|
Montpelier, Vermont: The Justices of the Vermont Supreme Court have issued two distinct decisions with regard to access to public employee investigations in the past month and a half under the Vermont Public Records Law. The suits were brought by the Rutland Herald and sought access to documents relating to an internal investigation within the police department and an investigation relating to allegations that a public works employee viewed pornography on a city computer. While the court allowed access to disciplinary records stemming from investigations of public employees it blocked access to investigations internal to the police department when they were linked to investigation and detection of a crime. Robert Hemley, an attorney for the Rutland Herald, reluctantly agreed with the police department decision, telling the press “Anything that has to do with the detection and investigation of a crime, everybody agrees you cannot get, and that exemption lasts forever.” The court did however encourage the state legislature to reconsider the broad exemption. It also held that investigative records that truly related to personel matters within a police department should be subject to a balancing test against public interest and employee privacy. The court resolved this in its second decision by requiring the release of records with the names of employees redacted.[1]
Concord, NH The New Hampshire Supreme Court will soon hear the appeal in an open meetings case which will decide if material discussed in an open meeting can later be exempted from minutes under the attorney client privilege exemption. The suit filed by the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire appeals a decision by Merrimack Superior Court Judge Richard McNamara, who held that the redaction of the meeting minutes fell within the law. The lawsuit centers on a public meeting in May 2010 where the Local Government Center (LGC) met in an open meeting and proceeded to discuss "strategic planning." At the meeting in question the LGC received legal advice from its attorneys, information which the LGC argues would normally be disclosed only in a closed executive session and is exempt from the law. No one was in attendance at the meeting and so the LGC did not worry about convening a closed session. The Unions lawsuit claims, "The LGC waived its claim of attorney-client privilege when it obtained the advice of counsel in an open, public meeting. There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy where a party's attorney is speaking in a public meeting." [2]
Trenton, NJ On August 23, 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a major ruling in favor of government transparency holding that the New Jersey League of Municipalities is a public body subject to the states New Jersey Open Public Records Act and New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. The original suit was filed in 2008 by the Fair Share Housing Center, a nonprofit advocacy group in New Jersey. The court held that “The league meets the definition of a public agency for OPRA (Open Public Records Act) purposes — it is an ‘instrumentality … created by … political subdivisions.’ As a public agency, the league must make available government documents as required by OPRA.”[3] The League is composed of entirely elected or appointed public officials and lobbies on behalf of state municipalities. In addition, its employees participate in state funded retirement plans. The decision overturned a ruling by the appellate courts which upheld the decision of a trial court.[3] You can read more about private agencies and public records laws in New Jersey or another state at Private agency, public dollars.
|
