Vermont high court hears governor's appeal on press access

By The Associated Press

06.14.02

Printer-friendly page

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont's Supreme Court justices grilled lawyers for the state and three newspapers on June 11 on the papers' fight to see Gov. Howard Dean's daily schedule.

The hearing came in an appeal by the attorney general's office of a Superior Court decision that ordered the governor to comply with the public-records requests made by the Rutland Herald, Times Argus of Barre and the Burlington weekly Seven Days.

The newspapers have asked for the governor's schedules dating back to last Sept. 1; the request comes amid widespread criticism that Dean, a Democrat, has been spending a lot of time out of state pursuing his incipient presidential campaign.

At the June 11 hearing, much of the discussion focused on the two principal reasons the attorney general's office has offered for keeping the governor's activities secret: concerns about his personal security and a legal doctrine called "executive privilege," which holds that the governor can conduct deliberations leading up to policy decisions in private.

The newspapers' lawyer, Robert Hemley, contended that his clients had sought to compromise with the governor's office by saying they would accept daily schedules on a one-day delay to allay security worries.

The newspapers also have agreed not to press the governor for details on how he spends his personal time, Hemley said.

Assistant Attorney General William Griffin, representing Dean's office, cited an affidavit offered in the Superior Court by State Police Lt. Matthew Bellamy, commander of the governor's security detail, in which Bellamy said public disclosure of Dean's daily schedule could create security risks.

Griffin argued that the newspapers had offered "no competing evidence for the Bellamy affidavit," and that the state's side in the case should be given more credence.

When Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund observed that the White House releases the president's daily schedule in advance, Griffin acknowledged that but said "the president has a small army" protecting him.

Associate Justice John Dooley questioned Griffin's assertion that there should have been a more thorough testing of evidence at the lower court level, noting that Vermont's public-records and open-meetings laws envision a quick court decision so that someone who should have access to public records is not unduly delayed in getting them.

If any dispute over a record such as an official's daily schedule "requires a whole trial, then we've defeated the statute," Dooley said.

The justices' questions for Hemley focused mainly on where to draw the line in giving the newspapers information about the governor's daily activities.

Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy asked Hemley whether a governor might end up being required to give daily schedules to a political opponent seeking to unseat her or him.

The justices also noted that nothing in Vermont law requires the governor to keep a schedule, or mandates what information should be in it.

If the schedule "refers to a meeting with Joe X, who's a utility executive, why do we have to write down what the meeting was about?" Dooley asked.