[A] public records lawsuit filed earlier this year by VTDigger against the Vermont Department of Corrections has set off a battle over whether the department should even have to say such documents exist.
At issue are records related to the dismissal of the superintendent of the Southern State Correctional Facility in Springfield, Edward Adams, in January.
The Vermont Department of Corrections, in court filings, argues that it shouldn’t have to provide VTDigger with the records, or even a description of what documents it may have.
The online news organization contends that the records related to the dismissal of Adams, who had faced allegation of sexual harassment from 2015, are in the public interest and should be released.
And, at the very least, according to VTDigger’s court filings, the department should be required to describe what documents the DOC has.
A hearing in the legal dispute is set for Thursday in Washington County Superior civil court in Montpelier before Judge Mary Miles Teachout.
According to the lawsuit, Adams was removed from his post as superintendent at the Springfield prison in January 2019 and transferred to a position as a probation officer.
In response to that specific sentence in the lawsuit, Bianchi, the attorney for the DOC, wrote in his answer to the filing, “Admit only that Mr. Adams has accepted a position as a probation and parole officer. Otherwise, denied.”
VTDigger filed a lawsuit earlier this year against the Vermont Department of Corrections seeking the records related to Adams’ dismissal.
The lawsuit was filed after the DOC had previously denied public records’ requests filed by VTDigger regarding the department’s dismissal of Adams, then-superintendent of the Springfield prison.
The DOC has not cited a reason for Adams’ dismissal from that post.
In response to the lawsuit, the DOC filed a response, through its lawyer, Assistant Vermont Attorney General Jared Bianchi, objecting to the release of the records.
“Irrespective of the veracity of the allegations recounted in (VTDigger’s lawsuit),” according to the response, “the records sought fall squarely within the Public Records Act exemption for ‘documents relating to an individual, including information in any files maintained to hire, evaluate, promote, or discipline any employee of a public agency.’”
Bianchi could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
Charity Clark, chief of staff at the Attorney General’s Office, returned a message left for Bianchi and said her office couldn’t speak to a “party opponent” without that party’s lawyer present due to the pending litigation.
Meanwhile, the attorney for VTDigger, Stephen Coteus of the law firm Tarrant, Gillies & Richardson of Montpelier, has filed a motion asking the Department of Corrections to at least describe the records it possesses related to what the news organization is seeking.
In addition the description of each record, Coteus called on the Department of Corrections to provide the specific legal exemptions for withholding that document.
Among those records the news agency is seeking, according to Coteus’ filing, are:
• Records of any administrative action taken by the DOC in response to complaints about the behavior, decisions or other actions taken by Adams during his time as superintendent of the facility; and
• Communication between Adams and the Department of Corrections, including email exchanges and text messages, over the decision to remove Adams from his position.
Bianchi, the attorney representing the Department of Corrections, then filed for a “protective order” regarding the information.
“Discovery is not called for in this case,” he wrote. “But if it were to be ordered in some limited fashion, a protective order is necessary lest a description of any potentially-responsive documents improperly breach the confidentialities asserted by the Defendants.”
Coteus said in response that he saw no legal basis for such a protective order.
“The public records requests at issue merely seek communications regarding the decision to remove Adams from his position and any administrative records reflecting how DOC responded to complaints about Adams,” Coteus wrote in his filing.
“It is difficult to understand,” he added, “how admitting that such records exist would divulge confidential information.”
Coteus, in an interview Tuesday, said it’s difficult to respond to exemptions cited in the state’s filing without knowing more about the documents it is seeking to withhold.
“Normally, Coteus said, “what happens in a public records case there is enough information given about records that are responsive to a request so that each side can make legal arguments about why they should be released, or in the government’s case, why they should be protected.”
The Burlington Free Press reported in October that a former female correctional officer at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility had filed a complaint against Adams and the DOC.
That complaint, according to the news report, alleged that officials had created a hostile work environment through sexual harassment and inappropriate comments.
Adams served as the superintendent of that facility between June 2014 and January 2016.
Before and after Adams was removed as the superintendent of Springfield prison, VTDigger received anonymous tips citing a hostile work environment and sexual harassment at that facility, fostered by Adams.
Also, the Free Press reported that at least six sexual harassment complaints have been filed with the Human Rights Commission against the DOC since 2013.
“In light of recent lawsuits and reporting implicating sex discrimination and sexual misconduct within the DOC,” the lawsuit brought by VTDigger stated, “specific allegations of Edward Adams’ inappropriate behavior during his tenure…there is a strong public interest in information about how DOC has addressed such incidents.”
