This week,  Democratic Sec. of State Jim Condos succeeded in persuading the Vermont Supreme Court to revise the wording it chose when it crafted a recent opinion on access to public records.   In so doing, he protected the principle of government transparency and highlighted how critical precise language is to legal protections.

The case involved the Rutland Herald’s suing the city of Rutland and its local labor union over access to an investigation into city employees viewing pornography while working. The Herald won a partial victory when the justices ruled the newspaper can get access to disciplinary records stemming from the investigation of city employees, but the court told the city it could black out the names of the offending workers.

Condos urged the justices to strike reference to “nonpublic records” in the decision and replace the term with “exempt public records.”

Such a subtlety would probably elude most casual readers, but the two terms have a world of difference in implication.  

As Condos explained in his letter to the Supremes:

“The erroneous perception, at times, is that if a record is ‘nonpublic,’ its retention and disposition need not follow specified objective standards established” under Vermont law.

“Public officials sometimes inadvertently lose sight of the fact that even exempt public records must still be managed as public records.”

“As part of my, and my office’s, efforts to raise awareness and transparency associated with public records, I therefore try to discourage use of the term ‘nonpublic records’ and would welcome it if the Court would join me in trying to keep this point clear,”

Upon consideration, the court agreed with Sec. Condos, choosing to replace the term “nonpublic records” with “witheld” public records.