Welcome to Letters from the Editors, a new addition to our Opinion section in which VTDigger editors weigh in on matters related to our journalism. The goal is to increase transparency with our readers by explaining interesting or challenging reporting decisions and addressing issues confronting the press. To submit a reaction in the form of a letter to the editor or a commentary, follow the instructions here.
Simply put, Vermont’s public records law is intended to ensure that the public — and thereby reporters — have access to documents produced by state or local governments. The law is clear in its intent to ensure that public records remain open and accessible for inspection. It is no accident that the Legislature passed the state’s first public records law following Watergate.
Reporters often file public records requests of state agencies if there is reason to believe a paper trail exists that might provide the bigger picture behind a story, or to compel an agency to produce emails or documents that might not otherwise be shared.
Each agency has its own guidelines for records requests, but generally they entail a written or emailed request for the information being sought. In turn, state agencies sometimes bill for the costs incurred in producing the information, and they are allowed several days to approve or deny a request.
It seems that some state agencies would want to turn the law on its head, using it as a shield to deny reporters timely access to what should be readily available public information. Rather than just answer a straightforward question posed by a reporter, they force the reporter to file a formal request — slowing the process and depriving readers of illuminating information.
Two recent cases in point:
On Jan. 10, Alan Keays, a seasoned criminal justice reporter, asked Adam Silverman, the public information officer for the Vermont State Police, for the names of six troopers from the St. Johnsbury barracks who had reportedly been put on paid leave. Keays also asked why such action was taken.
It was a standard line of inquiry, met with a not-so-standard response: Silverman told Keays to file a formal public records request.
As Keays drafted the formal request, he also emailed the head of the Vermont State Police, Col. Matthew Birmingham.
“The information I am requesting is clearly a matter of public record and the people of the state of Vermont, especially in the Northeast Kingdom, should be aware when six troopers from one region have been placed on leave,” Keays wrote to Birmingham.
Within the hour, Silverman got back to Keays.
“After further discussions, I have been authorized to release the following information,” Silverman wrote in an email, providing the names of the troopers and dates they were put on leave but declining to release any details about the why. A day later, VTDigger published Keays’ story, key details still withheld.
Silverman again declined to release any information on the case last week, when he confirmed that three of the troopers had since returned to duty.
“As before, we are unable to provide further information due to confidentiality requirements related to personnel matters,” he wrote.
A simple, general explanation for why the troopers were placed on leave hardly seems to rise to the level of exemptions as spelled out in the public records law. We were not asking for records of the internal investigation.
By using the broad shield of “personnel matters” to prevent the public from learning anything about the why, it would seem that state police bargained away public accountability when they negotiated the current union contract.
The second case followed just days later.
On Jan. 12, a VTDigger intern working on a story about the state Department for Children and Families’ plan to contract for more beds for justice-involved youth asked a simple question of DCF’s spokesperson, Nya Pike: How many such youths are in DCF custody?
The intern, Babette Stolk, emailed DCF again with the question on Jan. 16, indicating she had a deadline that day. The answer came back from the spokesperson soon after: File a public records request. There was no reason given for not providing the number.
VTDigger published the story on Jan. 17, absent a key detail that only DCF could have provided but chose not to. (DCF’s written response to Stolk’s formal request came back on Jan. 18. The short answer to her initial question was contained in a lengthy response letter: 26.)
As the editor working with these reporters, I shared their frustrations. It is more than simply an annoyance for reporters who often work on daily deadlines. It is a matter of state agencies withholding information from the public that they have no basis for holding back. It is wrong, and it undermines trust.
I’ve worked in journalism on and off for more than four decades. When I first arrived in Vermont from Massachusetts in the 1980s, I was drawn by the sense of transparency. If I asked for a public document, I got it (and this was pre-internet). When I needed to talk to the governor, or an agency secretary, or a U.S. senator, I simply picked up the phone. In some cases, there were spokespeople to filter my calls, but there weren’t many of them and rarely did they stand in the way.
When I returned to journalism as a senior editor at VTDigger in 2022 following two decades of political work, I was soon struck by how much had changed. Spokespeople and communications teams are now embedded throughout state agencies.
Reporters are too often left to rely on emailed statements or terse responses to their questions, attributed to spokespeople rather than to elected or appointed officials. Press releases provide just the information a state agency wants to release, often nothing more. If key details are left out of a press release (as is often the case), so be it. “No further comment” means pertinent questions go unanswered.
And reporters are too often told to file public records requests for information that should readily be made available.
Why does that matter? For many reasons, but foremost, public records are just that. And the title of a “public information officer” would suggest their prime role would be to provide reporters, and thereby the public, with the public information they are seeking. (As a former communications director for a U.S. senator, I’ve seen it from both sides.) There are often legitimate reasons why records may not be public, and reporters and editors at VTDigger are accustomed to making our case. We are well-versed in the exemptions and the law.
However, when reporters’ most basic questions come back from state agencies with a demand to file a formal records request that leaves the agencies days to respond, it is not only annoying and time-consuming, but it also raises questions about why they are holding back.
