Lawmakers recommend that tax data, animal research records be made public

dsLawmakers recommend that tax data remain public, question UVM policy on animal research

Rep. Donna Sweaney, chair of the House Government Operations Committee, checks her IPad during the 2011 Legislative Session. VTD/Josh Larkin

Rep. Donna Sweaney, chair of the House Government Operations Committee, checks her IPad during the 2011 Legislative Session. VTD/Josh Larkin

The week after the Vermont Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a town’s property tax adjustment records are public information, a legislative study committee came down on the side of making the records public.

The tax issue was one of several the Public Records Legislative Study Committee considered on Thursday as it came close to concluding its first of three summer study committees. Lawmakers also considered whether the University of Vermont and state colleges will continue to enjoy broad exemptions from the public records act, clarification of health care exemptions, and broad review of what type of personal information the state shall keep confidential.

The Legislature created the study committee this session to vet controversies regarding public records law and its more than 200 exemptions. The committee’s six members are from the House and Senate Government Operations Committees.

At issue in the tax case is information about property tax adjustments for individuals with incomes under $90,000. While Vermont statute specifies that state tax returns are confidential, both the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Taxes have said that the income adjustment to propertytax bills is public information.

The Town of Manchester disagrees. Municipal officials refused to release tax adjustment information, arguing that it is easy to calculate the taxpayers’ incomes from the information.

After some discussion, the committee unanimously supported draft legislation stating that the information “shall be available for inspection and copying as a public record.”

Committee members spent the most time on a broad exemption to the public records law for the University of Vermont and state colleges for records relating to “study, research or creative efforts on medical, scientific, technical, scholarly, or artistic matters.” Animal rights advocates argued that the exemption blocked the public from reviewing records about the treatment of research animals and suggested that the treatment could be more humane if it was subject to public scrutiny.

One witness told the committee that the exemption had been carved out specifically to block scrutiny of animal research. Lance Polya, an adjunct faculty member at UVM, said that he had helped successfully argue a 1992 Vermont Supreme Court case that opened to the public the records and meetings of a UVM animal research committee. In 1996, he said, the university asked the legislature to exempt the institution from the public records law, and they did.

“To me it’s an issue of openness and accountability,” Polya said, not animal rights. “If the committee has nothing to hide, why can’t we have access to the documents?”

UVM representatives argued for leaving the exemption in place. Interim President John Bramley testified by telephone, and in his written testimony he wrote that scientists need to keep their research ideas and data private until they were ready to publish them, because premature exposure could “destroy a discovery’s patentability…and compromise legitimate expectations of confidentiality on the part of potential collaborators and research subjects.”

Domenico Grasso, UVM’s vice-president for research, implied that the public records exemption protects university employees. He said researchers at the University of California Los Angeles had been threatened after information about their animal research was released, even though the information had been redacted to disguise who was doing the research.

In the end, the committee recommended compromise language, carving out an exemption within the academic exemption, so the public would have access to more information about the treatment of research animals.

The committee’s co-chairs, Rep. Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor, and Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, serve as UVM trustees. They began the discussion by acknowledging their dual role. White said, “I think that we’re looking at an issue here that isn’t just relevant to UVM, and hopefully we will maintain our objectivity. We try to at all times. If anybody feels that we’re not, I’ll be happy to recuse myself.”

Vermont statute specifies that UVM trustees “shall have the entire management and control of its property and affairs.” A senate rules states, “No senator shall be permitted to vote upon any question in which he or she is directly or immediately interested,” and the House rule is virtually identical.

ACLU Director Allen Gilbert expressed surprise that the legislators had not recused themselves. He commented in an email, “Given the integrity of the two co-chairs, it is very likely they can indeed deal with UVM issues objectively. The more difficult challenge in these situations, though, is dealing with possible public perceptions that there is an inherent conflict of interest whenever someone has dual roles, and that objectivity is impossible.”

The committee shifted its attention from university research animals to prison inmates. Barry Kade, an attorney and prisoner advocate from Montgomery, described prisons as the areas of state government with the least scrutiny and most effect on the individuals involved.

Kade asked the committee to make prisoner grievances public records. The Department of Corrections, he said, maintains that grievances are exempt from disclosure. He said he supported redacting personal information to protect individuals, but he wanted access to the grievance forms.

“If I wanted to see grievances concerning medical care at Northern State, they would deny that to me. If those were given to me in redacted form, I might see that they are constantly running out of medication. I might see that serious conditions sometimes take a week before they’re seen, and then it’s just by a screening nurse who puts it off for another two weeks, even though it’s something anyone would agree would warrant immediate response.”

Kade’s input came at the beginning of the committee’s work on what staffer Michael O’Grady told them was “your first Sisyphean task,” a systematic review of the personal information exemptions scattered throughout the state’s statutes. Their goal appears to be to reduce the number of exemptions by making language more consistent; whether any practical changes in what is exempt result remains to be seen.

O’Grady recommended, and the committee adopted, a legal mechanism to put pressure on themselves and their colleagues to push that boulder to the top of the mountain and keep it there. This year, committee members will try to pass a blanket redefinition of exempt personal information, knowing that it will create conflicts with existing statutes. The redefinition will not take effect, however, for two or three years, giving them time to find and fix the conflicts—but also creating difficulties if they don’t finish the task.

The committee is scheduled to meet again Jan. 6 to review their report to the legislature, which is due Jan. 15.

Co-chair White said after the meeting that she was satisfied with the progress they had made in their first year. She also pointed to a change made in House rules, that she said would be introduced for Senate rules, which could stem the future proliferation of public records exemptions in the statutes—they would all need to be reviewed by the Government Operations Committees before becoming law.

Carl Etnier

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • I would be interested in the rationale for disclosing information that could lead directly to a personal knowledge of someone else’s income. If I were a business this information would be well protected by the state as being proprietary.

    So if we’re going to protect the business records, why aren’t my personal records just as well protected?

    Or if we’re not going to protect my personal records, why are we going to continue protecting those of Vermont businesses?

    • Doug Hoffer

      It has always bothered me that (some) business owners and Chamber folks testify at the legislature about the problem of supposedly high taxes but they are never required to answer the obvious question: How much are you paying in taxes? How can we weigh the value of their testimony if we don’t have an answer to the question?

      The Tax Dept. publishes a very useful summary of personal income tax data each year.

      This allows us to cut through some of the baloney about marginal tax rates because we can calculate the effective rates.

      Unfortunately, the Tax Dept. does not publish a comparable document for corporate taxes. We do see them infrequently when a tax change is proposed and legislative committees request info. about the expected impacts.

      It’s complicated somewhat by the fact that many business are organized as S corps, limited liability corps, and partnerships so their profits run through as personal income.

      In any case, I appreciate business concerns about confidentiality, but there has to be a way to report this type of information regularly to citizens and policymakers.

  • Interesting how in some cases businesses wish to have privileges and rights as “persons”… Yet in other instances they want to be above laws meant for people. Can’t have it both ways…

  • Tom Pelham

    Carl…property tax bills, the data referenced in your article, already are public at most town and city clerk offices as has been traditionally the case. Such access has been clearly affirmed in an opinion by the Attorney General, inclusive of the legislative change that tax bills now include credits for property tax relief. The legislature, after a summer study committee effort, recommended that such information be placed on tax bills after finding that a third party cannot reliably calculate underlying household income from the information on the tax bill. Some municipalities, like Manchester and Burlington, find it uncomfortable that neighbors can know who chooses to receive property tax relief. Others parties, like reporter John Gregg at the Valley News have used this information to reveal how some apparantly well healed residents have somehow availed themselves of this benefit. So, possibly your headline with regard to property tax bills should read “remain public” rather than “to be made public” and the article corrected accordingly.

    • Hi Tom,
      Carl said he did misread the law. We have corrected the story and the headline.
      Thanks so much for setting us straight.
      Anne Galloway

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "dsLawmakers recommend that tax data remain public, question UVM polic..."