(Host) Attorney General Sorrell opposes adopting the federal Freedom of
Information Standard for disclosure of police records in Vermont. Writer
and commentator Bill Schubart thinks he should change his mind.
(Schubart)
By way of full disclosure, I’m Chair of the VT Journalism Trust, doing
business as VTDigger.org, serve on the Board of the VT ACLU, and am a
former Chair of VT public radio, but right now I’d like to make a
simple, rational case for transparency as it relates to public and press
access to police records.
The Attorney General opposes a
proposal under discussion in Senate Judiciary to adopt the federal
Freedom of Information Act standard in Vermont . It would require that
law enforcement officials seeking to shield criminal investigation
records from the public convince a judge that public disclosure would
harm the investigation or compromise safety and privacy concerns. The
term for this balancing of the public’s right to know with protection of
individual rights is "access absent harm."
An African-American
man suffering from hypoglycemia is dragged from his own home and – even
though neighbors told police it was his home – taken into police
custody. The police later denied he had been "arrested" – a move to
prevent the arrest records from being released to the press.
The
current proposal does not even address access to internal police
investigations such as the one where an emotionally disturbed man under
family care seeking help from a healthcare facility is dead after being
incorrectly tased by a state trooper, or the one where an officer is
accused of falsifying time sheets.
All federal agencies and 21
states have adopted the federal standard now under consideration by the
Senate Judiciary. And while I know that Vermont is a special place;
we’re just not that special.
Adopting this standard is the right
– and the rational – thing to do. Vermonters and others are rightly
seeking more transparency (absent harm) from their leaders and nowhere
is this more important than in policing. Citizens become disaffected
when law enforcement is secretive , above scrutiny and beyond
accountability. This serves no one well – especially law enforcement.
Well-trained law enforcement officers who follow procedures and best
practices have everything to be proud of and nothing to hide.
Privacy,
safety and prosecutorial considerations are all relevant. If access
constitutes real risk, the case can – and should – be made before a
judge for third-party review.
The Vermont Constitution
guarantees the right to hold government officers and public servants
accountable. Everyone is better off when the public understands how
their officials are performing, including the officials themselves. Such
blanket shields only create mistrust and hide bad practice. Neither the
public nor public servants benefit from such secrecy.
One man
with a history of seizures and mental illness is dead, another
unjustifiably dragged from his own home, and we need to understand why
events like these happen.
By every measure, we have one of the
best-trained state police systems in the country. I’ve never had an
encounter where I was not impressed with the officer’s respect and
intelligence. Transparency will only enhance that reputation.