The state is looking to quash Rep. Cynthia Browning’s efforts to get a sneak peak at the governor’s single-payer financing plans before January, when he is expected to present it to lawmakers.
The Attorney General’s Office filed a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit Browning brought this year, arguing that the documents are privileged and she hasn’t demonstrated a compelling need for them.
If a Washington County Superior Court judge grants the AG’s motion the case won’t go forward.
The Arlington Democrat filed her lawsuit following the state’s partial denial of her public records request for documents related to the financing plan. The Shumlin administration claimed executive privilege in withholding a portion of the documents she sought.
“The generalized interest in transparent government … itself is not enough,” to trump the governor’s executive privilege, according to the AG’s filing.
The state’s public records law has several exceptions, including executive privilege, which is meant to protect the governor’s access to differing and possibly unpopular viewpoints in order to formulate policy.
In March, Browning sent Michael Costa, the deputy director of health care reform who is responsible for developing a public financing model for single-payer, a public records request for intermediate work products, basic research, raw notes, analyses, draft reports and memos related to his work.
Costa found 23 documents that were responsive to the request, and Browning received 173 pages of material. The state decided to withhold 17 additional documents that include excerpts from weekly reports and slideshows Costa prepared for the governor’s senior staff and Business Advisory Council on health care financing.
Browning argues that by setting a deadline to present a financing plan in January 2013, which she says was not met, the health care documents the state considers privileged should be viewed as public record because they are essentially part of the delinquent financing plan.
Reached on Friday, Browning said she could not comment on the state’s motion on advice of counsel because the case is ongoing.
