 So what we'll do is for some of you who aren't here all the time, we'll introduce ourselves and then we'll just take it away. I'm Jeanette White, I'm from Wyndham, Senate District. I may have to be fleeing out from Washington County. Brian Collamore of the Rublin District. Allison Clarkson, Windsor County District. Alright, you can see we're all from some place, a little different, some counties, some districts, some Senate districts. But we're all senators, we have that in common. So, Mike, you are going to, come join us please, talk to us about the issue of public records through DMV. And I don't know if everybody else knows you, so you'll have to introduce yourself before you start. We asked Mike to come and talk about a couple things, what their policy is around public records, and then there's been this big lack about selling the information. And there are some, and I know that there are some discretionary people that you can give it to. And I have heard loud and clear from a couple professions, primarily private investigators, who feel that their access is going to be cut off. So, if you would, those are kind of the, where we are. Make them leave that to us. Thank you. For the record, my name is Michael Smith, Director of Operations for the Department Board of Vehicles. What you just laid out is a little different than what was told to me when I was asked to come over. It was more just to give you an overview of the Driver Privacy Protection Act, and talk a little bit about some of the other stuff. Yeah, yeah, that's kind of what I was talking about. It's sort of very artful. I know that you were given some FAQs on the Driver Privacy Protection Act. I see that some of you haven't. I get a little overview that I'm going to kind of speak from and I'm going to go right into it. So, in 1994, Congress enacted the Driver Privacy Protection Act to protect personal information contained in individuals' motor vehicle records. DPPA, Driver Privacy Protection Act, does allow for a piece of personal information for certain circumstances. It requires it in some and allows it in others. So, it's required that we release it in regards to vehicle safety, vehicle theft or emissions, market research, and I'll quantify that one here in a little minute, protects product recalls and court proceedings. Those agencies with access to personal information for these purposes are law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, motor vehicle dealers, businesses, employers to verify personal information for employment, towing companies to notify owners of tow vehicles and private detectives and security agencies. During the 1999 session, Congress amended the Driver Privacy Protection Act and under this amendment states cannot release personal information on motor vehicle records to sales and marketing organizations and the general public unless the individual whose information that is has specifically opted in to allow that. Motor vehicles does not have the capability in our computer system to track who opted in so we opted not to do that. So, we did not partake in that activity. In the 1999 amendment, it did specify specific personal information that is highly restricted. That includes photographs, digital images, social security numbers, medical and disability information. So, that information is not early list. There's a couple other Vermont statutes that kind of lay over the top of it because you've got, I like to think of it as the Driver Privacy Protection Act because it's the umbrella and then you've got some state statutes that are underneath it. That's very interesting that you can give the address but not the zip code. You can give the zip code, not the address. Oh, I see, I was reading it backwards. Thank you, I'm sorry. No, that's great. So, relevant statutes from Title 23, Section 104, the Public Records Act, Section of Title 23 and 23, Section 114, which talks about the fees that are charged for the specific information. So, driving records under charge, you wanted a certified copy of a registration application or something along those lines, title searches, stuff like that. That's all included in that. Now, I'm moving into the FAQs which were submitted to everybody. So, you have those in front of you. That talks about what the Driver Privacy Protection Act is, what is personal information and personal information is identified as photographs or security number, driver's identification number, name and address but not the five digits of code, telephone numbers, medical or disability information. But it does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations and driving status. One of the things that we hear a lot of and I'd like to dispel right now is I'm sure everybody is getting phone calls saying that your warranty is running out. We do not store phone numbers. We do not provide phone numbers. How these individuals are reaching out in regards to your warranty running out is not coming from more vehicles. My 12 year old daughter gets those calls too and she does not have a car. And never if I can handle it. So, has Vermont complied with the Driver Privacy Protection Act? Yes, we have. Vermont Public Records Laws and how does the DPPA impact Vermont Statutes? And as I alluded to before, while Vermont's Public Records Law keeps you most at records cool for public inspection, DPPA lays over the top of it and that provides some additional restrictions. Are there instances when personal information must be released under the Driver Privacy Protection Act? Yes, I'll talk a little bit about that before. And that is driver safety theft, motor vehicle emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, I'm sure you've all, if you bought a car you probably got one of those letters in the mail that says that there's something wrong with the vehicle and the dealer needs to check it out. You may not have purchased that vehicle brand new. So through our providing this information, manufacturers are able to track down that while the dealer has you at buying it, you may now possess the vehicle if you need to know about that safety recall. I'm sorry, I keep sleeping when I'm starting to have a cold. So are there exceptions when personal information may be released? Yes, there is. There's several agencies and organizations that may obtain personal information regardless of the DPPA protections. Law enforcement agencies, federal government, state agencies may receive personal information from DMV records. However, personal information will not be released to any of the following individuals or agencies unless they filed an affirmation statement where the DMV are serving that they are entitled to the personal information under DPPA. So a lot of these are the organizations that I've already talked about, conducting vehicle recalls, insurance companies, parties involved in federal or state horse case arbitrations including attorneys, tone companies, employers for verification. In the CDL world, employers are required to have a driver qualification file when the federal government comes in and audits them, they are required to have a certified copy of the individual's driving record in that file. This is used to determine that they have a val license that is properly endorsed for whatever they are driving. Most of the school bus drivers are required to provide these to their employers so that we know that they're safe drivers. Why would DMV share personal information if they aren't there? There's many reasons that it's beneficial for consumers for DMV to share this information. Maybe fact-shirts that we talked about so that they can contact you. So for insurance companies, they are doing their underwriting to determine what the rates are based on your driving history. It allows employers to do background checks which I alluded to. How do we share it? So there's three different ways. So there's the paper search, there's a form filled out to our record request form. You fill it out indicating what it is that you want, as the fees that are associated with whatever service it is that you're looking to obtain. And then on the back of it, it has all of the various reasons under the Driver Privacy Protection Act that we qualify you for that information. I am looking for your information. You have signed the form allowing me to have it. I am eligible for that information provided because you have given me the release to get it. That is generally what happens in the employer-employee situation. Both data transfers. This is with companies like BIC and Information Controlium. So we provide the data and insurance companies will then purchase that data to determine that you have a valid license, such you know, such your policy ratings and stuff like that. Then there's over-the-camera requests that I've talked about initially looking for more driving record or a copy of more registration application. I'm not sure why I need that, but I needed that. Over-the-camera provided you the supply with DPBA or I have the authority to provide that. What does DMV share? We share vehicle information which would be made all year of the number, the address of the driver can contact you to provide the vehicle recall information in the situation of driving records. It is your name the driving records that we produce do not have the address on them but they do include any convictions or violations that you might have and the status of your license whether it's valid or not, as well as endorsements and restrictions. So one of the things that we're doing with all of this kind of coming up, we're sitting back and we're looking at what are the the areas of the driver privacy protection act that are a May fuel. So the shalls are pretty specific. We shall provide this information, but then there's a various list of ones that we may provide and what we are doing at this point is looking at what ones are those because it is a May. It does not mean that we have to. We're amending from our statutes to clarify potential ambiguities regarding when DMV is required to share this information. That's actually in our miscellaneous pool this year. We have terminated the use of the terminals which we had in the Burlington office and the Montpair office which was to allow private eyes to come in and look up information on their own. We have not denied them information. We denied them access to the terminals so they're not able to look them up themselves. They're actually visiting a counter and we are vetting the information that they have. We're working for a court, for a lawyer, for a court case and have the documentation showing that they are contracted with and researching for this lawyer with a court situation then we're moving forward and providing information. I didn't want to clarify this. A security number, photos, medical information is never provided. And we are completing a comprehensive review of disclosures that are permitted and reference that there's 12 different variations that are on there. One of them is for notifying like need holders and owners of towed vehicles. In that situation we actually have a processing place which is for abandoned vehicles which does that notification. So we may look at that one and say at this point in time we don't want to exercise the authority to use that because there's another avenue for that information to be released. We're modifying the applications used to request information and creating an annual certification process for those individuals that routinely come and access our data. Mike, do you have an estimate of how many people have I assume the form that you're talking about which would allow you to is one that someone has to request. I mean it's not an opt out or opt in situation. You've got to actually request it and sign it. Do you have an idea of how many people have done that? I do not. The form is available on our website and it's used for various different reasons. So I don't have it with me today. And once the person does that, is that good forever or can they request it? So it's interesting. So we had a database and this was in the news and we named it the DPPA Frequent User Database. Now one would hear that name and think these are all individuals that frequently come into DMV and should have chosen a different name. Okay? So this was a total accumulation of everybody and anybody who filled out one of the forms not just an individual record, but had asked for access to look at the data. So all, I think there were 700 names that were listed in that all 700 names are not coming in. In that data was well in the police department. Way, way back when they did not have access to look up information from the users through the message switch. So they had an agreement with DMV. In our files we actually have a letter from them saying, well, we don't need this access and more because we're coming through DPS. We didn't go and take them out of the database. So they're still in there. So part of what we're doing is working down through this database to request from the individuals that are in there do you still need it and here is our form fill it out so we can read that and determine whether you qualify for it and whether we're going to provide that information. So I have a couple questions. I understood your question to be slightly different and I had a question that I thought you were asking is if there are people who can opt in to have their information shared, is that what you said? Individuals I could say yes you can share my information. We do not have the capability so you're not doing that. Great, okay, that's what I've got. In the amendment in 1999 originally DPPA said we could share information for market research and stuff like that. In the 1999 amendment Congress amended that to say that the only way DMVs can do that is if you haven't hopped in from the person who's information that is. Our problem is being able to store that data if you've all heard about our computer system it's a little antiquated, it's actually better than I am, but at this point we don't have that ability so we decided we would not share data for those purposes. So who, I have a couple questions, who makes the decision on the permissive people that, I mean there are ones you're required to share with and then there's the permissive. Who makes that decision? So our process was the application would come into the department and be shared with our attorney and we the attorney general assigned to DMV we're kind of in flux right now because he's tired and we have another one coming on board so that would be shared through the attorneys to look at it to determine does the individual qualify, then it would come to the commissioner for sign off. Yeah but isn't there a group of people that are permissive that you, I mean a category of people that I understood there was a category of people that there's a category of people that you are required to have enforcement and so. And then there's categories of people or companies or whatever that you can choose to or not and do you do that on an individual basis or who makes the decision to include that category in your real share or won't you share? I may have been a little misleading, it's not categories of people, it's categories of reasons. There's 12 different reasons that people would have access or be able to obtain this information. Some are mandatory, some are permissive as you said. Like one of the ones on here so for use in the formal course of business by a legitimate business or it's agents or blazer contractors to verify accuracy of personal information submitted so that could be an important, it just hired me to drive for you so you're looking for verification of a heavy driver's license, party or legitimate business lead for use in connection with operation of private toll transportation facilities. So in that situation we would have to look at the toll situation determine whether they're legitimate like easy pass and stuff like that to be able to share that information. Each one is different so we would have to vet them individually. And then I have one more question that I'm sure other committee members have questions also but I have one more. When when the my understanding is that when we win a case through the Attorney General's office and there's money that accrues to the state that they I suppose reasonably deduct their their expenses and what went into it to get that but the leftover money goes into the general fund and I believe that's right that the AG's office keeps some of it and then the rest goes in. Am I right? I was hiding behind you. I think that's right. And because I know there was a big discussion about what we should do with the VW settlement money and so what do you do with if you're selling how do you first of all how do you establish the fees that you're going to charge and then clearly you're generating more income than the expense to to generate the information and do you just DMV keep that? Does it go to AOT or does it come to the general fund? It goes into the transportation fund. Correct. So I mean the department does not keep any of the revenue that's generated the revenue that we collect is authorized in 23VSA 114 that is a statute that was created and it's been modified over the years and it establishes the fees that the department will charge for the data that it sells. So are we I don't know. Okay go ahead. You know you have under your question list in the third bullet it says a person specifically agrees to make the information public. I believe you're telling us that that opportunity doesn't exist that people can't opt in you can't keep those records. Is that right? Correct. Okay so wondering how they could do this inadvertently isn't really an issue because they can't do this right now. Got it. And on your list of the ways you're going to improve your data sharing practices I'm just curious are you making progress on this? And I assume some of this is in the DMV bill and I don't know what my real question I don't really know what additionally I was I get I think that the chair asked my primary question on this. I just am curious you can do so much of this on your own. I know you're wanting to amend the statutes from with the maze but the rest of this most of this you can do it on your own right. And when are we hoping to see progress on this when are we hoping that you will actually have completed and improved. I don't have a specific no no I'm just I just love a notion of your timeline on it. So I don't have an actual timeline of it we have a group that the commissioners put together that's sitting down and we're looking at all of the various reasons that are available we've compiled that at this point in time and now it's the process of sitting down and going through and determining what may the sound clear what may as we shall give if you understand what I mean and from there we will then start breaking it down. We're looking at the database and trying to create a mail merge to go out to all the individuals that are on there to say this has been ended and here's a form please complete it and let us know why it is you believe that you're still qualified for this information and then the process will have to occur. I guess my last question is in terms of the amount of money the 15 million dollars that you generated in selling data and selling public records or they're not really public records because they're private so we don't they aren't really part of our public record. It's interesting that you say that because last year we modified the statute because I believe 104 used to say that everything that the Department of Motor Vehicles was open to public inspection during normal business hours but then DPPA laid over the top of it started adding and so we amended the statute last year to remove the part that spoke about all of our records being public because they're not and then the statute was modified so that it said DMV shall comply with DPPA. So there is a concern that by saying we shall comply we shall give all the information so we're looking to have it changed to say that we may so it doesn't have the you can't have contradictory shall yes exactly okay so part of your records are public records and part of your records are not public records correct and then you've got the personal identifiable information that lays on top of that because your VIN number is not personally identifiable information in many ways just your name by itself isn't personally identifiable information your name and your date of birth now we're in a whole different story so one of our discussion in public records is cost whether the state absorbs that cost as a part of doing business or whether we charge for it so for for profit companies that are asking for our public records like an insurance company I mean that's sort of a different kind of fish than the public asking for something the press asking or an individual so do you do you have a do you sieve it in terms of the cost to the requester by whether or not they who they are I mean it's sort of an insurance company's pay but a private individual doesn't so if you want private individual it wouldn't even qualify so let's say I wanted to buy your if I wanted to buy your driving record in statute right now it says if I can identify you I can buy your driving record and it qualifies it in statute by saying that you must have your name and your date of birth if I have your name and your date of birth I can buy your driving record part of what I talked about in the beginning is driving record driving status is not personal information so that is eligible to be put out there our driving records do have your name and date of birth on them but in that instance I'm giving you back exactly what you gave me and if I can't look up your name and your date of birth to say hey this is you and I deny your request because you don't give me specific information did that make sense so could I have her could I go in and say I want Alice and Clarks Clarks and driving record excuse me and I have her date of birth and you would give it to me I would have you fill out the drive of privacy protection act record request form and if you can provide the date elements name and date of birth and they match on the system I will sell you her driving record but that's anybody on Facebook or anybody who looked at our old legislative bios would have all our dates of birth exactly that is nobody special that's just and at the end of the day the information that would be provided back would be one your name and date of birth because you just gave that to me so I'm not releasing anything that you didn't already give me and then your driving record information so accidents convictions is not personal information not covered by DPP so it is available to be released so Anthony I guess I need to bear in mind that how did you generate the 12 million dollars 15 that was over four years so where did it fit into this so driving records a three year driving record is $14 so anybody who purchases a driving record we collect $14 if you're an insurance company and you're accessing through either a data aggregator or through Vermont information consortium you are paying the statutory fee and then the statutory fee is sent to DMV and DMV puts it into the transportation fund but I didn't have to have the birth dates or anything like that what do you mean? to make the request to access that information that you generated $15 million for right but you're driving records we do because you've given that to your insurance company and your insurance company isn't using that to access through these other companies to get your information right the insurance company says to DMV we have all this information that's the trigger to let DMV sell you their information so when you're required to remind me the non-driver ID I still have a little green driver the privilege card do you mean? yeah the non-driver ID right which is different from the privilege card so there's a non-driver ID and then there's the driver privilege card which I guess is what I have but it's green and has no picture on it so you have one of the old green non-photo looks like it came out of a cracker jack box yeah I love using that in different states but they do not none of those have citizenship on them right? DMV does not store citizenship information in our databases we do ask it on the application because it's needed in the issuance of a real ID driver's license so again for clarity it is not keyed into our system it is not stored in our computer system it is stored on paper and then an image copy period and only for the real ID not for the privilege card or for the non-driver card so let me clarify here non-driver ID that's real ID there's a non-driver ID that's a privilege card so two different situations real ID we are storing that information because you have to answer that question on a privilege card either a privilege card driver's license or a privilege card non-driver that question does not apply and it says right on the form unless you're registering to vote you don't have to answer that question so when we give to federal and state agencies and law enforcement agencies does that include ICE? I believe I would say yes I think they have access to the same thing that law enforcement has coming through the message switch at the state place would they have to have a reason for asking for it the same as anybody else I mean any of these people that ask have to have a reason for asking and again we don't store the citizenship information on the system so that is not information that they are accessing so does law enforcement as I said law enforcement obviously do they need identifying information to access that triggers your ability to share it with them how much personal information do they need like an insurance company to trigger that release the same from law enforcement because they're all going to be kind of grouped the same so I mean if they're interacting with you let's say at the border so you've given them your driver's license and they're going to access your driving record I don't know why they would but they probably have access through the computer system to look at your driving record to determine whether it's valid or not but they don't have access to the forms the forms of what has the citizenship information to either I'm just curious how much information ICE has to have to trigger your releasing information to them how much does law enforcement have to give you to let you know that they're legit and not a scammer so they would come through DPS Department of Public Safety's message switch their agreement would be with Department of Public Safety so law enforcement goes through that message switch so there's a filter already by the time they're requesting from you at the end of the day if they're running your license plate number well there's the data that they're using to figure out whose car it belongs to they have a license number they're running a license number to find out that it matches the person that gave it to them it's hard to answer your question without those specifics behind them so I'm sorry I didn't know what you were talking about yeah yeah any more questions of Mike and I know you're going to be doing the same thing in transportation but Senator Mazza said we should just talk to you in as it relates to the public records any more questions no thank you good start it's getting all the calls um well you could sell that let's see the highest bidder add to public access to a public um let's see I have well Tucker we're not great you don't need to testify but I have Anne Galloway on here but I don't see her and then I have Mark Davis maybe Congress test yeah I'm not going to comment Mark we're here to testify okay could somebody switch on the lights right next to the door there okay so on the list here and is there anybody that isn't on the list that wants to testify to have Anne Galloway and you said she's not going to Mark and Matt Roy yeah are you Matt Matt yeah I recognize you down there I can't even see you you were very instrumental in when we did the shield yes and Jay Barton he's coming and Scott I don't see Scott is not here yet and is there anybody else that clearly this is not the only time we're going to do this but is there anybody else here that wants to testify get on the list today if we have time I just see that Deputy Commissioner is quickly running out of the room I don't think you need me we are always in different thank you so Mark yes we don't have to do that hi I'm Mark Davis an assistant news director from Mount Public Radio here on behalf of my organization we have journalism alliance which includes Ron Jigger WCAX seven days and some other media organizations I don't want to get in the weeks too much I know you guys are early days in this well it's not too early we want to get in the weeks as much as possible because we want to get as much information as we can as we begin to put ideas into here and Tucker is here keeping all his ideas for us so and I understand I think it's important to say that and you might have been going to say this anyway that the people who are because this is an issue that involves the press and the media that the people who are testifying are not the people who are going to be reporting that was made pretty clear to me that there was this kind of separation that was figured out somehow that's for our organizations to figure out it's certainly an uncomfortable position for us to do which is why we don't do it very often it's also somewhat unusual for organizations like figure and seven days from WCAX and VPR to work together I hope you take it as a measure of just how important we believe this is I think it's probably starting with the rather obvious point that often gets overlooked and that is when we are talking about public records we are talking about records that do not belong to the government, they don't belong to the bureaucrats they don't belong to the agencies they don't even belong to you guys they belong to the people so when we are talking about charging for public records what we are talking about effectively is for employees who are paid by the people seeking more money from people to access their own records I think that gets lost this conversation so often becomes about the convenience of the state government of agencies complaints that various employees have these records belong to the people of Vermont I think that needs to be very much on your minds as you go forward in this I think we find that while sometimes the process works well I think anyone who's been in the media at all knows that oftentimes fees and exemptions are used as obstruction as tools to prevent us from doing our jobs from preventing us from telling the people what the government's been up to you'll probably hear a lot of examples I can give you a very recent one from Vermont Public Radio we asked for records of a fatal police shooting we can't imagine a more severe government action than a government agent taking someone's life and then a government declaring has to be a lawful act so we asked to see the file what happened in this case was it reasonable to declare it lawful or not we don't know the assessment came back at $3,000 to look at records this case is closed this place has been well publicized $3,000 for our organization to do I think work that you would hopefully agree is vital there's plenty more where that came from we have one a year ago where we asked to look at a file involving a high profile case involving a former lawmaker who used to work in this building criminal charges were not pursued in a matter involving this lawmaker again more than $1,000 was requested to look at the file one really fun example that they wanted to charge us for fees there was many many hours that they asked to review and redact the documents we bump into this one a lot the attorney general's office asked for I believe it was at least 24 hours of staff time to redact documents again a high profile closed case sort of inquired why why do you need so much time to redact these documents the answer came back from the attorney general's office that the attorneys who do the review for the exemptions were incapable of using these software that could also redact the information and so they wanted us to pay for attorneys to review it and then for someone in the secretary's office apparently who knew how to use the software to go ahead and implement now this might sound small but this is probably a daily occurrence for those of us in media we see over and over and over again the government invoking fees invoking exemptions to keep records from the public I think you'll probably hear more about this certainly the B-5 case certainly the prison case that 7 days broke those are massive examples there's examples that happen every day and so we certainly were supported the supreme court decision and said inspecting public records is free we think that's obvious we don't understand what the controversy could possibly be about the government giving records to the people and any efforts to roll that back are alarming think at the end of the day you cannot have democracy without accountability you can't have accountability without providing records without openness without transparency nice to live in a world where the government just put these records out on the website I'm not even sure why we have to ask for them all the time why we have to pursue them why we have to hector government employees why we have to pay so much money I think it would make sense for the government just to put this information out of course that never happens if you're going to make us do that work for you I don't think you have a right to charge us for and to continuously try to gouge us for we see that more often than not we'd be happy to address any specific questions so I just I understand that in terms of just putting records out if there is a if personal information is in a record do you think that ought to be available I mean again they always come into the particulars there's almost 200 exemptions to this law 263 I think I think one could safely ponder whether there is such things as a law that has 200 some exemptions to it I don't know if that would even declare it a law at this point no but frankly that's not something that takes a lot of time to do this is 2020 there's you know we always serve up bad records management bad software that shouldn't be left to the people to pay for that's that's the government's fault I think part of working for the government is providing records for the people that should not be a controversial idea that's cost of doing business and working for government and I do I I know there's 263 or 70 exemptions and you know we we went through each one about three years ago or four years ago and the decision was that we could have 10 really broad exemptions or we could have 263 very specific exemptions and that was the decision that we made because if you had 10 really broad ones and of course it often comes down to how you choose to interpret those exemptions how the government chooses to interpret those exemptions and certainly I think there are agencies that do it more responsibly than others but more often than not you lean towards interpreting it in the most rigid way possible to make it as difficult as possible for us to obtain information so Mark you've dealt with many departments many agencies many aspects and branches of state government which of you found is the best model I think it ebbs and flows with time it depends on different personnel I hesitate to single anyone out I will say I think you've seen this recently flare up with the attorney general's office in this day where I think us and a lot of other outlets are having some issues and we're butting heads and certainly I think that is the place that is generating the most concern in the media at this time I understand what you're concerned is I'm just curious what's our best what are people's best experiences and what might we model because what we've heard is everybody sort of seems to store their data you know process their data as it comes in figure out how to store it and it strikes me that so far we've heard that the best example is Tanya's that we have that Tanya's archives has a very good model and I'm just wondering do we sound like that's our best model that we could figure out how to roll out through every branch of state government so that everybody was doing the same you know storing it and making it accessible in the same fashion I haven't given that exact question a lot of thought and I'm loathe this sort of shoot from here but it seems to well we can absolutely get back to that one of the best ones what work you know what work we can look into that more I'm just wondering whether when you make a request and they come up with these thousands of dollars of cost do they make it clear whether it's been for the redaction the gathering of the information you're viewing of it copying of it I mean we've heard different things about what people get charged from just wondering if you could speak to that again it really is all over the map it varies I will tell you you know it's sort of some recent ones in the Attorney General's office we'll get at least some itemized X amount of hours for redaction for example and then often times we can call and press for more information some places we just get a blanket here's your cost and then we follow up it's a scatter shot it's sort of most things when it comes to public records interesting it just seems like it shouldn't be that way so most employees I assume have job descriptions and are focused on it's a 40 hour week doing certain things during that week can you imagine a situation where if there were more than one organization or person coming into request where there would be a reasonable person might say well that would take an inordinate amount of time and you're either going to have to wait a little bit longer to get what you're asking or we're going to have to bring somebody in and pay them to do it who might be doing something otherwise no I hear what you're getting at I think I can probably imagine such a scenario what I would say is I don't think we've seen evidence sort of supporting that and we hear that a lot these sort of nightmare scenarios of people coming in and paralyzing agencies essentially I haven't seen a lot of actual proof of that I mean I think we can all give you dozens of concrete examples of the other extreme so yes could I imagine it yes but I don't see it happening in any significant way thank you I think that our archivist is trying to work with different departments and agencies do you know our archivist oh you should Marshall right there you should I do want to add that this committee and the House of Ops it's expected for public agencies whether or not they engage to make that better but you know I'm an information management specialist by background that's our goal but I really feel that it becomes the legislature's kind of duty to maybe help us engage more agencies in a process to actually follow that you can tell them they have to well that was my takeaway from the other day is that you have seemed to have a model that works well you have a system that you've designed and uses records as they come in and makes them fairly accessible for the public yes for the records in our custody we take custody of records from all three branches of state government so we do manage them in a certain way to make sure they're accessible but we also will receive statewide records and information management program that's covering everybody and that's where we don't always see that the agencies departments have the right tools the systems are working on yes that was my reference room and people come and ask for records and we do we process a lot of public records requests and your point is well taken that we need to be more insistent that agencies and departments you're here more opportunity for everybody yes I drank I didn't have another question for you but you know now I'm sorry oh okay good you must talk with your comrades in other states I just wanted to we obviously don't do a very good job here just wanted to hear what's going on with other states similar dilemmas a little bit I think Maddox has a fine experience in other states I know that Florida has long been held up as a place that's a very good sunshine law I've never I've been a journalist in Vermont so long to work yeah I don't think we're doing well nice snowboard is doing something well and I apologize for not having answered your question you can certainly get you more on that I genuinely appreciate knowing the good experiences we are clear on the ones you're on the happy way okay so I just thought of my question so the Supreme Court I don't know if you were here when we first started and when we did when we did the law I think our intention was that if an agency and it may have been the wrong decision to make but I believe the intention was that if an agency or department or whoever has to spend a lot of time preparing then they could charge for that time and there was a very specific chart of what they could charge and at what level they could charge for different different what are those things called grades in the employees system but the apparently we just hooked that to copying which was the Supreme Court right just the decision was the decision so what we heard from a couple agencies the other day was I think was that when somebody asks for copies they charge for that back room time and then they charge for the copy when somebody asks to review or inspect even if they have to do the same back room time they don't charge for that so my question to you is does that make sense or would we just not charge for the back room time whether you're inspecting or taking a picture or copying I think we support the Supreme Court decision and we think that should be the law and the policy so if you're spending back room time preparing something and then somebody asks you for five pages of copies you can charge for that back room time but if they say I want to just review it hurry right to inspect the public records yes but you would still charge for the back room time for that we believe in the law we believe we shouldn't have to inspect records I'm misunderstood the doial decision that I my understanding the doial decision was that you could pay and they could charge for anybody who wants to copy not just for the copy itself but for the back for the time for the tracks behind the scenes again I think we should have open inspection I'm just going to keep proceeding my question we need to be able to thank you for being willing to listen to us we appreciate it and we love your follow-up thanks so Anne are you going to testify today? I am you are okay it's a ride for a nickel time we're about to auction off your seat raise the money for the stage pay for all the public records so I have some handouts for you all I'd be glad to speak and answer that question that seems to be the burning question of the hour I guess I didn't say it very well no you did you expressed it perfectly well thank you do you have enough? so that's my testimony oh wait I need one copy to read from one for Gail one for Christopher and then I'm also passing out the reporters committee for the freedom of the press has drafted some sample legislation that they've suggested that you all consider it's quite different probably than what you're already looking at and the reporters committee could not be here today because they are busy dealing with first amendment violations in the senate having to do with the impeachment trial right now I had hoped to get someone out from New York and it's possible that they might be able to come another day and I don't know if you would consider that but you would alright well as soon as I can muster someone from New York I certainly will but they were often busy with the impeachment trial this week so I'm just going to read briefly from my testimony that you could read it yourselves but I'm going to entail in a few minutes here you know I think that it's really important for us to think about what the supreme court decided and why they decided what they did and Doyle vs. Brownington police department the Vermont supreme court has clearly stated that the law does not allow government to charge for public inspection of records the ruling has the force of law no charge for inspecting records or for making your copies or scans using a cell phone or other device I quote my colleague Tom Kearney editor of the store reporter when I say it's outrageous that Attorney General TJ Donovan the state government's top lawyer is refusing to accept a ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court Kearney goes on to say in an editorial that BT Digger the store reporter and its affiliates and Chittenden County and the Vermont counties are publishing that the court ruling confirmed that people have a right to inspect records for free and then went further they can make their own copies photos or scans without paying a fee if you want the public agency to make copies for you then you have to pay for those copies but there is no charge for inspecting records or for making your own copies or scans the reason for this fees limit access to records taxpayers have already paid for most fees are related to government attorneys redacting documents in the case of the EB-5 scandal for example the Vermont Attorney General's office at one point asked for $200,000 for records each organization the Vermont Journalism Alliance has faced tens of thousands of dollars in fees simply to find out the truth about what government workers or taxpayer dollars have been doing on behalf of the public when government hides real people suffer people have suffered abuses at the hands of state government and over and over again the Vermont Attorney General's response is to block access to records regardless the result, corruption in state government continues unabated by withholding records the Vermont Attorney General hasn't enabled state actors to perpetrate corrupts and crimes let me give you an example the recent revelations of prison in this conduct Donovan knew about abuses at the women's prison Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in May of 2017 according to 7 days and yet did nothing to stop in fact Donovan has helped to cover up abuses by signing off on settlements and turning a blind eye to the underlying causes of the case in addition Donovan is 5 P.T. Digger for 16 months of her records pertaining to alleged misconduct involving a former superintendent of the women's prison and southern state correctional facility if the Edward Adams records had been released in September of 2018 reforms of the prison system could have been expedited by the legislature a year ago resulting in fewer people correctional officers and inmates suffering abuse and sexual harassment as detailed in the expose recently published by 7 days that disclosure would have been a significant step to her protecting the right of inmates and workers to a safe environment and would have likely led to critical reforms 12 months prior that would have prevented more harm and initiated an immediate benefit to the public in the correctional system instead T.J. Donovan tolerated the misconduct and put the protection of misbehaving state workers out of the safety of inmates and guards and the public's right to know instead Donovan spent taxpayer dollars fighting D.T. Digger in court over the Edward Adams records and what did we fight over? A Von Index that's a fancy word for a list of records pertaining to a records request and a citation of the exemptions the Vermont Attorney General's office was using to block those records did you know that the definition of the Von Index is built into the public records act? Under state statute government must release a list of all the records responsive to the request instead Donovan forced us to relitigate a fundamental tenet of state statute this is a pattern that has been repeated over and over again by the Vermont Attorney General's office in response to request there were ongoing delays Donovan staff began to make bogus arguments in court ultimately it took us 10 months to get the Von Index it was only released after the 7 days story came out and we asked Mike Smith the secretary of the agency of human services for the listing the fight isn't over the AG's office did a 180 on this issue finally and now the Vermont State Employees Association is moving to intervene if you read Digger this morning the story about that the jury is out on when we will learn the truth about what misconduct Adams may have been involved in both at Chittenden and southern state contributing to a culture of abuse, drug use and humiliation of inmates and correctional officers the Vermont Attorney General's office has 5 VT Digger tax payer dollars who documents that are created at tax payer dollars meanwhile VT Diggers incurred thousands in legal fees so far on this one case with no end in sight now let's talk about EB-5 more than 550 local vendors and contractors were out $12 million during the state cover up of this scandal Donovan is about to release EB-5 records to Phineo here too Vermonters have directly suffered in this case business owners and workers for 3 years 42 contractors were out more than $7 million for work performed at Burke Mountain Resort and JP about 5 million was owed to 513 vendors in the northeast kingdom VT Digger heard from contractors and vendors who weren't getting paid but could get no information from the state in the interest of helping Vermont business people, investors and public at large better understand what was going on we requested records pertaining to the state's role in the fraud in June 2015 10 months before lawsuits were filed against the developers the request was ignored for 4 months before it was denied there was no evidence between state officials and a principal of the JP projects at one point as we continued to push for state records the Vermont Attorney General's office told us we would need to commit to $200,000 in cash in advance before they would begin the process of redacting records if I sound a little upset I am that's a good portion of our annual budget why were we determined to get the records because the state of Vermont the Congress agency and employees of the Vermont EB-5 regional center knew in the summer of 2014 about the JP fraud and yet that kept that information under wraps from contractors and vendors who continued to provide services to the developers wholly unaware that they would likely suffer in the process it wasn't until April 2017 that vendors and contractors got their money back in the interim local companies begged banks for extended lines of credit shed workers or went out of business altogether I'm not going to get into JP you all know the story BT Digger has sued of the records twice in the EB case in a mediation last summer learned through a third party investigation paid for by the state the four months of records involving James Candido a former regional center director are missing Donovan's denial of records using expansive interpretation of the relevant litigation exemption is perpetuating a state cover up of illegal activity at JP resort four and a half years after placing that first public records request BT Digger still has not obtained access to documents that would show whether officials in the EB-5 program are grossly negligent in their handling of JP in an editorial my colleague Tom Kearney wrote a summary of the Ron EB-5 records saga that I quote here fees have become a significant obstacle in reviewing Vermont's public records increasingly agencies have been charging huge fees thousands of dollars to cover staffing costs to prepare records for public viewing exhibit A is BT Digger which fought a lonely battle to prove that the JP EB-5 expansion projects were a fraud a fraud indeed millions of investors dollars were swindled the chief architect of the scam went to jail and had a fork at 81 million he hasn't gone to jail yet and the federal government shut down the Vermont EB-5 regional center for uttering confidence all this has emerged when BT Digger is reporting when the facts finally start to emerge you'd think the attorney general's office would have smelled the rat and investigated what happened it didn't rather it was federal officials who pursued the details about the scandal that occurred right under the noses of Vermont's most prominent politicians and now after years of foot dragging some crucial records have vanished with that grim record involving state documents you'd think the state's top legal officer would try to make amends you'd think that state government might feel a sense of shame you'd think the state would try to restore public confidence and make it easier for people to see what their government is doing in their own but to the contrary Donovan not only has the gall to defy the Supreme Court he's lobbying the legislature to enact fees for viewing copy and public records access to public records should not be an issue at all they're the public's records and they should be managed by the public most public agencies in Vermont already do it and since most public records are electronic it's easy to store them properly all it requires is good management and in answer to the question you asked earlier Jeanette about the fact that records have to be prepared I would argue no no I think you know you're making a fair point I think that the issue is that records as they're being properly managed and stored should be redacted as required under the law you know before they're filed so if you have personal information in a document that you know is going to be requested any enforcement action any agreement such as the one in the Edward Adams case should be redacted before it's filed based on exemptions existing in the law so the work needs to be done on the front end and then when people ask to inspect they ought to be able to inspect for free if government hasn't done its job in advance that's not a problem I agree with that would you have to in some cases keep two copies because you can't redact them no no no but you're suggesting that but the suggestion about redacting first before it's filed I mean I think that with with good records management and electronic systems now it should be much easier to be able to do that but to the main point I'm trying to make with my testimony here is that when you're talking about the cost of records that is peanuts compared to what this has cost to public the harm this has done to real people and I want you to think about that that's my point because the people of Vermont are more important than state workers oh no I wasn't I know that's not what you're saying but I'm saying that when we trivialize this by talking about the cost of redaction the cost of preparing records when there's been real human cost here I want you all to think about that that's the point of my testimony so your answer to my question earlier is there should be no cost to the preparation and redaction whether you are copying or inspecting no you can charge the copies no I mean that I know but for the cost if there's a cost of preparing that should not be born by either the copier or the inspector correct okay great that was yes because I understand from some agencies that they charge the preparation time if somebody wants a copy but not if they just want to inspect so it depends on I mean there are many nuances to this we've been charged many different things over time for different things that people have done whether it's attorneys redacting records or people tried to charge us for collecting records and I've tried to bucket all those things because I think it should all be free frankly I hate the idea of paying a lawyer to take away information that may or may not be valid to exempt that's why I'm suggesting that this should be done before there's a question raised if public officials are really responsible in the way they deal with records they should be redacting them as they're filing them and then when we make the request it's simply a matter of either paying for copies or going in and seeing the documents for free so I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Mark which was before you got in here that's okay what's the best experience of obtaining public records you've experienced in Vermont well I can give you a really good example that happens today I mean it does happen and typically we get records easily when there's no controversy so for example on Tuesday we had the budget address and a bunch of us were there we went to the briefing the budget briefing on the fifth floor and Suzanne Young talked about a document that they had created that described the climate change expenditures that the administration has made over the past two years and naturally we're journalists we said oh we have a copy of that and Suzanne said yes but then of course we didn't get it right away it was the next day but that's pretty good and so I got a copy that was unredacted and Bob's your uncle I had the document it's great it was easy she had it on file and she sent it to me do you always have that experience do you always have that experience from the governor's office no not always but I mean are there agencies that are better than others the secretary states office is the best secretary states office does that include archives yeah archives has been fine they've been good because as we look for a best model to roll out throughout state government that is what I think I think they've set the standard I think they've set the standard and you know it depends on what we're asking for but I can tell you that dollars of donuts if there's any kind of concern or potential embarrassment or controversy it is a blessed fight to get the records it doesn't matter what department it is and that's not the way it should be we should just be getting these records because the public has a right to know it's really going on in government because the fact of the matter is we can't have faith in you people if we don't know what you're doing you people are us it's all of us so tough on state employees they're us too but they're not us if we don't get the records and we don't know what's really going on then it becomes us and them well my other part of my question is I'm assuming because as you know we had TJ testify last week and I assume that the attorney client privilege which he actually spoke quite eloquently about is one of the exemptions one of the 263 exemptions because otherwise all court document you know there are public documents that I don't think that's an exemption I think that's part of is that an exemption is my question because that you know I'm the wife of a lawyer and the mother of a lawyer and you know that's a sacred privilege is protected information attorney client and some of what I mean I know there's a difference of opinion here but is that one of the exemptions that is honored in those exemptions? I assume it is it has to be you haven't read the law? yeah it's in there of the 263 I wasn't on this when we did that read the exemptions yeah I'd suggest you read the law it's in there yep since you're changing attorney client's in there and then I think we also just quite I mean one of the issues from the attorney general's office and you know I know you're not going to have any sympathy for this but it is one that you know we hear is that is and I agree with you it is the cost of doing business as a government that it should be all public I think but it is there is a huge change in the cost to government in terms of lawyers time staff time yeah I know you don't I'm not sure I do so I know that this is a little bit nitpicky and I mean gets a little bit more into the weeds in terms of but we have to come up with some we're going to come up with some things yeah I read the report I'll look at that but I have two questions that aren't wouldn't be addressed in there I believe one is if you could talk a little bit more about and I'm not I think they're called confidential agreements with employees and then if you could we have a bill in here that would extend public records access to nonprofits that are created by funded by and doing business for that that is their role vital was one and there are a couple other ones in here and we have a bill that would extend the public records law to those also and I wonder if you can comment on those two things I don't have any comment on that issue okay I mean I'm just here to talk about our end of it I'm not here to make recommendations I'll comment on anything else but it did bring some recommendations that's not my recommendation that's the reporters' recommendation for legislation thank you very much hello I do have some remarks let me say I was a little nervous about coming to testify today it's not something I've done before it's the only way I can get a seat that's that's a great way to testify of being on the committee that has to guarantee it's got a seat okay so good afternoon I'm going to read from these remarks and then say a few other things but I'm the news editor of 7 Days Matthew Wright and here is part of the Vermont Journalism Alliance which has been described to you I do think that some people have the impression that it's easy and inexpensive to obtain public records currently and I'd like to explain how time consuming and costly it actually can be as described earlier often we wind up paying fees for staff to produce records and prepare them for production what that often means is we're paying for somebody else's attorney to redact documents lacking out in my experience often page after page after page based on the other determination the information is covered by one of the myriad exemptions to the public records law for some the rule of thumb seems to be if in doubt, black it out if we disagree with their decision and we don't know what's being redacted we don't know what's being withheld our only recourse is to appeal to that same agency to ask them to take another look and if we still don't like the know then our only recourse is to hire a lawyer and sue records cases can be very expensive I know 7 days had the audacity to ask for records when the public school administrator left his job in 2018 as a result of that request the school district we sought records from sued the newspaper we eventually wanted the marks being court but we're at $7,500 in legal costs news organizations that request records are often told the data will cost thousands of dollars journalists often get the impression that the cost estimates are meant to discourage them from pursuing the records at all in any event it's not uncommon for news agencies to consider paring down records requests in order to make them affordable here's an example a real life example of how the process can go last year 7 days and Vermont public radio teamed up for the first ever collaboration it was a series of articles reports called worse for care we joined forces for a number of reasons but one was simply to split the high cost of obtaining the public records that we needed to report these stories it started when 7 days decided to look into elder care homes regulated by the department of aging in a dependent living we asked the state for 5 years worth of data regarding any complaints this started months of negotiations for various reasons price estimates fluctuated from $1,600 to $2,300 for those records we ultimately paid $1,600 have you ever got to buy something and you couldn't get a price that's what it's like trying to get records after getting the initial records we asked for additional ones disclosing simply the fines that had been imposed on homes during that period we were told that in order to produce that information Dale would have to review 5 years worth of correspondence with more than 130 facilities but that would take somebody a full work week, 40 hours but they'd bill us 57 cents a minute or roughly $1,400 after we protested the state said work could do the job in 6 hours we ultimately paid about $200 in that instance it turned out only a handful of facilities had actually been fined so we paid a lot for very little data and we did that because the state did not have the information stored in a manner that made it convenient to retrieve we used these public records to reveal systemic problems of abuse and neglect that have occurred at many of the months out of the pair homes we found instances where homes failed to run the appropriate background checks on the staff we found medication errors we found problems with the diets that people were on we found homes that prevented people with dementia from wandering off we found instances that led to injury and death and we used the records to build a database that we made public so that for the first time people can go online look at a home and see what the factors have found over years and see where it stands in comparison with comparable facilities 7 days in VPR are two of the state's healthy news organizations it's hard to imagine now that many small-famon newspapers and news organizations would be able to afford such expenses and I want to go off my script here for a minute Senator, you mentioned the shield block and some years ago as I worked we were putting together an issue when a state police investigator came in and asked us for notebooks and notes related to some stories we'd done and we declined to turn them over and we soon realized that Vermont had no shield block and we're very great I'm one of the people who was opinioned and I'm very grateful for the work that the legislature did to address this shortcoming and to stand up for press freedom I believe that in an area where I don't think I need to explain to people in this room that the press is not as it has been disrupted by the internet the business models mean that the Burlington Free Press and others are no longer printing money and this is another opportunity to recognize that having to it's another opportunity to stand up and say hey, we're going to stand with the media on this it's been set the rest of this has been said these records are of course the public's maintaining these complex sense of documents in an organized searchable and readily available format is in this day and age a basic function of government nobody should be told it will take $1400 to produce a handful of records charging high fees for viewing and preparing these documents will in many instances in does effectively walk away it's obviously not the public interest the launches want to know the basis for public official decisions and they want to know about the conditions that state inspectors found in the elder care homes that they entrust with the care of their mother question about it's hard to ask specific questions after you and Anne and Mark give kind of a broad sure but I'm going to anyway because we have to deal with the weeds so the suggested language that came from reporters what's it called committee for the freedom of press says that an agency may not charge or collect the cost of staff time spent in complying with a request to inspect public records and then there's more down here about being able to use your own equipment to inspect the records so my question is what we heard last week I think is that some agencies charge that preparation time if you're going to copy it that they don't charge the preparation time if you're going to inspect it should we should it be a blanket rule that they don't charge for the preparation time period whether you're going to copy or inspect and just just charge for the actual copy that's made I think just charging for the copy would be ideal so if we did something like this we would change this language to make it clear that whether you're copying or inspecting there's no charge for the in my opinion the fewer fees there are the better do you know our state archivist I do and you were asking earlier about good examples and I had a very good example I was asking about that I'm sorry I had a very good example of the state archivist I've had other good examples as well unfortunately a lot of best practice here and we we do have within our capability the I mean we can tell we at one point told agencies that they had to start complying with the the timing and some of the records management I think we can be more forceful about that that's the same one thing a time commercial state archivist for the record last week when I testified I did offer if you wanted to know the legislative and depth behind what each of that because what you just described was the original 1976 act copying the actual cost of the copy because everything else was to be assumed as part of the normal course of business I'm happy to testify again if you want to know what changed in 1996 and what was the context of that particular added staff time and what was intended if you want you can just let me know I'm happy to bring that up but the original was not the original has always been and then the next layer of staff time just for context was based on the advent of additional systems and concerns about how to make reports out of data so when you actually read it within context of 1996 and the testimony you're going to see then conceptually what is being talked about here any questions about I don't know yeah I guess so I go back to the days when news reporter we still had telephone would get a school and would run like heck to the and call back to whatever organization it was and obviously that's changed today digital world would be a reasonable amount of time for an agency to have been able to give you a record that you've requested that's a really good question and I'll tell you why it's important because if you decide it's three days then it won't take three days if you decide it's five days it will take five days and if you decide it's six months it will take them six months to produce that record we find time and time again that agencies take too long agencies invoke the extension a lot 10 day extension and they still go beyond I have a situation right now that I really can't elaborate on but these things are common place so I think for recognizing now that what is it they have a few days now and then they have 10 days so I think that's certainly adequate for them to do their jobs it has been my experience that they often fail to do their jobs within that period regardless and then again once again we're in the position of well we can sue and I talked to a lawyer about an option of filing a suit for that reason recently and it took four years okay any more questions thank you thank you are you Jay? I am I apologize no no that's okay you came in I didn't know who you were so I figured maybe that's who you were I do well thank you very much at least known person you must be the guy it's like the game of the clue I did it with the candlestick yeah okay and then as everybody knows this committee takes this issue very seriously we really do we've taken it seriously in the past and not gotten it right we've taken it seriously now well so for the record my name is Jay Barton I'm the Vice President General Manager of WCAX-TV I appreciate the opportunity to be in your presence and speak on this topic mercifully from your perspective I have prepared notes which means I will go quickly I've done it always well if you know me that's right it doesn't always mean it will go quickly however I will do my best I think that my comrades at arms when it comes to defending journalism have said have come at this from a variety of angles that are all very poignant and important perspectives I wanted to step back one step and also thank you for the thoughtfulness of the questions around the table because I can tell that you are taking this seriously and and I think that we have a real opportunity because all of us you know a lot of the conversation has been posed in an us versus them sort of dyad where you know I'm the good guy someone else is the bad guy or vice versa and perhaps we have the opportunity for it not necessarily to be that way I have since just in listening that there may be a third way a way where for instance maybe the perspective the perspective in 1976 might have been that the expectation of the government is to be responsible to its people because the power of the government is derived by mandate from the masses no longer by some divine intervention or a king or a prince even prince harry none of those folks are able to they don't hand us power we the people hand power to the government and so the government in measure takes a responsibility back to those people you know I think about on our flag freedom and unity freedom means that I'm responsible for myself will stand for me I will stand for my choices and be held responsible unity means we're responsible to each other and isn't that a joy so as I listen to this conversation and I think about the opportunities that have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to a variety of different organizations perhaps including mine from time to time you know if the original intent of the spirit was a cost of doing business of the government in order for it to be responsible to its people is to understand that rather than using the fees as a shield to protect information that perhaps I'm embarrassed by and a sword to pierce the person asking because you know when you say when you hear testimony that says well I asked for something and they had no problem giving it to me so I got it the next day I asked for something else and they were nervous that it might be costly in some fashion and suddenly it took six months and thirty thousand dollars worth of legal fees that's using the law as a shield and a sword against people rather than for them and so I since this opportunity for us to perhaps as a body think on this from the perspective of maybe it's just a change rather than saying how do we deal with fees maybe it's how do we deal with the perspective of our responsibility to the people how do we deal with maybe that's what this addressing of this issue could become and so what that would mean then and I think some of these great questions and I do have to also apologize as a manager that means I don't know a whole lot but I do I'm standing for Roger Garrity our news director who is very well-versed in this topic and the minutia of what has transpired in our newsroom so I regret that I don't have just personally at hand an example but just in listening to the way people have referred to the way our archives are being run perhaps a model like that is the one where we change the expectation you know the built in belief is why does it cost money for back office hours to present a document could it be because we don't expect to have to present the document could not then we just change the perspective you expect to present the document and for that reason you know it's easier to lift a grain of sand than it is to lift than it is to lift a palace of glass so so in this case if I take each document in turn and we have a system statewide that manages these documents up front one at a time or batch at a time then it will then it removes those barriers when the time comes for the document to be produced because the expectation is now that the document will be produced as opposed to not and so that would be sort of my testimony again I always joke about being in management that just means I'm in your way but at some level when you think about managing people and organization an issue all those things are matters to some degree of perspective and so my layering on might be what if our perspective was we expect to give these documents not to WCAX not to 7A's not to BT Digger not to whomever in the media this isn't something where while the media has a very strong perspective on it because we intersect with it so often like you said we're run into the phone booth we think about it from the perspective of the person who doesn't have an organization they they I saw a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. day where and I'm paraphrasing Dr. King but he said something to the effect of it's an insult to a man to tell him to pull himself up by his bootstraps when you know he doesn't have boots right that's a paraphrase but it's a pretty good quote regardless and I think that this is an opportunity to say to the person who's not going to an organization but they have a question of the government who is responsible to them the government has expected to help that person have some boots so that's what I have to say and I'm beat me up now please any questions they did a good job so I get to just appreciate your coming down I do appreciate the work of the thoughtfulness of this committee in dealing with it because any decision can have unintended consequences so we would hope that they'd be good ones and in this case as my comrades have said I think that for any person not a media organization but for any citizen the idea that I can inspect the files created by the government the idea that I can have our public records created and maintained with public money theoretically I have some ownership of them the expectation should be that I have access to them I think that might be a reasonable starting position so thank you very much thank you for the opportunity good afternoon Madam Chair members of the committee thank you for the privilege to sit before you today and testify my name is Scott Woodward I'm a public member in the town of Pomfret and I have served in local government for the past eight years first as planning condition member more recently on the select board I'd like to I'd submit a written testimony but I'll just speak to that testimony I'd like to offer a local government perspective as someone who is often has to respond to public records requests first I'd say off the bat that from a policy standpoint I stand on the side of if there's no need to charge we shouldn't charge even for preparation but if the legislature in this committee is thinking about legislation that might charge there's a few things that would be worth taking into consideration and my main point is that there needs to be that ability to distinguish between what is true preparation versus what is really inefficient record keeping practices and having served in local government for as long as I have I can say that while we do our best we're not great at records management we could do much better and I highlighted a couple of examples in my testimony I'll speak to one of them right now we received the select board received the public records request last year for basically and this happens frequently where curious people want to know what's going on and email is a favorite subject so we were asked for all five select board members email for a very long period of time every single email and so the scenario was we all manage our email differently some people use a client on their laptop some people are on windows some people are on Mac some people use the cloud but you've got five members who potentially manage their email in very different ways and it quickly became about how the heck are we going to get our email off of our machines are out of the cloud to this person who's requested our messages and we basically huddled up put ourselves in a room for about three hours and we went by one through our machines and basically extracted the email out but it took us three hours multiplied by five people and if we had charged for that time it would have come to a bill of about two hundred and seventy dollars which is you know it's not huge but that's a lot for an individual person requesting records and that in my mind a lot in fact probably the entire or most of the three hours per person that we spent could have been avoided if we had some standardized routine way of managing email and some simple way to actually pull email off of the machines or the cloud some practice in place so I think it's really important for the committee to as it's drafting legislation to think about how do you distinguish between what is your preparation versus making up for better or less than stellar record keeping practices and just to give a nod to Tanya the state archivist does set the standard and the records retention policies that are available through the Secretary of State website are actually a good yardstick because as I suggested in my testimony if there's a possibility to charge for preparation maybe the legislature might require adoption of records retention schedules and adherence to those schedules because that would signify better practice better records management practices and maybe also to there might be an audit process that could be incorporated or some self audit whereby the public or some external organization can evaluate whether record keeping practices are up to some level that would help distinguish between what's true preparation versus for practices and I can recite a number of examples over the past eight years where in my mind we've had to figure out and come up with public records but most of the effort was really just because yet another example is somebody might ask for a single pdf file but who knows who has it it might be on one person's laptop or it might be in a file cabinet somewhere and oftentimes we don't even know where the true record lies so there that's really the main point is to figure out how to distinguish between record keeping practices versus for record keeping practices and what's true preparation so I like your idea if I understood it that if an agency is going to charge for preparation they first have to be in compliance with the record keeping system that is right now encouraged but not required and we could do that for state agencies and departments should we also do it for the municipalities we have 250 of them would they be in here jumping down our roads I'm just curious yeah I don't know I am not sure about that because I think more and more municipalities are using technology to their advantage so I don't I think it's an evolutionary process for municipalities but I think some might might not love it but I think some may embrace it actually and eventually maybe everybody well I think the league we haven't really talked about this but it's increasingly going to be a municipal issue just you know individuals will be asking for public records of their select boards of their commissions and I would there say most of them are not equipped to respond in any kind of timely fashion right I mean I would say in the grand scheme of things most municipalities in Vermont are in this point as they're transitioning more to electronic document management but a lot are not there yet well we had so few I mean many many towns don't have professional staff running the town I mean not every town has a town manager right professional administrators but basically what I was suggesting is if a municipality were allowed to charge for preparation they would first have to establish that they've got some level of record keeping practices in place so and then you know this might be as I mentioned the last bullet point my testimony is it might be an opportunity to encourage you know not a stick approach but more of a carrot approach of how do you entice local government to move more toward e-government because the reality is that's where we're going and just two examples will illustrate that point some towns today already provide their grand list through the website a lot don't but I know a lot of residents who would love to be able to just go to the town website and be able to look up their their list of sheet but some towns are embracing that and Jericho I think is one example where you can go to their website and pull up their all their list of cards that failed right on the web but that's you know something maybe that the legislature could encourage towns to start moving in that direction I got a lot of pushback when we required towns to have the minutes of their meetings their official meetings up with it for inspection and then when we told them that they had to have it on the website if they had an active website they had to have it on within a certain period of time and some of them didn't even have minutes for paper inspection I mean they just didn't have minutes so it's the broad range of municipalities is going to be a bigger issue but the state agencies I think that we can have a little more control over because there shouldn't be a broad range of state agencies like there is from a town with 300 people in a town of 60,000 people but we could also at the same time consider a time frame for the towns and a carrot to get towns to that point in five years but it would be great to have a carrot to encourage best practices you cover local government too I know you do we're actually piloting related to the minutes with municipal reports right now they all come into secretary states they all come into our digital archives and we present them out that way so if that actually works as a good model we're hoping to expand that system so it can actually accommodate my friends of the municipalities that's just the select board or trustees minutes not all the commissions and right now we're just starting with municipal reports the annual report they come in the annual report if I may one essentially I mentioned it earlier about potentially extending public records law to private organizations non-profits that are set up and the two that were used as examples are also around vital which is the one that the example that's in the bill here now is the sustainable fund sustainable jobs fund sustainable jobs fund program that's similar analogs that exist in local government too there are private organizations non-profits that actually perform municipal functions so it's actually the same paradigm and so I would encourage the committee to think about that as well I'm happy to speak to that another time I wouldn't want to get into the weeds on it now but there is applicability at the local government as well but that's the upshot of it thank you any more questions thank you for coming on thank you for the opportunity and you know you can watch on our our agenda it's always posted and Gail tries to keep a list of interested parties so that you can just send it out and say we're taking this up so if you want to be on there let her know and then whether you come or Scott's working on a project with the court so this is close by sometimes thank you thank you Scott great I think wow we were 10 minutes ahead of ourselves we didn't ask enough questions come on we're never ahead of ourselves always because we're still behind clarity of gravity in the journalism yes we got that okay so we'll take a break we are coming back here the plan to elevate the department of public safety to the agency of public safety and we will look at that when we come back and I would suggest since we're 10 minutes ahead of ourselves can we start a little early could we start at like 20 after okay thank you