This oped is by Ross Connelly, the editor of The Hardwick Gazette.
Vermont state law gives people the right to see public records concerning matters conducted by public bodies.
The law states “it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.”
When the law was first enacted in 1976, 16 specific exemptions of records were listed. The number of rose to 134 by 2001 and jumped to 197 in 2005. As of the end of February this year, there were 230. Next week, there is a good chance there will be 231.
H.331, a bill to amend the state’s Public Records law, took a quick ride through the Vermont Senate in mid-February, and an even quicker pass through the House last week. The measure will allow private donors to any of the three public state colleges, to Vermont Technical College, the Community College of Vermont, the University of Vermont or the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, to remain anonymous, if they wish.
There are no campuses of public higher education in the 10 towns covered by the Gazette, so of what interest is the issue locally?
Over the past several years, the Craftsbury School Board and townspeople grappled with what to do with the town¹s two schools: build anew, renovate, tuition… As the debate progressed through more School Board meetings than anyone can remember, a number of bond votes, and ongoing discussion to this day, one common point of agreement exists: there are no easy answers and whatever is done will not be cheap.
During the debates, which stretch back years, an anonymous donor gave the School Board a hefty sum to assist the board’s efforts to find a solution. The board was adamant in its refusal to reveal the name of the donor. No one knew whether the donor lived in town, had kids in the school system, had a stake in the process, or anything. The School Board used the donation to help advance its quest to secure a bond to build a new school — a policy decision that would have implications for every property taxpayer in town.
The anonymous donor was an unseen face at the table. Unseen and unaccountable, but one whose donation had the potential to affect all taxpayers of the town.
Such a local scenario could easily happen at any one of Vermont’s public institutions of higher education. Without transparency, policy decisions that could affect taxpayers from the top of Vermont to its southern border could be impacted by an individual and an advancement officer who are able to arrange for a donation behind closed doors.
A new building may require local zoning approval. Private residences or land may be bought for a site for a new building, which would reduce a municipality’s Grand List and increase the local property tax rate. Tuitions could rise for all students because of the need to increase the institution’s budget to maintain the new building. Who is sitting at the table when the decision is debated? An anonymous donor can sit there — unseen and unaccountable.
Some people in support of adding an anonymous donor exemption to the state’s Public Records law say a donor’s privacy needs to be protected. Why do people with money need special treatment? Since when is putting a pricetag on transparency a part of the democratic process?
That is not how the needs and paths of public higher education should be mapped, that is not how public policy should be formulated, and that is not how a democracy should function. And yet, most of the state representatives and state senators in the towns covered by the Gazette voted for this new exemption. If asked, each would probably be quick to say he or she believes in open government and the public¹s right to know, but they place special interests above the common good.
The public’s right to know the truth, transparency and accountability are building blocks for democracy’s foundation. They must not be stepchildren when the public’s business is conducted. Citizens need to speak up to their legislators and let them know granting one, then two, then 231 exemptions to the Public Records law — with the last a privilege for a small few — is undemocratic and has to stop. The public’s right to know is fundamental. Democracy requires that.
