Vermont committee hears testimony on proposed Public Records Act changes as agencies cite heavy workload
Loading...
Summary
Journalists and state agency records officers told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee that digital records, discovery‑style keyword searches and automated requests are producing large volumes of work; witnesses disagreed over measures such as extended reply windows and charging for staff time.
BURLINGTON — At a Thursday morning hearing of the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee, journalists and state agency officials testified about strains on Vermont’s Public Records Act and debated proposed changes that would affect response times and fees.
Tommy Gardner, publisher and editor of the Vermont Community Newspaper Group, told the committee his reporters routinely seek a wide range of records — meeting minutes, budget spreadsheets, property cards and police logs — and said informal requests (email, text or in‑person) are common. He warned against expanding fees or creating a ‘‘paywall’’ for public information, saying, "Simply put, erecting a paywall to public information places an undue financial burden on people to access their government and get the information they need and hold their public servants accountable." (Tommy Gardner, testimony.)
Kim McManus, legislative and policy attorney and records officer for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, described why some requests take substantial time: pending case records, communications between attorneys and law enforcement, and hours of body‑worn or dash‑camera footage that require careful review. McManus said the office can receive hundreds of responsive emails in a single request and recounted receiving four requests in one recent day that included roughly 100 emails each; she cautioned that some court entry orders require a high showing to withhold records in pending cases and urged legislative counsel review of that authority.
Charles Martin, deputy secretariat at the Agency of Natural Resources, and Hannah Smith, general counsel for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the committee many burdensome requests come from well‑resourced organizations or take the form of broad keyword searches that generate thousands of documents. Smith said some productions have ranged "between 10 and 12,000 documents" and stressed that attorneys must review large productions to redact exempt information. She also noted an operational mismatch: agencies can charge for staff time when transmitting electronic records under some proposals, but cannot generally bill for the equivalent staff time when a requester inspects records in person, though both activities can consume the same staff hours.
Witnesses offered possible mitigations. Agency counsel suggested narrowing request parameters (specific document types or time frames) to reduce search burden and flagged H.502 — legislation the witnesses said contemplates billing for some inspection‑time or staff labor — as a policy tool the committee should consider. Martin and Smith also urged the legislature to review whether existing fee schedules (administered through the secretary of state's office) fairly compensate staff time; Smith said the schedule often covers less than half of actual personnel costs.
Testimony also raised newer operational challenges: McManus described instances that appeared to be computer‑generated or automated public records requests, which complicate volume management and sometimes require multiple follow‑ups to obtain clarifying information from a human requester.
Committee members pressed on practical issues: how to handle unpaid invoices, whether limiting request scope would restrict public transparency, and whether a centralized state repository or dedicated records staff could be a feasible solution. Agency witnesses acknowledged greater staffing or technology resources would ease the burden but said solutions must preserve access for ordinary citizens while discouraging repeated, resource‑intensive sweeps by well‑funded requesters.
The committee did not take formal action at the hearing; members said they would follow up with witnesses and review counsel and legislative language. The committee adjourned the panel and planned to reconvene at 10:45 a.m. for additional bills and testimony.
