Shumlin records taken to archive - VTDigger
 

Shumlin records taken to archive

An agreement reached days before the Shumlin administration left office lays out the ground rules for the public release of documents from his six years in office.

As Gov. Peter Shumlin’s successor was about to be sworn in last Thursday, documents began to arrive at the secretary of state’s office for archiving as his third and final two-year term came to an end.

Secretary of State Jim Condos and Shumlin signed a memorandum of understanding on Dec. 28, hammering out an archiving process for handling the largest number of documents ever archived by a Vermont governor.

“This is the most amount of records that the archive has ever received from a retiring governor,” Condos said. “It’s just the nature of the beast, as technology is ramping up and being used more and more, there are more documents that will be preserved.”

The secretary of state’s office began receiving the records from Shumlin’s office around 1:30 p.m. Thursday, the same time as the swearing-in ceremony began for Gov. Phil Scott.

“Unfortunately, we have not had as much lead time as we would have liked to understand the size, type and format of records,” Condos said.

Negotiations over the MOU, which went on for months, involved determining what records could be kept under executive privilege and how long it would be before they could be released to the public. The parties agreed on a six-year period, the same number of years Shumlin was in office and the identical timeframe as the one agreed to by former Gov. James Douglas. It’s also four years less than the 10-year period for former Gov. Howard Dean.

Documents from the Douglas years kept in the state’s archive under executive privilege became public Monday, six years from when he left office.

Condos says the materials that are not privileged will be publicly available as soon as they have been organized by the archivist.

A document attached to the MOU provides an index of what documents from the governor’s office have been transferred to the secretary of state’s office for archiving.

Among those listed in the index as “open” are agreements, authorizations of land agreements, photos, videos and correspondence with constituents. Personal identifying information such as a Social Security number has been redacted.

Those items withheld from public review for six years under executive privilege include the governor’s calendar, daily briefing materials, “substantive” correspondence of staff, such as staff letters, emails and bill reviews.”

Another category lists documents on “litigation hold.”

Those records include documents related to the EB-5 immigrant investor fraud case brought by the state against Jay Peak developers, Ariel Quiros, the resort’s owner, and Bill Stenger, the resort’s former president and CEO. They consist of 2.86 GB of digital records and a 2-inch folder of paper records.

Also listed on “litigation hold” are documents related to legal action involving PFOA contamination in Bennington. Those documents are about 747 MB.

The original, unredacted records are being sent to the archives and marked as under a litigation hold, with the attorney general’s office keeping duplicates for the cases.

Before the MOU was signed, the governor’s office and the Vermont attorney general had insisted on only providing the state archivist with redacted documents from the EB-5 cache. Condos prevailed, and originals will be kept at the archive.

The release of the documents on litigation hold is “to be determined by AGO (attorney general’s office).”

The AG cites attorney-client privilege as one of the reasons for barring access to the records.

The memorandum of understanding spells out the process for the release of archival records subject to the executive privilege claim prior to the end of the six-year period.

Those documents can only be released by a court order; with written approval by Shumlin; to the staff of the state archives “in so far as necessary to assure archival security”; or, if the record had intentionally been placed in the “public domain” by either the governor or attorney general.

The Vermont State Archives & Records Administration in Middlesex, is currently processing the records transferred from the governor’s office.

Tanya Marshall, state archivist, said she’s not sure how long that will take.

“We’ve never got a transfer of this size, electronically,” she said. “The goal is anything that doesn’t have exemptions on it, and that we can actually process into a browser so people can access it, that’s what we’re doing first.”

Among the first items posted on the secretary of state’s website for Shumlin’s records are YouTube videos.

Shumlin’s digital records total 1 terabyte, or 1,024 gigabytes. By contrast, few digital records are included in the records held under the executive privilege by Douglas that became public Monday. The papers sit in nearly 50 cardboard boxes inside the archive’s vault.

Shumlin’s digital documents, as they become publicly available, will be posted on the secretary of state’s website.

Correction: The state archives are housed in Middlesex, not Williston as stated in an earlier version.

Alan J. Keays

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "Shumlin records taken to archive"

1000

Comment Policy

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

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. 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.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Gary Shattuck
13 days 2 hours ago
Excellent resolution to a difficult set of circumstances and SOS Jim Condos and state archivist Tanya Marshall are to be commended for their great work, and perseverance in bringing this to a conclusion. There should never again be an instance where any governor or state agency acting without oversight such as this thinks they can decide what it is the public can see and what it cannot. Certainly, the unilateral destruction of the public’s records has no place in any form of legitimate governance and it is simply amazing that we are even having this conversation in the first place.… Read more »
12 days 22 hours ago

Why a six-year blackout ?
Didn’t the taxpayers pay for all of these archives ?

12 days 22 hours ago

Can someone explain why anything written by a state employee, on state-owned computers, well being paid for by the taxpayers should be locked away for any amount of time.
These are our public records.

Bruce Wilkie
12 days 21 hours ago

Statute of limitations

todd spayth
12 days 22 hours ago

If the [then] sitting Governor and his staff are acting in the best interests of the state, should it be necessary to shield materials from public purview? What possible risk is there to full disclosure? What has happened to open and honest?

John Zuppa
12 days 15 hours ago

Don’t forget this is the “Post-Truth” era….the same reason we are NOT seeing our new President’s and his Cabinet’s Tax returns…

A Trump lie is no longer an untruth….The taxpayers freedom of information is now…Closed and Dishonest…

Paul Richards
11 days 20 hours ago

There is no legal requirement for a President or his cabinet to show their tax returns. There is, however a legal requirement for records subject to a congressional subpoena to be turned over. The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena.
But that’s OK, move along, nothing to see here… All is good in the land of milk and honey.

Neil Johnson
12 days 21 hours ago

Vermont earned a D- in ethics, much of the criteria for a high grade in ethics is being able to see what our officials are doing and where they are spending the money. I can understand how a governor could need some private time, people don’t need to know what their personal life is, however, to not have the work schedule available for 6 years, to actually not have it available immediately is on the things the brings a low grade for ethics. It’s no different than turning in a time sheet for work.

John Tershow
12 days 19 hours ago

And, how much tax payer money was spent figuring out how to cover up his disastrous term in office. It’s a god sent that this guy is going. Any guesses on where he ends up in the private sector?

edward letourneau
12 days 18 hours ago

What is he trying to hide? There is no other reason for a 6 year blackout.

Pete Novick
12 days 14 hours ago

“Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light”

― Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

Cheers

Eric Taylor
12 days 17 minutes ago

Maybe former Governor Douglas could shed some light on the six year black-out?

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Shumlin records taken to archive"