Case Title: Finberg v. Murnane

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-485


 Charles E. Finberg                           Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

 Janet Murnane and Brendan                    April Term, 1992
 Keleher, Treasurer, City of
 Burlington


 Alden T. Bryan, J.

 Charles E. Finberg of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington, plaintiff-
   appellant

 John L. Franco, Jr., of McNeil & Murray, Burlington, for defendants-
   appellees



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse, and Johnson, JJ.



      DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Chittenden
 Superior Court denying his request under the Access to Public Records Act, 1
 V.S.A. {{ 315-320, for a list of names and addresses of taxpayers subject to
 a business gross receipts tax adopted by an ordinance of the City of
 Burlington.  We reverse.
      Plaintiff is an attorney who practices law in Burlington.  Defendant
 Brendan Keleher is the Burlington city treasurer and defendant Janet Murnane
 is the assistant city attorney.  The complaint alleges that plaintiff sought
 from the Burlington treasurer's office a list of names and addresses of
 taxpayers that are subject to a special gross receipts tax levied by the
 city.  He was handed the list, a ten page computer printout containing no
 financial information, but the list was then withdrawn.  Subsequently, he
 was asked to fill out a form making an official request for the list.  Some
 twenty days later the request was denied by a letter from defendant Murnane.
 The letter asserted that (1) plaintiff was not entitled to the list because
 the tax ordinance made the information confidential, (2) the record is
 exempted from disclosure under the public records act by { 317(b)(6) because
 it is tax return information, and (3) the record is exempted by { 317(b)(10)
 because it "would violate a person's right to privacy or produce public or
 private gain."
      Approximately one week later, plaintiff brought suit in superior court
 and filed a memorandum of law with the complaint.  The court responded by
 scheduling a status conference twelve days later.  Shortly before the status
 conference, defendants filed a responsive memorandum; they did not file an
 answer or a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff filed a rebuttal memorandum, and
 the parties made legal arguments to the court.  On the following day, the
 court dismissed the complaint because it found the records to be excepted
 from disclosure by virtue of 1 V.S.A. { 317(b)(6).
      On appeal to this Court, plaintiff argues that the trial court was
 premature in dismissing the complaint because it relied upon facts outside
 the complaint.  Plaintiff also argues that the court was wrong on the merits
 and that he is entitled to some relief because defendants failed to respond
 within the statutory time deadlines.  Defendants respond that the decision
 was not premature and was correct on the merits and that their delay in
 responding was harmless.
      Before addressing the issues on appeal, it is helpful to examine the
 statutory scheme and the policy behind it.  The Access to Public Records Act
 (the Act) is aimed at expeditious resolution of disputes over whether a
 citizen will have access to a public record.  The custodian of the record
 has an obligation to produce it "promptly," 1 V.S.A. { 318(a), or within two
 business days certify the reasons for denial of access.  Id. { 318(a)(2).
 In unusual circumstances, the time for responding, either with disclosure or
 a claim of exception, can be extended up to ten working days.  Id. {
 318(b)(5).  Appeals are to the superior court, which determines the matter
 de novo.  Id. { 319(a).  Such appeals take precedence over other matters on
 the docket except for cases "of greater importance" and must be "expedited
 in every way."  Id. { 319(b).
      In an appeal to superior court, "the burden is on the agency to sustain
 its action."  Id. { 319(a).  The Act is to be construed liberally.  Id. {
 315.  A policy consideration on which the Act is grounded is that "the
 public interest clearly favors the right of access to public documents and
 public records," and under this policy "the exceptions listed in { 317(b)
 should be construed strictly against the custodians of the records and any
 doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure."  Caledonian-Record
 Publishing Co. v. Walton, 154 Vt. 15, 20, 573 A.2d 296, 299 (1990).
      It is also helpful to specify what is not involved in this dispute.  It
 is undisputed that the treasurer's office of the City of Burlington is a
 public agency so that its records are subject to the Act.  See 1 V.S.A. {
 317(a).  It is also undisputed that the list of names and addresses is an
 existing public record subject to disclosure unless it fits within one of
 the exceptions itemized in the Act.  See id. { 317(b); compare Welch v.
 Seery, 138 Vt. 126, 129,