Price v. Town of Fairlee, 26 A.3d 26

A Fairlee resident sought access to the town’s 2006 election ballots and tally sheets under the Vermont PRA to verify vote totals and assess potential errors.
The town clerk destroyed the 2006 ballots and tally sheets after the 90-day preservation period, despite a pending PRA request and prior court proceedings.
The trial court dismissed or denied relief, concluding ballots were confidential by law and could not be disclosed, and later granted summary judgment for the town and state.
The PRA requires liberal disclosure of public records, with narrowly construed exemptions, and generally trumping confidentiality provisions when reconciling competing statutes.
This Vermont Supreme Court case reverses the summary judgment and holds that disclosure is permitted, and that destruction must be stayed when a PRA request is pending.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ballots and tally sheets must be disclosed under PRA	Open government policy favors disclosure; PRA should allow access once preservation has ended.	Election statutes preserve confidentiality; ballots may be destroyed after 90 days and are not routinely accessible.	Disclosure permitted; PRA prevails over confidentiality.
Whether destruction during a pending PRA request defeats access	Destruction should be stayed to allow PRA review and access.	Destruction is authorized by statute and should not be stayed absent a court order.	Destruction must be stayed when a PRA request is pending until resolution.
Whether the mootness doctrine applies given destruction of records	Records before destruction could be accessed; the issue could recur.	Destruction ends the action as moot.	Court acknowledged mootness concerns but held the PRA request and confidentiality analysis control; the case was not barred from relief.

Norman v. Vt. Office of Court Adm’r, 176 Vt. 593 (2004 VT 13) (PRA exemptions construed narrowly; disclosure favored)
Town of Brattleboro v. Garfield, 180 Vt. 90 (2006 VT 56) (disclosures under PRA with statutory considerations)
Shlansky v. City of Burlington, 188 Vt. 470 (2010 VT 90) (limits and interpretation of PRA access)
Finberg v. Murnane, 159 Vt. 431 (1992 VT 16) (construe PRA exceptions narrowly to favor disclosure)
Wesco, Inc. v. Sorrell, 177 Vt. 287 (2004 VT 102) (strong policy in favor of disclosure; exceptions construed against government)
Trombley v. Bellows Falls Union High Sch. Dist. No. 27, 160 Vt. 101 (1993 VT 25) (disclosure framework within PRA considerations)
Munson v. City of S. Burlington, 162 Vt. 506 (1994 VT 59) (overlapping statutes harmonization principle)
State v. Tallman, 148 Vt. 465 (1987 VT 23) (repetition-and-review mootness doctrine criteria)
State v. LaBounty, 179 Vt. 199 (2005 VT 124) (practice guidance on access and destruction interplay)