In the latter part of 1943, the chief editor of a respected, mid-size New England newspaper began hearing through the proverbial grapevine that his city’s tax assessors were granting “substantial” abatements to certain property owners.

So the editor put one or two of his reporters on the case, and they soon found that although they had no trouble accessing property valuation records, the assessors promptly informed them that other assessing information – including abatement records – were off-limits to the public.

That policy, the editor and his reporters learned, was rooted in language in a recently-passed legislative measure: Although the law was clear that all assessing information was a matter of public record, it also granted assessors the power to set the rules for their city or town.

Predictably, the rules the assessors of this particular city set rules “that made inspection by the public virtually impossible.”

Such a scenario may sound familiar to anyone following Nashua’s ongoing dispute between some residents and city officials – mainly those associated with the Assessing Department – but the case I refer to comes from a February 1952 story in The Telegraph, which recounts some of the government-transparency battles fought by James A. Hardman, then the editor of the North Adams, Massachusetts Transcript, a six-days-a-week publication that was recently merged with the Berkshire Eagle.

We in this proud profession of journalism are still fighting the good fight on behalf of the public’s right to know, not because we seek to bury city or town officials under reams of right-to-know requests, nor to see if we can dig up some mud that will embarass people or, say, jeopardize their livelihood.

No, we do what we do because we strive to seek out, and illuminate, those dark corners where the records of city, town or state government proceedings sometimes go to die, depriving not just journalists, but more importantly the general public, of information to which they were entitled to inspect.

Meanwhile, I must say I’m honored to have been selected one of the panelists for Tuesday evening’s forum, to which the public is invited. See accompanying information box for details.

Titled “How Transparent is New Hampshire Government and Why It Matters,” the forum is sponsored by InDepthNH and the New England First Amendment Coalition. My fellow panelists include

• Nancy West, former New Hampshire Union Leader reporter who founded the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism, which publishes InDepthNH.org, a nonprofit through which West and her growing pool of contributors and columnists have made great strides “holding the powerful accountable and providing in-depth reporting on State House matters and complex issues that affect New Hampshire people,” to borrow from her thumbnail bio in Tuesday’s program.

• Gilles Bissonnette, legal director at American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, who has litigated many cases having to do with police and government accountability, immigrants’ rights, election issues and plenty of First Amendment cases.

• Attorney Rick Gagliuso, a former longtime libel lawyer for The Telegraph who continues to represent media outlets statewide along with his work as an authority on construction law.

• Mark Doyle, retired Merrimack police chief who now serves as director of Emergency Services and Communication.

So, you may ask, how, and when, did the first incarnations of New Hampshire’s right-to-know law come about?

Well, if you’ve lived in or around Hudson long enough and have paid even cursory attention to its political landscape, you may recall the name John Bednar, an at once colorful and cantankerous man who served as a state representative, Hudson selectman, town Democratic Committee chairman, and a few other offices over the course of years of service that was panned by some, praised by others but never left anyone wondering where he stood.

When New Hampshire’s “new era of greater freedom of access to sources of news” dawned in late August 1967, Bednar was 54, an accountant by trade but best known for his civic endeavors.

On the eve of the state’s new right-to-know law taking effect, an Associated Press story by Adolphe V. Bernotas, which Telegraph editors played up big on Page One, described Bednar’s role in getting the law passed.

The measure “was engineered and maneuvered through the legislature, mostly through the efforts of one man,” Bernotas wrote, referring to Bednar.

In his third term in the House at the time, Bednar introduced a right-to-know bill in the two previous sessions, but it was a case of the third try being the charm.

Outspoken to say the least, Bednar, in Bernotas’s story, lambasted then-Gov. John W. King, asserting that in his previous attempt to introduce a right-to-know law, he “received no help from the King administration in public hearings.”

But Bednar was full of praise for then-House Speaker Walter Peterson and House majority leader Marshall Cobleigh, as well as state Sen. James Koromilas, a Dover Republican who, according to his obituary, “championed freedom of information legislation.”

Bednar said the three were “extremely helpful in the passage” of the right-to-know bill.

“This is a strong bill … much stronger than was anticipated,” Bednar told Bernotas. He predicted the law “will go a long way to improve relations with public officials, and further ensure that all citizens will have a right to know what is going on in government.”

By passing the law, New Hampshire became the fifth New England state – Rhode Island wasn’t on board yet – and 14th nationwide to have such legislation on its books.

Here’s an interesting little tidbit: Then-Gov. King, who Bednar criticized, was, like Bednar, a Democrat.

Those he praised – Peterson, Cobleigh and Koromilas – were all Republicans.

You can find a bunch of information on right-to-know legislation at righttoknownh.wordpress.com/state-law/state-law-history.

Hope to see you Tuesday.

Dean Shalhoup’s column appears Sundays in ThTelegraph. He may be reached at 594-1256 or dshalhoup@nashuatelegraph.com