballot for ballot.

Everything else is just window dressing.

And I think Trump can win if everyone acknowledges that if he gets the nomination, we have to get him over the finish line. No excuses.

This is not, by the way, an endorsement.

The post AFP Action Doesn’t Think Donald Trump Can Win in 2024 appeared first on Granite Grok.

I have had discussions with the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) about Nashua’s Corporation Counsel and his fitness for duty. I tried to address this matter confidentially first with an Alderman, then the Board of Alderman, and the Mayor. The topic was too hot to touch. I then turned to the ADO.

The Supreme Court has no method available for citizens to report a fitness for duty or mental health matter for people practicing in the legal profession. I witnessed a shift in Corporation Counsel’s performance after he suffered a stroke. He appeared unable to perform his job or control his temper. He became abusive, explosive, and harassing. The personal targeting appeared outside the bounds of his legal professional conduct rules.

The ADO Deputy informed me that I could not file a complaint on mental health or fitness for duty issues. Only the ADO could act on those types of problems, and they would report the matter to the Supreme Court.

One wonders how that works. How does the ADO receive information if they won’t accept the public’s complaints? I asked the ADO and received no response. Apparently, there is an antiquated grapevine system at work. I understand that these matters are sensitive, but I am somewhat insensitive to these “sensitivity concerns” having been the target of this attorney’s uncontrolled attacks. The Supreme Court’s approach to sweeping the matter under the rug, particularly given the type of work an attorney performs, can be extremely consequential. For me, it has been extremely consequential.

I recently attended a court hearing, and after the hearing, Corporation Counsel engaged in a personal, red-faced, angry, agitated attack on me. This attack was witnessed by an individual who was stunned and noted that they had never before seen that level of hatred directed from one person towards another. They were afraid he would physically attack me. The encounter was witnessed by the Nashua Deputy Corporation Counsel, who said nothing.

Those closest to Corporation Counsel appear to have chosen silence rather than addressing this sensitive issue to safeguard the Counselor and the City. This approach has created snowballing legal costs and serious liabilities for the municipality.

The post The Judicial System’s “Policy” on Mental Health and Fitness for Duty matters within the Profession appeared first on Granite Grok.