I am asking as many as possible to make the same or similar pledge for which I thank you in advance.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
New Year's Resolution For Vermonters
I am asking as many as possible to make the same or similar pledge for which I thank you in advance.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Public Records Request - Burlington Report #11
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
VFSC Burlington Report #9
Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875
Report for Day #9 of On-site VT Public Record Law Review of Burlington Anti-Gun Proposals
Burlington City Hall, 12/11 9AM – 11:30AM
Chris Bradley and Evan Hughes were at the Burlington City Hall on Wednesday, December 11th for a material review session.
The day started with a meeting between Eileen Blackwood (City Attorney) and Bob Rusten (Chief Administrative Officer) which lasted approximately 40 minutes with all parties demonstrating their professionalism.
In this meeting, Chief Administrator Rusten indicated that they believed they have reviewed a total of approximately 5,000 documents.
Of those 5,000 documents, Mr. Rusten explained that they have produced approximately 2,400 documents (mostly emails) for our examination. He then explained that another 1,600 documents from the 5,000 total were not produced as the City deemed them "not responsive" (meaning that they were not given to us as it was felt that they had no bearing on the Federation's Public Records Request).
They then explained that approximately 800-900 additional documents have been set aside by the City for further review by them to ascertain whether they should be exempted, redacted or otherwise given to the Federation for review.
In considering the 800-900 documents which have been set aside for further review by the City, it must be noted that the City has already made the determination to redact or exempt 117 documents from Public Review and Inspection. It should be further mentioned that in the trip to Burlington on 12/4, the Federation was informed by a City Official that the Federation would likely be receiving "hundreds and hundreds" more exemptions and/or redactions. While it is purely conjecture, the Federation has reason to believe that most of the 800-900 documents will be the likely source of these additional redactions/exemptions, as these documents were already set aside at least once by the City for further internal scrutiny and consideration.
City Attorney Blackwood indicated that she would be pursuing the hiring of a person to help the City expedite the production of records, and she clearly stated that she felt the City had not been prepared at all to be responsive to the Federation's Public Records Request. Mr. Rusten further indicated that there was still another 13,000 records to be reviewed – but that it was felt that most of these would not be responsive the Federation's Public Records Request.
As of today, December 16th, the Federation has formally appealed to Mayor Weinberger in regards to the 117 redacted or exempted documents to date. In this letter we have requested that these documents be opened for inspection and, among other points concerning Burlington's responsiveness (or lack thereof), reminded him of his commitments to open government – which so far has been slow to be seen by the Federation.
We have additionally requested that the city return to not merely listing redacted or exempted documents, but physically provide them with appropriate sections blacked out. We have further requested the amount of time spent by the City to date, and have now specifically asked for documents not previously provided (but requested), such as the notes kept by Charter Change Committee Chairwoman Siegal, and documents from/to Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Letter of Appeal of Public Record Request to City of Burlington
http://www.vlct.org/assets/Resource/Workshops/FY12/2012-Selectboard-Institute.pdf
Although VFSC is not aware of any Vermont court decisions interpreting or applying this exemption, the State of Washington has an equivalent exemption and the Washington Supreme Court has made clear that the exemption does not authorize the type of carte blanche blanket withholding that the City has sought to date regarding records of communications within government:
"The purpose of this exemption severely limits its scope. Its purpose is to protect the give and take of deliberations necessary to formulation of agency policy. For that reason, the exemption "only protects documents which are part of `a deliberative or policy-making process'. We have specifically rejected the contention that this exemption applies to all documents in which opinions are expressed regardless of whether the opinions pertain to the formulation of policy. Moreover, unless disclosure would reveal and expose the deliberative process, as distinct from the facts upon which a decision is based, the exemption does not apply. In order to rely on this exemption, an agency must show that the records contain pre-decisional opinions or recommendations of subordinates expressed as part of a deliberative process; that disclosure would be injurious to the deliberative or consultative function of the process; that disclosure would inhibit the flow of recommendations, observations, and opinions; and finally, that the materials covered by the exemption reflect policy recommendations and opinions and not the raw factual data on which a decision is based. Subjective evaluations are not exempt under this provision if they are treated as raw factual data and are not subject to further deliberation and consideration. Once the policies or recommendations are implemented, the records cease to be protected under this exemption."
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Univ. of Washington, 884 P.2d 592 (1994).
The burden is on the government to show each of the prerequisites, as to each record it seeks to withhold, in order to validly invoke this exemption.
And once the decision being contemplated has been made, the exemption ceases to apply. Therefore, for deliberations that led up to City Council action to date, even if exemption (c)(17) did apply prior to action, the exemption no longer applies post-action.
VFSC thus requests that you either provide specific justification for each record withheld as to why each prerequisite justifies the exemption, or, in the absence of that justification for each record, that you provide that record, and, also, even if the exemption had applied, if the deliberations were pertinent to action that has now already been taken, that you now provide such records since the exemption now no longer applies.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Fwd: Report #8
Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc.
Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875
Report for Day #8 of On-site VT Public Record Law Review of Burlington Anti-Gun Proposals
Burlington City Hall, 12/4 9AM – 11:30AM
Chris Bradley and Evan Hughes were at the Burlington City Hall on Wednesday, December 4th for a material review session. The city did not have enough documents available in the preceding week to make a site visit worthwhile.
During this visit the city produced 540 Emails of which 46 were originals and the rest were duplications of previously provided items; this brings the overall total of emails provided by Burlington to 2,544 – of which approximately 625 are non-duplicates. The City of Burlington has informed the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs that thus far it has withheld 117 documents from the Federation review.
During this meeting the city informed the Federation that given a decision by the mayor, city council and city attorney that the number of withheld documents would increase dramatically. The city related the related the increased documents would be in the "hundreds" and when asked for clarification of that term of numbers, the number of "500" was cited.
If the city holds to that number, there would be over six hundred documents that the city will have withheld from public view via the Vermont Public Record Law request the Federation has submitted to the city.
The City of Burlington would be withholding these documents about how it creates a proposal to have the legislature on its proposed gun control ordinance that will give the city the power to arrest, prosecute, imprison, fine and seize the property of citizens.
Is this the way you believe Vermont law should be enacted?
Just FYI: The 4 attachments to this email are examples of exempted and redacted documents that have been given to us.
Chris Bradley - Secretary
Vermont State Rifle And Pistol Association (VSRPA)
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Another National Recognition of the VFSC battle with Burlington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Latest Report on BTV
In terms of numbers the city has produced approximately 2,500 pieces for review. Of those, exactly 2,004 have been emails and of those approximately 586 are non-duplicates. To date, the City has informed the Federation that there are 104 documents that we have been blocked from seeing either through redaction or outright exemption. In some at least one case, the City has redacted only the subject lines (but none of the body).
This means that so far, the City is withholding about 15 percent of the documents it has acknowledged exists. What the City is essentially saying then is that several of the discussions over the development of hoped-for City ordinances are not open to public review, which is highly questionable given that this should all have been a very open process.
Remember, the city was informed of the federation request to view these materials on September 19.
The City has miserably failed to comply with the time requirements of the Vermont Public Records Law and to date has provided only about 2,500 documents of the approximately 18,000+/- items it reports it has.
The review of the requested materials is providing some very revealing information, which is all the more reason for wanting to see what is the withheld and not yet disclosed. But, would a Mayor and City Council that has no respect for the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights respect the Vermont Public Records Law?
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Burlington City Council moves on gun regulations
Two approved, one sent back for fine tuning
Nov. 18, 2013
Burlington City Councilor Tom Ayres, D-Ward 7, listens to public comment during Monday night's city council meeting at Contois Auditorium. / EMILY McMANAMY/FREE PRESS
Written by, April Burbank , Free Press Staff Writer
Also at Monday's meeting:
Monday, November 18, 2013
Burlington City Council to Discuss Proposed Gun Control Ordiances
Gun regulations, health insurance to be discussed at Burlington's City Council
Nov. 18, 2013 1:32 PM
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
City of Burlington Politicians "You Were Wrong to Tread on Veterans Day"
Thursday, November 7, 2013
PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT ON PROPOSED BERLIN POND FISHING RESTRICTIONS (You have to read this)
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:21 PM
To: info@vermonttraditions.org
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT ON PROPOSED BERLIN POND FISHING RESTRICTIONS