Questions For Candidates -- 2010
Summer is here. And usually, that means politics takes a holiday. That's not true in Vermont this summer.
Gubernatorial candidates in the Democratic primary (Aug. 24) are crisscrossing the state, appearing in numerous public forums. Other statewide offices have also generated early interest.
On the local level, activity is a hodgepodge of feisty races and no races. The aspiration of numerous legislative candidates to statewide office has opened seats securely held for years. But in many districts where incumbents are running, there are no contests; the incumbent is unopposed.
For this brief period running up to the elections, voters are in the driver's seat. Candidates expect to get questions -- at public forums, online, during visits to newspaper editorial boards, and on the street from everyday voters. Even unopposed incumbents wonder, "What's on voters' minds?"
We've been compiling a list of civil liberties questions you might ask candidates, along with background information to help you understand the issues behind the questions. We'll be adding to the list as the campaign season continues.
|
Question 1: Public Records
Question 2: Open Meetings
Question3: Racial Profiling
Question 4: Tasers
Question 5: Police Accountability
Why Aren't Public Records More Accessible?
Access to public records is an important right of all citizens. Reviewing information that the government collects and retains is an important way to hold government officials accountable. Under Vermont's public records law, all records can be seen by the public unless the Legislature has created a specific exemption deeming certain information confidential. When the state's public records law was written in the 1970s, there were about a dozen exemptions. Now there are more than 200. Government officials have been emboldened to deny access to more and more records. It's hard to fight denials. A citizen, or an organization, must file suit in court to force disclosure. And even if you win, you must generally pay all costs, including your legal fees.
QUESTION
How can we put teeth into enforcement of the state's public records law? Would you support reimbursement of the filing fee ($250) and attorneys' fees for someone who is denied access to a public record, challenges the denial in court, and wins?
BACKGROUND
In 2005 the Legislature considered a bill (S. 45) that would have required a judge to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs when the complainant in a public records case prevailed. Under current law, a judge has discretion whether to award fees and costs -- but it's rare that awards are made. Although S. 45 was pushed by the Vermont Press Association, the bill was not just about the news media. It was also about individuals seeking public records. While no one wants to see local officials inundated with frivolous requests for reams of documents, some rather damning testimony was offered from both news reporters and private individuals about local officials' stonewalling in providing documents that were clearly public. The Senate Judiciary Committee was not willing to include the provision of mandatory fees. Instead, the bill (which passed the Senate) required judges to determine -- in cases where the complainant prevailed -- if records were unreasonably withheld, and if so to award attorney's fees and costs. The House failed to act on the bill, however; it died in the House Judiciary Committee.
See the "Focus" story Public Records Access that ran in our June 2008 newsletter.
No More Violations Of The Open Meeting Law!
Vermont's open meeting law was written about the same time as the state's public records law. The intent was the same -- to make sure the public had access to information and deliberations concerning the public's business. The law states that public bodies must meet in public. A limited number of exceptions allow closed meetings in executive sessions. Public bodies have increasingly misused or abused the executive session provisions. Some boards spend up to a third of their meeting time behind closed doors. As with the public records law, however, there is no effective means of enforcing violations of the open meeting law. A citizen must go to court to challenge a closed session, and must pay court filing fees and costs.
QUESTION
How can we put teeth into enforcement of the state's open meeting law? We read of many alleged violations, but there's no effective way to enforce the law. Would you support reimbursement of the filing fee ($250) and attorneys' fees for someone who challenges a closed meeting, takes it to court, and wins?
BACKGROUND
See the post, The Misuse and Abuse of Executive Sessions, on our Civil Liberties blog.
Return to top |
We Need To Know If Police Are Profiling By Race
Racial profiling has been a flashpoint issue in Vermont for many years. Police say they don't profile; members of various minorities insist that they do. We'll never get an answer to whether profiling occurs unless police agree to collect so-called "stop data" when they make stops. Some Vermont police are willing to do this (the Vermont State Police, for example), but others aren't.
QUESTION
Would you support a law requiring police to collect basic "stop" data so we can determine if profiling occurs?
BACKGROUND
See the post, Fighting Racial Profiling, on our Civil Liberties blog.
Return to top
Tasers: Where Are The Standards For Their Use?
More and more police departments around Vermont are buying, and using, Taser stun guns. There have been several recent stories about possible misuse of Tasers, most notably in Barre where a homeless woman was Tased at a local convenience store. Yet there are no uniform standards regulating Taser use in Vermont.
QUESTION
Tasers are dangerous weapons. They should only be utilized in very limited circumstances. Why doesn't the state have consistent standards on Taser use, and make sure the standards are followed? Would you support development of statewide use-of-force standards, particularly regarding Tasers?
BACKGROUND
See the "Focus" story The Increased Use Of Taser Stun Guns that ran in our January 2008 newsletter.
Return to top
Police Accountability: Clear The Muddle
Vermont doesn't have a way of policing police. We license teachers, lawyers, doctors, plumbers, landscape architects, and beauticians, but not law enforcement officers. Vermont needs a state-level police licensing board, where licenses are reviewed on a regular basis. One-time certification at the Vermont Police Academy isn't enough -- neither are departmental reviews or select board oversight. The public needs to be able to file a complaint with an impartial body, not an officer's supervisor or employer. And investigations of misconduct shouldn't be kept secret. Sanctions taken against officers should be published, just as sanctions against teachers are published.
QUESTION
Would you support creation of a state licensing board for police officers?
BACKGROUND
See the "Focus" story Police Accountability that ran in our January 2010 newsletter.
Return to top
|
