$2,000 for Silence. $60,000 to Enforce It.

$2,000 for Silence. $60,000 to Enforce It. How Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella Turned Newmarket’s Right-to-Know Law Into a Weapon Against Its Own Citizens

There is no polite way to describe what happened here. A law firm entrusted to advise a municipality on transparency instead engineered a settlement that does the opposite: it strips a citizen of his rights, attempts to silence him permanently, and then drains tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to enforce that silence. The firm is Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella. The attorneys are John Ratigan and Christopher Hawkins. Their work deserves scrutiny—because the document speaks for itself.

For the price of $2,000, this agreement attempts to permanently strip a citizen of his statutory rights under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law. It explicitly requires that he “shall submit no additional RSA 91-A requests ever again”—not just personally, but that no one else may submit them on his behalf either. That is not settlement. That is eradication of a legal right.

It gets worse. The agreement also prohibits him from writing about town officials in media or social media—an extraordinary attempt to restrict speech about public officials. And then comes the enforcement hammer: if he dares challenge or defend against this agreement, he risks being hit with attorney’s fees. This is not dispute resolution. This is coercion, wrapped in legal language.

Attorney John Ratigan did not simply negotiate a compromise. He authored a document that demands surrender of statutory rights, attempts to bind third parties who never signed it, imposes restrictions on speech about government officials, and creates financial penalties to deter any challenge. Any attorney practicing in public law knows exactly what RSA 91-A represents: the public’s right to hold government accountable. Drafting a settlement designed to extinguish that right is not advocacy—it is the inversion of the law’s purpose.

Then there is Christopher Hawkins—also of Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella—who simultaneously serves as Newmarket Town Moderator. Rather than questioning this agreement, he has pursued attorney’s fees to enforce it. A public official is actively involved in enforcing a document that strips a citizen of transparency rights—while taxpayers pay the bill. The cost? Approximately $60,000. Not to improve services. Not to increase transparency. But to enforce a $2,000 agreement designed to silence a resident.

This is what abuse of process looks like. The agreement itself reveals the mindset behind it: the Town labeled the citizen’s requests as “vexatious” and sought fees accordingly. But RSA 91-A was never meant to be convenient for government. It was meant to be uncomfortable. It was meant to force disclosure. When attorneys respond to that discomfort by drafting agreements that eliminate the right entirely, they are not defending the law—they are undermining it.

Why does a municipality need to spend $60,000 in taxpayer money to enforce a $2,000 settlement? Because the objective was never resolution. The objective was deterrence. Send a message: ask too many questions, and you will be labeled “vexatious.” Challenge the government, and you may be forced to give up your rights. Speak publicly, and you risk legal consequences. That is not transparency. That is intimidation.

The conduct of John Ratigan and Christopher Hawkins, through Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, raises a fundamental question: who are these attorneys serving—the public, or the suppression of it? Because when a Right-to-Know law is turned into a bargaining chip, when speech is restricted in exchange for nominal payment, and when taxpayers are forced to fund enforcement of that restriction, the problem is no longer a legal dispute. It is a failure of public accountability. And it deserves to be exposed.