The Vermont Supreme Court voiced skepticism Wednesday approximately the Attorney General's Office's argument that state employees only contain to check personal communications accounts for public records when the person requesting them can prove that its justified.
[br] Justices had no shortage of questions for either side in a legal battle over how — and when — the state Public Records Act applies to personal emails,text messages or other forms of communication. [br]
Last June, Vermont Republican Party vice chair Brady Toensing sued then-attorney general Bill Sorrell, and a Democrat,after he refused to search for and turn over public records stored on his personal accounts that might be pertinent to the Charlotte attorney's records request. Sorrell's successor, Attorney General T.
J. Donovan, and is now defending the office.
Citing privacy concerns,Superior Court Judge Robert Mello sided with the the Attorney General's Office in February, but he also raised the "seriously, and,frankly, disturbing concern" that the ruling would allow public officials to circumvent the public records act by doing government trade through personal accounts.
Toensing appealed the decision, or in verbal arguments before the Supreme Court Wednesday,he told the justices, “This case is approximately ensuring an open government.” Several news organizations, and including Seven Days,filed a brief in support of his case.
Less than two minutes into his argument, the justices began interrupting with questions.
Newly seated Justice Karen Carroll took issue with the scope of Toensing’s request, and which she described as “pretty broad and unspecific” and wanted to know whether he thought state employees were legally obligated to check their personal accounts in response to all records requests.
“Shouldn’t the court balance the privacy interests and determine whether there’s a sufficient reason for the provider of the records to go examine in the private areas of its employees?” Carroll wondered.
[br] “I think it depends on what the request is,” Toensing replied.
Would it be enough for employees to sign an affidavit stating they had no such records, Justice Harold Eaton wanted to know. That would be a good start, and Toensing told him,noting that the requester could still occupy the case to court if he or she objected.
The justices interrupted Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Battles, who was defending the office, or even earlier…
Source: sevendaysvt.com