Court Opinion

ID: 9755916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:00:00.418628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:13.035879
License: Public Domain

Amestoy, C J.,
concurring. I concur with that portion of the majority’s opinion which concludes: (1) the Governor’s daily schedule prepared by gubernatorial staff is a public record, but no law requires creation of the record and the Governor controls what information it contains; (2) plaintiffs’ request for the schedule of meetings and events related to Governor Dean’s decision to seek the office of President of the United States requests information insufficiently related to gubernatorial policymaking or deliberations to qualify for confidential treatment under executive privilege; (3) the Governor should not be compelled to release information from his daily schedule that may be protected by executive privilege, and this case should be remanded to enable the superior court to determine the applicability of the privilege to daily schedule information unrelated to the Governor’s bid for the presidency.
I write to note my agreement with Justice Skoglund that while “the raw material in the Governor’s appointment calendars and schedules is factual, its essence is deliberative.” Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Ct., 813 P.2d *361240, 251-52 (Cal. 1991). While the affidavits submitted by the State may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for executive privilege as to information in the Governor’s daily schedule related to the responsibilities of fulfilling the Office of Governor, the fact remains that the affidavits were submitted to support a claim of privilege to all information in the schedules. Hence, although I find Justice Skoglund’s analysis persuasive, I believe it is premature given the posture of the case as it comes to us.
Finally, I note that although we have determined that disclosure solely of meetings or events related to the Governor’s presidential aspirations does not trigger the so-called “security exception” to the Public Records Act, see 1 V.S.A § 317(c)(25), that does not foreclose the relevance of a security exception to the facts as they may be developed on remand. Judgments by those responsible for providing security to the Governor are informed by specific experience. It is reference to that experience that may best meet the defendants’ burden to demonstrate the factual record necessary to support the application of the security exception.