Key senator says public records ‘inspections’ should include preparation fees

Jeanette White
Sen. Jeanette White, chair of the Senate Government Operations Committee, says it is appropriate to charge for staff time for preparing documents requested by the public. Photo by Mike Dougherty/VTDigger

The chair of a key Senate committee believes people who inspect public documents should pay the costs for staff to prepare them.

Sen. Jeanette White’s view runs contrary to the majority opinion but aligns with the dissent in a recent Supreme Court case

However, White, D-Windham, chair of the Senate Government Operations Committee, also misunderstood what the majority decided.

Her committee and the equivalent House committee are reviewing the Public Records Act in the wake of the high court split decision.

In September, the court ruled 3-2 that the Legislature made a clear distinction between requests to “inspect” documents and to “copy” them. The court majority said the costs to prepare documents for public inspection, including making redactions, could be charged only if the petitioner requested “copies” under the Public Records Act, not when someone wants to “inspect” documents.

The “plain language” of relevant statutes, Supreme Court Justice Paul Reiber wrote, “separates requests to copy from requests to inspect, and the section only authorizes charges for staff time associated with requests for copies – not requests to inspect.”

In an interview Wednesday with VTDigger, White said she thought the ruling only excluded charges for actual inspection time. She thought the court decision had left intact the power to charge for costs to prepare documents prior to inspections.

Thursday, during a committee hearing, White said after a legislative lawyer summarized the decision that she had misunderstood a key part of the ruling.

“I was a little confused and didn’t remember (the court) specifically stated” preparation costs could not be charged for inspections. “I missed that somehow,” White said.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

In the interview and during the committee hearing, White made clear she believes charges should be applied to prepare and redact exempted information from documents — whether the requester wanted copies or to just inspect them.

She and others, including Attorney General TJ Donovan, argue it takes the same time and effort to prepare documents for inspection as it does to prepare them to be copied.

“The inspection itself is free but getting up to the inspection, I think that that’s a different question,” White said Wednesday.

Supreme Court justices
Supreme Court justices hear arguments in the Doyle v. Burlington Police Department, the public records case that was decided in September. Photo by Mike Dougherty/VTDigger

“I don’t think that was ever the legislative intent” to not allow charges for research for inspections but only when copies are requested, she said.

“It’s the same preparation,” she said.

During the committee hearing, White said the distinction of charging for research for copies but not inspections made “no earthly sense at all.” 

Public Safety Deputy Commissioner Chris Herrick said his department expended significant staff time to comply with about 4,600 Public Records Act requests, which he estimated was about 60% of the requests made to state government in a year. 

Questioned by White, Herrick testified his department didn’t charge for redaction and other preparation costs for a request to inspect — but not copy — documents.

“We’re not allowed to,” Herrick said.

“I see that now,” White responded. “I don’t think I ever understood that.”

State Archivist Tanya Marshall also testified her agency does not charge for preparing documents and has set fees for copying.

White said she drafted a bill before the session but withdrew it because she knew advocates would “glom on” to its provisions. Instead, she said she would have the committee draft a bill after taking testimony. White said Thursday a bill has to be out of committee by Jan. 31 to get passed this year, unless the House passes a bill. 

The House Government Operations Committee has also been taking testimony. There, some committee members have raised concerns the Supreme Court ruling could result in open-ended requests for records “inspections” that could take up significant state worker staff time. 

Government Operations chair Rep. Sarah Copeland-Hanzas, D-Bradford, has been noncommittal on whether her committee will take up a bill.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

“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 recently.

Another issue in the wake of the ruling is the definition of a “copy.” Secretary of State Jim Condos has said AG Donovan is stretching the definition of copies to include cellphone photos in order to be able to charge for research and redaction fees and still comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Donovan contends photos are copies because they can be taken with the requestor. In an interview, Donovan said he thinks the Legislature should clarify what constitutes a “copy” and “what is reimbursable and not reimbursable.” 

Lawmakers have also heard testimony that fewer exemptions to the Public Records Act, more than 270 exemptions that require information to be blacked out or not released, would make complying with requests simpler. Advocates and some lawmakers have also argued better record keeping, including removing personal information when a document is saved, could make fulfilling later requests easier.

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.


VTDigger's reporting on COVID-19 is going to be very important in coming weeks. If you rely on it, please donate here.

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.
8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Frank Westcott

So we pay there salaries, with our money. Then to see what they have been doing, they want us to pay again? It’s your job! We the tax payers are your boss. Obviously I must have not got a memo!

Jim Barrett

If a charge was demanded it would be another charge to Vermonters on top of what the people are already being paid to do work for the people of this state. Of course Vermonters are accustomed to double charges as we pay again and again when attempting to obtain a permit for just about anything.

Karen McIlveen1

Similar to “dealer preparation fees” a sneaky way vehicle dealerships add an extra fee, some fees are $250.00 per transaction, when they prepare the paperwork for the sale of a vehicle. No, we need less fees for transactions we already paid for.
Why can’t lawmakers ever make laws that reduce costs for the citizens?

Rama Schneider

My experience informs me that most people in Vermont have very little to no understanding regarding the amount of financial expense, individual and group effort, and knowledge of the law involved in adhering with fidelity to Vermont’s public records and open meeting laws.

Over the years I have watched eyes widen with understanding when even the most cursory explanations are provided to board and committee members not to mention the general public.

The Vermont Legislature and Governor should either budget an amount sufficient to provide the access we all deserve, or we as a state need be honest enough to rethink our approach.

Don White

time for White to go, she has joined Donavan in her quest to make government less accountable and accessible to the people who pay their salaries.

John Greenberg

“Why can’t lawmakers ever make laws that reduce costs for the citizens?”

Charging for inspection would do just that.

Time is money in capitalist societies. Someone is paying for the person getting the documents together and making certain that what is shown is actually properly open to public inspection, etc. As the law stands now, taxpayers as a group pay for that person’s time.

What Senator White is proposing is to require those requesting the documents to pay for it instead. If they are taxpayers, they are already paying a small share of what is required, but under the new law, they’d be paying ALL of the cost. Consequently, taxpayers at large would be relieved of the cost; that is, their cost would be reduced.

It’s worth noting that those requesting documents may or may not be Vermont taxpayers in the first place.

All that said, like Senator White, I’d like to hear more testimony before deciding this is the way to go. Thank you, senator.

walter h moses

One must remember that Senator White chaired the committee that came up with VTs ethics bill. Rated by most to be worthless.

Linda Baird-White

Some state agency employees charged their time spent working on federally funded projects by entering charge codes for time spent onto their time sheets that would apply to a specific project. These charges are *proportionately charged to a specific project from which the records are requested. That amount depends on the *funding ratio, State vs. Federal i.e., State 20% vs. Federal 80%. It can be very time consuming gathering documents or records from varying media types or old formats such as plans, microfiche, microfilm, and/or paper records, that need to be reproduced in other formats or be scanned electronically and digitally archived. Once the information is retrieved, those records are inspected via the AG for confidentiality issues that may violate HIPPA, Litigation/Discovery, etc. “Right To Know”. Not simple as it sounds.


Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Key senator says public records ‘inspections’ should incl..."