Case Title: New England Coalition for Energy Efficiency and the Environment v. Office of Governor

Citation: 164 Vt 337, 670 A.2d 815

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
NE_COALITION_FOR_ENERGY_V_GOVERNOR.94-157; 164 Vt 337; 670 A.2d 815

[Filed 03-Nov-1995]


  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. 94-157


New England Coalition for Energy            Supreme Court
Efficiency and the Environment
and The Grand Council of the Crees          On Appeal from
                                            Addison Superior Court
     v.

Office of the Governor, Howard Dean,        March Term, 1995
M.D., Governor, State of Vermont,
and Richard Sedano, Commissioner of
Department of Public Service


Edward J. Cashman, J.

James A. Dumont of Sessions, Keiner, Dumont & Barnes, P.C.,
Middlebury, for plaintiffs- appellants

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and William Griffin, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Bryan, Supr.
J., Specially Assigned



       JOHNSON, J.   This case centers on the Governor's claim of executive
  privilege in response to plaintiffs' request for documents pursuant to the
  Access to Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A.  Sec. 315-320.  Although we previously
  recognized the existence of a common-law, executive privilege doctrine, we
  acknowledged that some questions remained regarding the scope and operation
  of the privilege.  Killington v. Lash, 153 Vt. 628, 648, 572 A.2d 1368,
  1380 (1990).  We affirm, upholding the executive privilege claim.  In so
  doing, we explain more fully the extent of the protection provided by the
  privilege, and flesh out the workings of the claim in the context of the
  Access to Public Records Act.

       In November 1991, plaintiffs served access-to-records requests on the
  Office of the Governor and the Public Service Commissioner.  The requests
  sought all documents and records 

  

  regarding a contract between several Vermont utilities and
  Hydro-Quebec.  Two days prior to the requests, the Department of Public
  Service (DPS) had published a "Review" of the Hydro-Quebec contract, which
  reaffirmed the Department's support for the venture.  At the time of the
  requests, plaintiffs were engaged in litigation with the utilities and the
  State, which supported the contract.

       Although DPS produced a number of documents in response to plaintiffs'
  requests, the Governor refused to produce certain documents that he
  asserted were protected from disclosure by the doctrine of executive
  privilege.  The documents withheld are: (1) a memorandum from James Volz,
  Director for Public Advocacy for DPS, to then-Governor Snelling, dated
  August 6, 1991; (2) a memorandum from DPS Commissioner Sedano to Governor
  Dean, dated November 5, 1991; and (3) a memorandum from Sedano and Volz to
  Governor Dean, dated November 13, 1991.

       Following the procedure prescribed in 1 V.S.A. Sec. 319(a), plaintiffs
  appealed the denial of the access-to-records request in superior court. 
  Both plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary judgment.  The court
  denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment but granted defendants'
  motion, holding that plaintiffs had not made a showing of need sufficient
  to rebut the claim of executive privilege.  This appeal followed.(FN1)

                                     I.

       Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in requiring a showing of
  need to overcome the claim of executive privilege.  Plaintiffs rely on the
  Access to Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A. Sec.Sec. 315-320.  Under the statute, an
  agency that withholds records under any of the listed exemptions has the
  burden to justify its action.  1 V.S.A. Sec. 319(a).  

       Defendants claim that the withheld documents are protected by the
  common-law doctrine of executive privilege, recognized by this Court in
  Killington, 153 Vt. at 636-37, 572 A.2d  at 

  

  1374.  The Access to Public Records Act explicitly incorporates common
  law privileges.  1 V.S.A. Sec. 317(b)(4).  A claim of executive privilege
  shifts the burden to the requester to make a showing of need to overcome
  the presumptive privilege.  Killington, 153 Vt. at 639, 572 A.2d  at 1375. 
  If the court determines that the requester has shown need, the court will
  conduct an in camera inspection of the documents, to determine if the
  interest in confidentiality outweighs the need for disclosure.  Id.

       The showing of need required to overcome the privilege may appear
  inconsistent with the burden placed on the agency by the Access to Public
  Records Act.  We recognized this conflict in Killington, however, where we
  emphasized that the common-law privileges incorporated into the statute
  must "be applied as a whole and not piecemeal."  Id.  Reversing the burden,
  so that necessity is presumed and the party claiming the privilege must
  overcome that presumption, would "markedly alter[]" the executive privilege
  doctrine.  Id.  Recognizing that the showing of need "is an essential part
  of the privilege itself," we held in Killington that "when a claim of
  executive privilege is asserted, the requester has the burden of providing
  reasons why the need for the information outweighs the interest in
  confidentiality."  Id.   

                                     A.

       Plaintiffs nonetheless maintain that no showing of need is required in
  this case.  Plaintiffs first contend that the withheld documents are
  "postdecisional" and therefore not protected from disclosure by executive
  privilege.  The cases that plaintiffs cite to support this proposition,
  however, were brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.
  Sec. 552, the federal analogue to Vermont's Access to Public Records Act.  See
  N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,