Fight over Howard Dean papers goes before Vermont's high court

[truthpusher]

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3063755

Fight over Howard Dean papers goes before Vermont's high court
-------------------------------------
MONTPELIER, Vt. More than a year after the collapse of his presidential campaign, the fight over public access to Howard Dean's gubernatorial records goes before the state's high court next week.

The state is appealing a ruling from Superior Court Judge Alan Cook in February of last year saying that 86 boxes of records sealed by Dean when he left office in 2003 are presumed to be open.

Cook ordered that Dean and the state had to identify each of the hundreds of thousands of documents in the boxes and say why each should be covered by executive privilege.

Dean had asked as he left office that the records be sealed for ten years. The Washington-based group Judicial Watch sued to gain access to them.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3063755

[Dookus]

1. I hope they rule in favor

of open government. Politicians of either party shouldn't be allowed to do this.

[2Design]

2. except this is a witch hunt - this isn't about being open

they are out to damage someone

[Dookus]

4. I'm sorry

I disagree.

No executive of a state should be allowed to seal his papers for 10 years without extraordinary reason. Dean so much as admitted it was done for political reasons, and I find that unacceptable.

If George W. Bush tried the same thing, you'd be up in arms. Just because this is a Democrat, the principle is the same - the work product of our elected officials belongs to US, not THEM.

[LiberalFighter]

5. dipshit didn't do the same thing??? Or worse??

[Dookus]

13. If you think it's OK for Dean to do it

you have to say it's OK for Bush to do it.

I think it's wrong in either case.

[shraby]

17. Guess what?

Bush did seal his records. He not only sealed his, he sealed his fathers. I don't have a link, but if you google you will probably be able to find it.

[Dookus]

18. I know he did

I'm not sure of the current disposition. He tried to have them added to his father's library, thus keeping them sealed for some time. I think there was a court challenge to that, though, and I don't know where it stands now.

But this isn't about Bush. I think it's wrong for ANY politician to try to seal his records.

Also, during the debate over a year ago, Dean said that a judge was going through the records and would release whatever was appropriate. What became of that? Why is this back in court?

Dean had the power all along to unseal his records. He's chosen not to, and it is NOT because the records are all letters from gay constituents. These records account for 40% of the records of his governorship. He didn't get that many letters.

Also, there is already stipulation that personally identifying information can be redacted. The privacy issue is a red herring.

[Demeter]

29. Not to Mention The Papers That "Disappeared"

[saracat]

11. I absolutely agree. I thought it was seriously bad when Dean did this.

I think some of his support was eroded by this. He admitted that it was political and of course Judicial Watch wants to know what he is "hiding". Actually, I would like to know what was politically expedient to be "hidden". I think public figures running for the Presidency should all open all their records and we should be able to hold them accountable. Howard sealing his records that way always sort of seemed like cheating to me. I thought the same of Bush hiding his records, and I think he eventually released his, or Texas released them, didn't they?

[Rose Siding]

22. "He admitted it was political"

FYI, If you're referring to the quote he made about his record coming up, you must not have heard the interview. He laughed when he said it, as did the interviewer. It was a joke that got picked up by his detractors.

As we work together, it's important to dispel the inaccuracies promoted by the right.

[saracat]

30. This was not a joke an article on this was also in the Boston Globe .

This is what he said. He has to stand by his words.

Dean Admits Sealing Records to Avoid Embarrassment (1/27/03)
The Caledonian Record ^ | 1/30/03 | Mark M. Smith





Dean's Sealed Records


Thursday January 30, 2003


One hundred and 50 boxes of Democrat Howard Dean's records while governor of Vermont have been sealed for a decade.


According to Green Mountain Democratic Secretary of State Deb Markowitz: "For the first time in Vermont's history, the governor asked for records to be closed for a decade." According to the secretary of state, that was negotiated down from 20 years. As indicated by Markowitz, the records of Governors Democrat Madeleine Kunin and Republican Richard Snelling were sealed for six years.


As reported by WCAX-TV, Jan. 27, Dean was asked about the records at his final press conference as governor, and he mentioned his presidential campaign. In Dean's words: "There are future political considerations. We wouldn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."


Come on Mr. Presidential hopeful, you don't do your campaign any good when you make statements like that. You've said many interesting things on the campaign trail. Why make it sound like you somehow have something to hide about your years as governor?


We've been told a governor needs to keep some matters private while negotiating with a business that might relocate in Vermont. But you're not governor now. You're no longer doing business in the name of the state. Your records, however, are the business of the public and should not be sealed. We have the same opinion of the Snelling and Kunin administrations. That's why we think the Legislature should bar Gov. Douglas and any future chief executive of Vermont from sealing records.


On a national level, we have previously editorialized about misadvised attempts of the Republican Bush administration to hide behind closed doors and seal records of previous administrations. If it's really information that could get us into war in 90 days, of course, national security should be the top priority. But all too often, the secrecy is intended to protect politicians, not America. The politicos don't think taxpayers should know about embarrassing moments in an administration.


But if in the performance of official duties, a president or governor does something most people would find reprehensible or stupid, the public has a right to know.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rose Siding]

35. I'm talking about the original interview

-the one in which he made the remarks reported first by WCAX and then the Globe. He was joking and it was plain to anyone who actually heard the interview.

I'm just trying to clear it up for you. You know how the press can mischaracterize things, for example: "Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean"

[saracat]

36. He has stated this on several occasions during which he was NOT

joking. I heard him myself, and there is NO disputing he tried to get his records sealed for twenty years and negotiated down to ten. There can be NO other reason for this than political. Personal records are exempt. This is just WRONG. It was wrong for Bush and it is wrong for him. There is NO excuse for this . He should be as subject to FOIA as Bush, or anyone else. It is hypocritical to call for transparency in government when you won't do it yourself. I want to know about ALL these people and no one is a sacred cow!
Employers have full access to all our records when we apply for a job. Candidates should be no different. Dr. Dean is not the exception to the rule.I am very disappointed that he hasn't pulled this suit and released his records. This looks very bad. Sorry. I supported him for Chair, but I thought this was settled long ago. I had no idea it still lingered.

[Rose Siding]

47. Can you provide links for any of those other times?

Not about sealing them- that's common knowledge and common practice, but about the motive being political. Russert asked him about it on MTP. Here's the transcript (the video was from the Jan '02 interview with VT reporters when he made the statement- for the only time that I'm aware of)

snip>
RUSSERT: ...Back in January you talked about that at a news conference and this is what you said:

DR. DEAN: Well, there are future political considerations. We wouldn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor.

(End videotape)

DR. DEAN: Look at the expression on my face.

MR. RUSSERT: You were joking?

DR. DEAN: Sure. I was having a good time with the press.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4112959/

And in all fairness, when we apply for a job, "all our records" -personal correspondence for instance- are not available to the perspective employers.

It's moot really, as Dean has no say in the case at this point- VT's proceeding with it. When Russert asked why the VT AG had rebuffed requests, Dean said...

DR. DEAN: That's up to him. We're not involved in this case. Let me just talk a little bit about records and governors. First of all, the majority of my records are unsealed. Secondly, governors in every state, or almost every state, seal their records for a time after they leave office and here's why. First of all, people give you advice and they think it's confidential. Secondly, people write letters to you. We had a lot of letters that I understand are in--first of all, you have to understand I don't exactly know what's sealed and what's not. We got two lawyers to come in and go through everything that we did to decide what complied with the sealing law and what didn't. They know what's in there. I've been told that things are in there, the kind of things are somebody wrote me about the civil unions bill and said, you know, "I'm gay," and this and that and the other thing. I don't think that belongs in the public domain.

So the group of people sued us, which is fine. That's been done before, and they've lost. And what's going to happen, or I thought was going to happen, is what happened the last time. The last time we got sued was over the release of my schedule, which is not public either, and the judge went through everything and decided this is fair to release and this is not. So, you know, what the attorney general does with this suit is up to him. We don't even have a lawyer defending our part in the suit. We just turn this over to the state. The records don't belong to me anymore; they belong to the state of Vermont. What they do is what whey do. But I do think there is a place for sealed records after you leave the governorship for the same reason there's a place for sealed records after you leave the presidency. People give you advice, individuals have things that are very personal that ought not be in the public domain. That's why about 45 percent of our records got sealed.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about this. I find Dean to be trustworthy and I trust him in this.

[saracat]

60. Then he has no cause to criticize Chaney or Bush for executive

privilege. EVER.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

67. you didn't answer his question.... nt

[dionysus]

105. evil Dean evil!!!

ohh, you should go get the smelling salts..
BTW, it's cheney...

[Blue to the bone]

32. Words of wisdom Dookus, words of wisdom. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

53. If the work product is a state elected official...

then it only belongs to the citizens of that state.

[Dookus]

55. Of course

it belongs to the people of Vermont, and should be made public.

I can't believe people here seriously think it's OK for politicians to seal their records.

[bilgewaterbill]

9. I agree.

Open is open. No matter who the "executive" is.

[dsc]

10. I just hope you tell the family of the gay person who gets killed

or the gay person who loses a job after being outed from this that it was worth it for 'good government'. Dean sealed letters to him and from him and virtually nothing else.

[Dookus]

14. That is blatantly untrue

and was discussed ad nauseum during the primaries.

The majority of this content was NOT letters from gays. That's silly. Also, names and identifying information can and will be redacted.

That is a red herring.

[dsc]

19. I posted a letter several times

and asked just what would and wouldn't be redacted from said letter. I never got anything like a response. Also I didn't say the majority of the correspondence was from gays I did say the majority of the sealed records were correspondence. I would be rather shocked if the majority were from gays given our status as around 10% of the population.

[Dookus]

23. The sealed records account for

40% of all the records of his governorship. I doubt that much of it is correspondence of ANY sort.

When Dean talked about protecting the privacy of gay people, he used it as an EXAMPLE of one reason to seal them.

Nonetheless, most people agree that identifying information can be redacted. Yes, I remember your letter in which every sentence was an identifier. So what? Then don't release that one letter. You made an extreme case and then tried to claim that 40% of his records are sealed because they're all like that. It's silly.

You don't know what's in those records, and neither do I. How do you know the majority of it is correspondence? And even if it is correspondence, that could mean 50.01%, leaving just shy of 20% of the governor's entire record NON-correspondence that has been sealed from the public. I think that's wrong. The work product of our elected leaders belongs to the people themselves, not the politicians who created it.

[dsc]

62. Then why can't I see Kerry's or Edwards' or any other Congress persons

records. We have every right to know Dean's public life. We have every right to know his final decisions on matters. But I fail to see why we need every bit of paper with no executive priviledge whatsoever. Sometimes advice needs to remain private to be any good. Incidently the figure you sighted came from Judical Watch who I don't trust.

[Dookus]

64. Because

Dean is now out of office.

But what does Dean's sealed records have to do with anybody else's?

Do you or do you not, as a general principle - regardless of the individuals involved - believe that a governor's records should be made public?

As a general principle. Is it right to seal them?

[dsc]

77. It depends on what they are

Correspondence should be sealed period. Private advice should be sealed for a period of time so as to let the advice giver be fully able to give advice. I think the amount of time would depend upon the nature of the issue. Most everything else I would be willing to see made public. Governors already are public beings we get to see the executive orders and his veto messages etc.

[Dookus]

81. I disagree

why should all correspondence be sealed, period?

What if Dick Cheney's energy files contain correspondence from Enron officials stating how they're going to screw over california? Should the fact that a stamp was put on the envelope keep it sealed forever?

[janx]

89. Dookus, I understand and appreciate your point,

but this is not "all correspondence."

It's up to the state of Vermont now anyway.

[Dookus]

90. Janx...

the fact is, it's only in the hands of the state of Vermont because Dean won't release them. I think it's a cop-out to say it's in the hands of the state, when they're there specifically because Dean PUT them there.

I know I will never convince anybody that my concern in this is unrelated to my feelings about Dean. But that's the truth. (In fact, I supported Dean for Party Chair, I just didn't support him for President).

My concern is one that started with me over 25 years ago, when I worked with NYPIRG and worked closely with Common Cause on issues just like this one.

I am disturbed that ANY left-leaning person is willing to make excuses over this because of the people involved. I feel so strongly that the principle is important - more important than the individuals involved. Public records belong to the public.

[janx]

98. The only reservations I'm aware of on Dean's part relating to

this are those of the privacy of individual citizens, both in connection with the civil unions bill and in connection with medicine.

So while I see your point, I hope that no one gets hurt should the remaining records be opened to the public.

[Dookus]

99. And NOBODY

has argued for anything less. Of course personally identifying sensitive information would be redacted. That's a given.

That was Dean's excuse in the debates, and I think it was a lame one.

[dionysus]

106. and you've been bashing Dean since '03

hahhahahahaha... hahahahahah punk-ass....

[saracat]

16. How do you know what is in those records? They were sealed.

And stuff like that would likely be considered "personal" and exempt. If such information was contained in correspondence relating to government programs , I am sure the person is probably "out" by now. In any event , the writer assumed the burden of the risk when they undertook to provide that information in written form. If they were that fearful, they would not have done so.
The limited likelihood of such a scenario is not sufficient reason to deprive the public of the record of a man running for office. To do so violates our right to know.

[dsc]

20. Really it would

Just like the recent exhibit that opened up with letters in regards to immigration where personal info was released. Or maybe the Mississippi files where personal info was released.

[dionysus]

104. i know, cause you're an ass

hated dean since the primaries...hmmmmmmmmm

[Carolab]

3. Oh, sure Judicial Watch thinks they need to get Dean's records.

But CBS and everyone else wants Bush's records and it's no-go.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Judicial Watch should not have standing to pursue public access

[saracat]

12. We all have such standing as citizens. Why shouldn't they have it?

[LiberalFighter]

52. We ALL don't have standing when it is for the state of Vermont

I can see that we ALL have standing when it involves records of any federal employee or official.

[lyonn]

7. If Dean's records are opened then maybe

this will open the door for others (like former Gov. Bush) to have their's opened. I'd like that. Didn't Bush have most stuff from as far back as his daddies Pres. days sealed, including Clinton?

[LiberalFighter]

8. If someone is governor of Vermont for 24 years???

What are the laws regarding access to the records in the first term?

Is there a law that makes the records open to the public already in place?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Can't support Dean on this one.

Politicians should be an open book in their dealings for the public.

[RetroLounge]

21. Dean should open his records

as soon as Bush** opens his, his father's and Ronnie Raygun's...

Then and only then.

RL

[Dookus]

24. Really?

I don't think that. In fact, it's sort of silly, don't you think? Even childish?

"Well HEEEEE did it first!"

I don't see how you can be opposed to Bush trying to seal his gubernatorial records while allowing Dean to do the same.

I think the principle of open, transparent government is one we should support all the time. It's a principle we should support whether a Dem or Repug is involved. It's important enough that we shouldn't act like whiney children over it.

[RetroLounge]

25. Thanks, and when I want to be called childish

I'll let you know.

:eyes:

RL

[saracat]

26. ALL officials should have their records open! Why should Dean be an

an exception?

[ClarkUSA]

27. Wes Clark opened all of his records for view voluntarily in a NH library

and challenged the other candidates to do the same. None of them did. He did it to be an example of the transparency he thinks is essential if you are going to be a public servant. I respected him for that and I would respect any politician if he/she would do the same.

We cannot have one standard for Republican secrecy and another for Democratic
secrecy. It is antithetical to the essential need for transparency in a liberal democratic government.

[Dookus]

38. I didn't call you childish

I called the argument childish. The "he did it first" argument is not a mature one.

I will not, for instance, support illegal war committed by a Democratic president simply because he is a democrat. Similarly, I will not support sealing public records because somebody else did it first.

[Hamsta1]

28. So then it's acceptable for * to keep his records sealed

while Gov. Dean's are unsealed? I think I gotta side with the Lounge Lizard on this one, because what good is having an open government if only one half of it is open? Those with the most power get to keep their secrets? That sounds downright dangerous, because then they get to parade around every little unbecoming thing that they can take out of context about our people, while they hide behind(once again) their priviledge.

[Blue to the bone]

34. I'd rather be on the side of the half of government that's open. n/t

[saracat]

33. This statement is acceptable to you? See post 30

"As reported by WCAX-TV, Jan. 27, Dean was asked about the records at his final press conference as governor, and he mentioned his presidential campaign. In Dean's words: "There are future political considerations. We wouldn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."


And BTW, Bush's Texas Governor's Records are open. He tried to conceal them but the Texas AG forced them to be returned and made available under the Texas FOIA. Dr. Dean should be made to do likewise!

[lyonn]

44. Did TANG have possession

of Bush's Gov. records? EDIT: Stupid comment, I was skimming as misread.

[saracat]

46. If they wanted them they probably could have gotten them after the

2002 ruling.

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/0510texaso.html

Attorney general declares Gov. Bush papers are state property

The state's top attorney determined that President Bush acted lawfully in placing his gubernatorial papers in the care of his father's presidential library provided that the library complies with the state's open-records law.
Although President Bush acted lawfully when he placed the papers from his years as Texas governor into the George Bush Library last year, the Texas Public Information Law continues to govern the release of such documents, the attorney general ruled recently.



http://www.bodydharma.org/choices/Bush/dean.html

But Peggy Rudd, Director and Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, refused to accept Bush's designation of his father's library as the repository for his papers. Eventually, she procured a ruling by the Texas attorney general, making Bush's gubernatorial papers subject to the Texas Public Information Act -- whereupon they were sent to Austin for processing



Alert Printer Friendly | Edit | Reply

[saracat]

31. Bush's records were ruled subject to the Texas FOIA and were shipped back

to Texas.He didn't exactly "release" them. They were ordered released by the Texas AG. They are now avilable and have been since before this election. No kodos to Bush. He tried to conceal them. But they are available now and Dean's aren't!

[Carolab]

37. You mean, except for the ones they shredded. The incriminating ones. n/t

[lyonn]

41. shredding and the openess of the tang

records? Driving records, court records, Hospital records, that don't seem to be in anyones files.

[saracat]

42. Probably. Gag! I am not defending Bush. All I am saying is the Bush's

records were forced out and Dean's are still hanging fire by his own choice. This is wrong . It is wrong for Bush and it is wrong for Dean. Dean doesn't get a pass because Bush is an Ahole. Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither has a right to suppress their records from the public!

[Pastiche423]

39. Would you please supply a link to that affect?

I have been googling and can find nary a link to the release of whistle ass' gubernatorial papers.

TIA

[saracat]

40. I 'll look for it. I just googled it as well. That was where I found it.

[saracat]

43. Here is where they are but I will find the other info.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/findingaids/bush.html

[saracat]

45. Here are the links to the various articles! Enjoy!

:) http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/0510texaso.html

Attorney general declares Gov. Bush papers are state property

The state's top attorney determined that President Bush acted lawfully in placing his gubernatorial papers in the care of his father's presidential library provided that the library complies with the state's open-records law.
Although President Bush acted lawfully when he placed the papers from his years as Texas governor into the George Bush Library last year, the Texas Public Information Law continues to govern the release of such documents, the attorney general ruled recently.



http://www.bodydharma.org/choices/Bush/dean.html

But Peggy Rudd, Director and Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, refused to accept Bush's designation of his father's library as the repository for his papers. Eventually, she procured a ruling by the Texas attorney general, making Bush's gubernatorial papers subject to the Texas Public Information Act -- whereupon they were sent to Austin for processing

[Rose Siding]

48. They're back in TX but they aren't catalogued and the AG can nix requests

That is, if you know exactly what's in there that you want to request. You can't just look through them.

[saracat]

49. So what? You can't get anything at all from Dean!

And he is fighting to suppress information. And Bush isn't relevent to Dean anyway. Dean has his own reponsibility to the public. The point is still made.

[Rose Siding]

50. The state of VT is handling the case

The records belong to them now, not Dean. And you CAN get over 60% of his records- just go to Burlington and they'll let you look through the boxes.

[saracat]

56. Only because Dean won't sign a piece of paper releasing the

documents. He never did it during the election and he isn't doing it now. This is wrong! And BTW, the Bush people make the same argument about Bush's records. "Go to Austin, they are available." Neither should be forced by ruling to release any part of their records. Dean wouldn't release his records> He wouldn't sign the release>THAT is why this is in court> There is no other reason. Dean makes the ultimate decision. And he turned it over to a court. He made sure that this was delayed until "after" the election. This sucks. Stop exonerating Dean for a decision HE made. He is going to make Vermont compel him to make a decosion he could have made with a simple signature. This is just as bad as Bush .Sorry, but it is true. No justification for this but political cover.

[Rose Siding]

58. That isn't all that's involved

According to the VT Attorney General...

snip>
Sorrell said Vermont governors routinely seal some documents when they leave office.

"We have a long bipartisan history of Republicans and Democrats alike having a portion of their records sealed for a number of years after they leave office," Sorrell said.

And Dean doesn't control all the records, Sorrell said.

"If Howard Dean were to say tomorrow 'I'd like to see them opened,' that's not to say they'd all be opened," Sorrell said.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/198.htm

[saracat]

59. No. He has to request they be opened. He has to fill out a form and

they have to redact personal info. But the point is , he doesn't want it done.He has said so. He hasn't withdrawn his case to keep them sealed. Why do you defend this? Howard Dean wants to keep these reports sealed. Sheesh, he requested they be sealed for twenty years, but only got ten. Why don't you see anything wrong with this? What part of he doesn't want the records opened, and has said so, don't you want to see? If it is wrong for Bush, or anyone else, it is wrong fot Dean.
You have got to take him at his word.He has NOT REQUESTED the documents be released. Either you agree with him or you don't. I don't. You can't pass the buck.He doesn't want them released. This is wrong. And he is now in no position to ask for transparancy from anyone else.

[janx]

51. Dean has nothing to do with this now.

It's up to the state of Vermont. But what I can't figure out is what Judicial Watch hopes to gain from this. Dean's not running for president.

[Dookus]

54. Dean can release all the records

with the stroke of a pen. That has always been true.

Who cares if he's running for President or not? It's wrong to blanketly seal records under any circumstances.

[saracat]

57. Transparency in government? What a concept! Wouldn't you like to see the

Cheney task force documents? BTW, Judicial Watch attempted to get those too! Not a fan of JW but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and they have occasionally been right. This is one of those times.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

68. my question is why are you defending bush and demeaning dean?

just seems weird...

[saracat]

70. I am not defending Bush. He is slime. Everyone knows that he has had the

most opaque administration in history. But two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that Bush tried to conceal his gubernatorial records doesn't justify Dean doing so, and I don't care by what percentage either. The Bushies will make the same argument. Executive privilege is wrong in both these cases. Bush is wrong. Dean is wrong .simple.

[MIScott87]

61. For goodness' sakes, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!

Is the primary campaign still on?

[Dookus]

66. get over what?

the idea of open government? Sorry, I think I'll harp on it for a little longer. It's important.

[gordianot]

63. Notice if there are paper that involve a Bush are never released.

You better not even suggest he violate his privilege.

But they want to find something in Dean's papers no matter how small.

[Dookus]

65. The question isn't whether other politicians have sealed records...

the question is whether it's right for them to do so.

If you object to Bush doing it, you have to object to Dean doing it, too.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

71. Because

this is a thread about an LBN story regarding Dean's records. That's what we're discussing.

WHY must what other people have done in the past be brought up? Is it right for Dean to seal his records? Is it right for Bush to do it? If your answer to those two questions is different, then you're a hypocrite.

And if you're implying that I'm secretly a republican, you are mistaken. Very very mistaken, ProudToBeLiberal.

That's a nonsensical and childish response.

[saracat]

72. What a cop out. Dookus doesn't defend the consealment

of any public officials dicuments and Dean is concealing documents so you accuse Dookus of a hidden agenda! I have an agenda too! It is transparency in government, and that applies to both the Democrats and the Republicans. I am so sorry some feel the rules should be bent for Dr. Dean. I want to know what we can't see about both people. I don't want to give preferential treatment to our own. Right is right and this is wrong. BTW, I want Cheney's energy committee records out there too. And I would like to believe Dean is better on this issue than Cheney.Maybe he just needs someone to goose him. The election is over and it might not be on his front burner. He is our chair , whom I supported, and this doesn't read well for a Democrat at this time.

[gordianot]

75. I didn't mean to cause a problem with this.

It appears to me those who want Dean's papers are going on a general hunt and are not wanting anything specific.

In the case of Bush's records they are sealed indefinitely. Those who want to see Bush's documentation are looking for specific information.

I am not sure where I stand on this matter. If there is a good reason to view public officials papers they should be accessible. Why does someone want Howard Deans papers? On the other hand why does he want to seal them for 10 years?

[Dookus]

76. well

as a matter of general principle, I think records of a public officer should be made public, barring extraordinary reason (such as national security).

The default position SHOULD be that everything our hired servants do belongs to us, and we have the right to oversee it.

I don't really give a fig about what's in Dean's records. It's the idea that he has the RIGHT to seal them that sticks in my craw. No elected official should have that right, Democrat or Republican.

[gordianot]

78. I agree

Only problem is National Security is very vague and is easy to abuse.

[Rex]

73. We turn over Dean papers when Cheney

coughs up every document on the energy task force he was in charge of.

[Dookus]

74. You really think that's a valid answer?

So when a Democratic president starts an illegal war, you'll be OK with it?

[Rex]

80. If it will help solve 911 then yeah I do.

It can be argued that Kennedy started an illegal war, but that's not the issue here. I believe in full transparency in politics. That's why we have shitty representation and no true statesmen in Congress. All we have now are corporate sponsors that work for special interest groups.

[Dookus]

82. I'm not understanding...

you believe in full transparency in politics, but you think Dean should be able to seal his records?

[Rex]

97. No I don't think Dean should be able to seal his records

I was making a statement, which obviously wasn't that clear. I was trying for a little humor that died before I posted it.
:evilgrin:

[SoCalDem]

79. The election is O V E R ....

Jeez Louise.. These people will NOT back down one bit.. Are Dems paying attention???

THIS IS WHY THEY "WIN"...

Teresa Heinz-Kerry's husband's will will be made public..Deans "papers" will be made public...Gregoire will not get ONE second's peace while in office, Clinton was tormented for a DECADE,and it continues with Hilary TODAY...

yet.....

Iran-Contra folded up like a dimestore giftbox :( and the main "characters" are either hosting radio shows or serving in the highest echelons of government)...Watergate is just a movie(and an old hotel)...Gannon-Guckert is a fleeting memory of a "silly" misunderstanding...the Anthrax person got away scot-free...Reagan/Bush1's goofball wars are just so much "ho-hum"...*²'s "military service" is second only to Audie Murphy's service, due to clever media "massage"... etc etc etc

[Dookus]

83. This has nothing to do with the election

Do you think it was OK for George W. Bush to try to seal his Texas records? Do you think it was OK for Howard Dean to try to seal his Vermont records?

If the answer to those two questions is different, can you give a rational reason why that should be the case?

[SoCalDem]

85. The will we be seeing Tom DeLay's papers?? Or Hatch's or

Phil Gramms's??

Frankly I would like to see ALL ppublic officials' papers:evilgrin:

My issue was that DEMS always back down and repubes are pit bulls..never letting go :)

[Dookus]

87. so would I

and this is a thread about a court decision regarding Howard Dean's records.

You can search for all my posts on DU since the day I started, and I guarantee you will find that I have been consistent on this issue from day one, regarding ALL politicians.

[Rose Siding]

86. If you don't agree with the protocol, lobby VT to change it

snip>
The portion of records sealed by former Gov. Howard Dean when he left office is similar to the percentage sealed on behalf of his two immediate predecessors, a state official said Thursday.

According to Deputy Secretary of State William Dalton, Dean sealed 47 percent of his records, compared to 46 percent of former Gov. Madeleine Kunin's papers and 40 percent of the late Gov. Richard Snelling's.

The issue of records accessibility involving Dean, now a Democratic presidential hopeful, arose this week and became the target of a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group.

Kunin said Thursday the decisions involving what was kept private after she left office in 1991 "seemed quite sensible" and involved personal information and other typically confidential materials.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/174.htm

Snelling died in office, so how was it decided which of his records would be released?

Josh Fitzhugh, Snelling's lawyer at the time of his death, said he followed the rules established by the Kunin administration on which of Snelling's records to seal. "We used that as the blueprint," he said.

At this point, it doesn't matter what bush did with his records. How could it possibly matter? Look at all the concrete, rock solid, highly visible garbage we already know about him and he's still in the WH!

How many other governors have sealed records that trouble you? Are you disturbed by former Gov Kunin's sealed record, or Gov Snelling's? How about governors in the other 49 states? I don't see any criticism of the practice until Dean's name is mentioned. Why is that?

[Dookus]

88. they ALL bother me

and frankly, I'm bothered by the childish argument that "well they did it first."

I have been interested and involved in this issue for over 25 years. Public records belong to the public. It's that simple.

[hansolsen]

84. Dean can't be elected dog catcher with those records sealed. That's just

the way it is.

Dean is in the right place at the DNC.

[truthpusher]

91. agreed.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

92. Court to decide if Dean's papers go public

Posted 3/13/2005 6:09 PM Updated 3/13/2005 6:15 PM

Court to decide if Dean's papers go public

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — More than two years after he left the governor's office to make his unsuccessful run for the presidency, the fight over public access to Howard Dean's gubernatorial records is coming before the Vermont Supreme Court.

Monday's hearing is on the state's appeal of a ruling that 86 boxes of records Dean sealed when he left office in 2003 are instead presumed to be open.

Superior Court Judge Alan Cook ordered Dean and the state to identify each of the hundreds of thousands of documents in the boxes and say why each should be covered by executive privilege.

Dean, Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz and Attorney General William Sorrell had agreed in a memorandum of understanding when he left office in January 2003 that the records would be sealed for 10 years — the longest period any Vermont governor had asked that records be off limits.

more at...http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-dean-papers_x.htm
_________________________________________________________________
People are still attacking Dean even though he isn't running for President.

[GCP]

93. If Bush can seal his governorship records

for perpetuity in Poppy's Presidential Library, why the hell can't Dean seal his for 10 years?

[Dookus]

95. No records are sealed

in perpetuity.

Did you agree with Bush when he tried to do that? Did you think it was the right thing?

If not, why is it OK for Dean?

edit: BTW, Bush's gubernatorial records ARE available.

[truthpusher]

100. simply, it goes against principal....

...this is the one thing that Dean has done that I have not been impressed with.

[janx]

94. That's what I can't figure out--why?

?

[Dookus]

96. George W. Bush's records

have been available since 2002. They were not sealed in perpetuity.

[janx]

101. How is Dean equated with the president of the U.S.?

And does this mean that ALL politicians should have to lay out ALL documents pertaining to their lives and careers? Why just Dean? This is what I can't figure out. If Dean were running against Bush right now, I could understand the equivalency--but he isn't.

[Dookus]

103. janx

why is this difficult?

I have said repeatedly I believe ALL politicians should be prohibited from sealing their records.

This particular thread, though, is about a development in the Howard Dean sealed-records case, hence we're discussing Howard Dean.

This is LBN - if there were a story about Jeb Bush's records, for instance, I would have the same exact stance. But there wasn't a story about Jeb's records -there was a story about Dean's.

I'm not singling Dean out for random reasons - I'm weighing in on a breaking news story.

[dionysus]

107. this is someone who has been trashing Dean

since the primaries who gets a fuzzy feeling out of bashing Dean, pay no attention plz.

[cynatnite]

102. I like Howard Dean, but

the records should be open to the public just as with ALL politicians. No exceptions.