This week saw a new chapter in open records struggles here in Vermont.

The Vermont State Employees Association, the state workers’ union, had requested from the Department of Human Resources emails and other documents relating to Gov. Douglas‘ plan to cut 400 jobs from the state’s payrolls. DHR responded with a demand for $1700 to pay for the time DHR staff would have to spend gathering the documents in order to deliver them by the deadline specified in the public records law. (See the Times Argus story here.)

Administration Secretary Michael Smith suggested that VSEA request the information under an article of the union contract, which doesn’t state any deadlines and which wouldn’t, therefore, require some DHR staff to drop everything else they’re doing to meet the deadline.

Sounds reasonable, perhaps, to the very naive. But VSEA isn’t very naive. They have countered with the suggestion that DHR request an extension of time to produce the records, which is allowed under the public records law. But VSEA is not open to abandoning their public records law request and issuing the request under the union contract, since that would deprive them of timelines entirely, as well as the possibility of suing DHR in Superior court if it fails to produce the records. In other words, the alternative proposed by the administration is one that would render them unaccountable.

VSEA makes the point that both it and legislative committees have been asking for months about the impact of the loss of the 400 jobs on state services. Given that, it’s rather disingenuous of the administration to complain about being caught short on time to produce the records such that they can’t comply with the law without charging VSEA $1700.

There are elements of this situation that closely resemble what I experienced with the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office as well, which show themselves to be standard tricks and strategies of bureaucracies doing all they can to stall, at least, and avoid accountability entirely, at most.

For instance, in order to pursue an appeal of the Secretary of State’s due-process violating procedures that deprived me of my livelihood, I first had to order a hard copy transcript of the OPR hearing in my case, which came with a $1000 price tag. The state also had an alternative for me, as well, much as they suggested one to VSEA: save the cost what we will charge you to proceed, and just accept what we say the way we say it.

My thanks to VSEA to persisting in its efforts to attain the information it’s entitled to by law, without having to pay expenses that should fall to the state. As for the matter of who should bear the expense of providing records, that’s one of the details that legislators should develop a habit of addressing in all such legislation. It is absolutely one of the details that bureaucracies use to deter people from availing themselves of all the procedures (e.g. my appeal) and information (e.g. DHR records) to which they are entitled; details that in effect constitute loopholes for the bureaucracy. It’s up to legislators to close those loopholes by clearly stating who pays for what. And it’s up to us rank and file citizens to see to it that legislators close those loopholes and define clear accountability mechanisms for bureaucracies.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen