## Facts

- Vermont newspaper publishers requested Governor Howard Dean’s “daily schedule” from September 2001 onward, with ongoing updates, under Vermont’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA).
- The requested daily schedule was prepared by the Governor’s staff and was comprehensive, listing appointments, locations, participants, and descriptive information about events; it also contained some personal items by necessity.
- A separate “public appearances schedule” was already available to the public, but it was distinct and less detailed than the daily schedule.
- The Governor denied the request, asserting a common-law executive privilege and raising concerns that disclosure could create security risks.
- The publishers sued to compel disclosure, stating they did not seek purely personal entries (e.g., medical appointments) and agreed such information could be redacted.

## Issues

1. Whether the Governor’s daily schedule is a “public record” under Vermont’s APRA.
2. Whether a common-law executive privilege permits withholding the schedule even if it is a public record.
3. Whether any portion of the schedule is exempt under APRA’s security exception, 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(25).

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court held the daily schedule was a public record because it was produced and used by staff in the course of conducting the Governor’s office business.
- The court rejected a categorical, document-wide executive privilege claim for the schedule, while recognizing executive privilege may protect some deliberative communications in appropriate circumstances.
- The court affirmed the disclosure order in part but vacated and remanded in part for an entry-by-entry determination under the security exception and for redaction of exempt material.

## Legal Principles

- APRA broadly defines public records as recorded information produced or acquired in the course of agency business; the statute reflects a presumption favoring disclosure, and exemptions are construed narrowly.
- Common-law executive privilege is limited to protecting the public interest in candid, confidential communications tied to executive deliberation and policy-making; it does not justify blanket nondisclosure of an entire category of records without a particularized showing.
- The security exception, 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(25), applies only where disclosure would jeopardize personal safety or the security of public property or a utility system; the government must justify withholding with a concrete, specific showing.
- When a record contains both exempt and nonexempt material, redaction is the proper method to protect exempt portions while disclosing the remainder.

## Conclusion

The court treated the Governor’s staff-prepared daily schedule as a disclosable public record and refused a blanket executive-privilege bar, but required a targeted review permitting redaction or withholding of entries whose disclosure would create genuine security risks or reveal purely personal information.


Herald Ass’n, Inc. v. Dean, 816 A.2d 469 (Vt. 2002)