AG deliberately misinterprets public records ruling, secretary of state says

Rep. Jim Harrison, R-Chittenden, of the House Government Operations Committee, right, questions Tucker Anderson of the Office of Legislative Counsel about public records laws on Thursday. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

Attorney General TJ Donovan is using a “twisted interpretation” to improperly charge some who request public records, according to Secretary of State Jim Condos.

Condos told lawmakers Thursday that Donovan is deliberately misinterpreting a recent Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the public has a right to “inspect” documents for free and can only be charged when a “copy” is requested.

Since the ruling, Donovan has maintained taking a cellphone photo of a document constitutes a “copy,” which opens up the requester to charges for state officials’ time to prepare the document, including reviewing and blacking out protected or exempted information. Under state statutes, charges cannot be levied to “inspect” documents. In those cases, the preparation time is considered a cost of state government.

“I hate to, I’m not trying to throw TJ under the bus, but frankly, he looked for a way around the law,” Condos said in an interview during a break in the House Government Operations Committee hearing.

Donovan said Condos was being “naive” that a “copy” in the digital age could only be a paper record. The attorney general contends courts have defined a copy as “a record the requestor could keep and review wherever and whenever they choose.”

In an interview, the attorney general said he hoped lawmakers would clarify what constituted a copy. He insisted he had no intention to ask lawmakers to expand the statutes and allow charges for inspection only. However, he complained that private law firms can inspect records for free for information they can later use to sue the state.

“If they’re going to take stuff with them to sue us, I’m not paying for a private law firm to sue the state of Vermont,” he said. About half of the 150 public records requests the Attorney General’s Office received in 2019 were from “firms,” including law firms, according to Charity Clark, the attorney general’s chief of staff.

Donovan said he hoped the Legislature would clarify what constituted a copy.

“We’re not looking to be cute by half, or too smart by half and to say well you wrote something on your hand, therefore that’s a copy,” Donovan said. “I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to waste my time doing that. I don’t want my team doing that.”

VTDigger is underwritten by:

“I want the Legislature to write a law that everybody understands and everybody can follow,” Donovan said. “That’s why we need clarity so we don’t engage in these kinds of hypotheticals about what constitutes a copy” and “what is reimbursable and not reimbursable.”

He said the lawmakers should draw “bright lines.”

VTDigger Editor Anne Galloway told committee members Donovan had been obstructionist on public records requests that, if granted, could have prevented further harm. She cited documents connected with the EB-5 fraud in the Northeast Kingdom and recent allegations of misconduct at the state’s only women’s prison as examples of requests for information the Attorney General’s Office had denied. VTDigger has sued the Attorney General’s Office multiple times over access to records.

Charging fees can limit access to records, Galloway and Condos testified. In the EB-5 case, Galloway said the Attorney General’s Office quoted a charge of $200,000 to review records of state officials to find out what and when they knew about the fraud.

“Vermont state government and municipalities are in the habit of hiding bad behavior, mistakes and embarrassing situations the public has a right to know about,” Galloway said. In the EB-5 case, records disclosure when originally requested could have helped contractors and investors who lost money, she said. Galloway called the need for full public records disclosure “a moral issue” more than a legal one.

Condos and Galloway said better management of records, removing personal information ahead of time, for example, would make responding to records requests simpler. 

Condos also reiterated his call for an ombudsperson, who could hear appeals from the public, including media organizations, when requests are denied before they go to court. The ombudsman, he said, could also help state agencies better understand how to respond to requests. He and others also called for eliminating or condensing the more than 270 exemptions to the records act. 

Chairs of the House and Senate committees that deal with public records issues were noncommittal on whether they would weigh in on the controversy, including clarifying the definition of a “copy.”

“This is an exploration,” said Rep. Sarah Copeland Hanzas, D-Bradford, chair of the House Government Operations Committee, after its hearing Thursday.

“We need to take a look at all the issues and if there’s language change that is warranted after we’ve taken a look at the landscape and heard all the questions and the interpretations, we may explore that. No decisions have been made about that,” she said.

One Government Operations Committee member, Rep. Jim Harrison, R-North Chittenden, said he spoke to Supreme Court Justice Paul Reiber shortly after the Doyle vs. the City of Burlington Police Department ruling, which upheld a citizen’s right to “inspect” police body cam footage free of charge. It was a 3-2 split decision and Harrison said he asked if Reiber was trying to make more work for his committee.

“Clarify the statute. We’re just reading the law,” Harrison quoted the chief justice telling him.

Harrison also raised concerns about how to prevent “fishing expeditions” that can tie up public officials fulfilling complicated requests.

Earlier in the week, Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, who chairs the Senate Government Operations Committee, said “all sides” would be heard and that if any action on public records was taken, she wanted her committee members to draft a bill together. Sen. Alison Clarkson, D-Windsor, promised the debate would be robust.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

When Condos appeared before Senate Government Operations on Tuesday, he pulled out his cellphone and took a picture of his prepared testimony and asked: “What’s the cost to the government? Zero.”

“Is it the cost of the actual looking at it or the cost of the preparation of it?” asked White.

“That’s the discussion that’s up in the air,” Condos said.

“That’s the discussion we’ll have,” White said.

Note: Anne Galloway on behalf of VTDigger.org was not advocating for or against specific legislation.

Missing out on the latest scoop? Sign up here to get a weekly email with all of VTDigger's reporting on politics. And in case you can't get enough of the Statehouse, sign up for Final Reading for a rundown on the day's news in the Legislature.


We ask tough questions so you don't have to. VTDigger relies on your support. Become a member today.

Mark Johnson

Reader Footnotes

Please help move our stories forward with information we can use in future articles.

Readers must submit actual first and last names and email addresses in order for notes to be approved. We are no longer requiring readers to submit user names and passwords.

We have a limit of 1,000 characters. We moderate every reader note.

Notes about other readers’ points of view will not be accepted. We will only publish notes responding to the story.

For more information, please see our guidelines. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

About voting: If you see voting totals jump when you vote on comments, this indicates that other readers have been voting at the same time.
12 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Jim Christiansen

Thank you Mr. Condos. It’s time for Vermont’s elected leaders to hold TJ accountable for harming Vermonters

robert bristow-johnson

looks like we’re in for a little intra-party fight.

Barry Kade

It’s not “what constitutes a copy” that matters. It is who provides it.
From 1 V.S.A. Section 316 (b)”If copying equipment maintained for use by a public agency is used by the agency to copy the public record or document requested, the agency may charge and collect from the person requesting the copy the actual cost of providing the copy.” If the requestor takes a photo, the agency did not provide a copy, nor was it agency copying equipment that was used.

Steven Goodkind

The law regarding public access to government documents may be flawed, but not nearly as flawed as the AG’s interpretation of it. The law is intended to increase the
public’s access. Unless it is changed, it should be interpreted so that it does. The AG has it backwards. He should take his concerns to the legislature and not punish citizens who a trying to pierce the veil of secracy that our state and local governments try to maintain.
It is good to see that Jim Condos gets this.
It is not rocket science TJ.

Walter Orr

Donovan just wants to put up barriers so that he can have his staff redact stuff before its released. The one chirping all the time about transparency are the same one who is withholding information when he’s asked for something.

Kim Fried

AG Donovan would fit in well in Washington’s present JD. This may very well be in career plan?

seth henry

Condos is a breath of fresh air. Donavan is an absolute disgrace and in no way should be trusted anything involving laws or ethics. Wish they could switch jobs.

Randall Bates

When officials start to believe they are above the law it’s time for them to find another career.

Richard M Roderick

My Internet search shows that the Major party primary deadline to be on the ballot for Governor (which I believe probably applies to all Statewide offices like AG) is 5/28/2020. and 8/6/2020 for independent candidates. TJ has been such a disappointment and he is building the case that it is time for a change. I am hoping I will have a qualified candidate to vote come the general election. I want a AG that is for the people of Vermont and follows the laws and not twist them.

Jenny Kingsbury

TJ must be interviewing for staff legal counsel positions with Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff.

John Greenberg

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there appear to be several issues here.

Jim Condos addressed one of them by taking a picture of his testimony on his phone: namely, what constitutes a copy. Insofar as actual copying is the issue, I suspect the law was intended to cover the expense of running state copiers, so it should be pretty easily clarified.

TJ’s core point is totally different: namely, the staff time required to find, prepare and redact documents. It’s easy to dismiss this as inconsequential, but when we’re talking about thousands or even millions of documents, we are presumably also talking about a LOT of staff time. Whose machine is used is irrelevant.

Finally, TJ raises the question of intent: should a law firm be able to get free labor from state employees to then turn around and sue the state? Should the media be allowed to chase stories at state expense? What if the stories are bogus? Does that matter?

How do we want to spend our tax dollars?

John Klar

This is the height of arrogance: TJ Donovan ” …complained that private law firms can inspect records for free for information they can later use to sue the state.” Duh. That’s called “public records.” If they have grounds for a suit, they SHOULD be able to have access, and they should be ENCOURAGED to sue — as in, one need not worry about meritless suits. It’s akin to a doctor saying a patient’s attorney should not be allowed to view his or her patient’s medical records because they might find malpractice. 1) It’s their right (as is public access to public records); 2) you don’t have to worry unless there is MERIT to the claims. If Donovan had nothing to hide, he wouldn’t be going to such lengths to hide EVERYTHING. He has the gall to complain that he can’t charge attorneys (who have clients, called citizens) for simply viewing documents. I suspect he’d like to charge $1000 per word just to view them, if he could. An elitist, not a servant. Where is accountability for this man?


Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "AG deliberately misinterprets public records ruling, secretary of sta..."