The Transparency Pander: Burlington Mayoral Candidates Go All In On Open Government | News | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice

Seven Days needs your financial support!

The Transparency Pander: Burlington Mayoral Candidates Go All In On Open Government 

Published February 16, 2012 at 10:45 a.m. | Updated March 3, 2020 at 9:43 p.m.

Page 2 of 2

After a quick lightning round, Freeps editors Mike Townsend, Mike Killian, Aki Soga and reporter Candy Page got down to brass tacks and asked a series of questions based on hypothetical scenarios. It was kind of like watching a really awkward job interview.

They were questions like:

  • If a city employee sent “inappropriate” messages from their city e-mail account, does the Freeps — er, the public — have a right to see them?
  • City lawyers say you have a legal justification for closing a public meeting and going into executive session. What’s your next step?
  • If you find that someone in your administration is, say, embezzling public money, how do you decide how much to share with the Freeps — er, the public — and when?

In answer after answer, Wright-Berger promised that, yes, yes they would be so very, very transparent.

And then this exchange happened:

Candy Page: “You’re the mayor—“

Kurt Wright: “I like it so far!”

Everyone: LOL

Page: “You’re the mayor. You get a memo from your lawyer that warns you that there are going to be some serious legal consequences to a policy decision that you’ve made, unless you reverse that decision. Then the Free Press asks you for those e-mails from your lawyer. Are you going to give them to us— to the public?”

Wright: “Give it to you guys? Come on, Candy!”

Everyone: LOL

Page: “We’re here for the public good!”

Wright: “Avoid that at all cost! No, don’t print that.”

Wright: [Awkwardly] LOL

Wright: “It’s a joke. I’m kidding. I don’t have a— obviously, again, if you make a mistake, you gotta be up front and admit to it. And I don’t care if somebody— sure, I would release them. Absolutely.”

Page: “Even though you could legally claim attorney-client privilege, you would not?”

Wright: “As long as releasing them doesn’t endanger the city in some other way. If we can release them and it’s about attorney-client privilege, I don’t care if the press knows that I did something wrong. Because, again, it goes back to you gotta tell the public the truth — the good, the bad and the ugly. If we make a mistake and it was my responsibility — or whoever’s responsibility it was — but let’s say it’s mine. You gotta back things up and say, okay, I’ve made a policy decision that was wrong. The attorneys have shown me it’s wrong. I’d actually, you know what, I’d actually go out and tell the press about it first!”


Page: “Miro, what’s your answer to that question?”

Weinberger: “…Yeah, I don’t think it’s good enough and it’s probably not even allowed under the 260 exemptions. I’m not an attorney, but I don’t think just not turning them over because it’s going to be embarrassing is a sufficient reason to withhold them. I do think it’s not a good local strategy either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime. To come clean would make sense.”

And then Page nailed it.

Page: “But how do you avoid going into that defensive crouch that I, over 30 years, have seen virtually every administration at the state and local level go into. I mean, you’re on the firing line every day and — isn’t it hard to keep — to let go of something that technically, I think, you would not have to release, Miro, because a communication from your lawyer would be privileged?”

Weinberger: “I do think it is a crouch that many administrations fall into at all levels. I agree with that observation… It’s something I will resist and I think needs to be resisted because we’ve all seen the results of falling prey to it.”

Wright: “Candy, we need to learn the lessons of the things that you just mentioned… It is better to admit the mistake. It is better to look terrible — it’s better to come out and say, ‘hey, I screwed this up’ and move on.”


That was the sound of the next mayor of Burlington (unless Hines wins) waiving attorney-client privilege, inviting the news media into his inner sanctum and losing any chance of getting decent legal advice.

It was a savvy move by the Freeps, because you can be sure that, as Page rightly pointed out, as soon as the next mayor is sworn in, he or she will assume the defensive crouch. And then something bad will happen and, suddenly, government transparency will seem a little less important than damage control.

And that’s when the Freeps will go to the filing cabinet and pull out its debate transcripts.

One or more images has been removed from this article. For further information, contact
Got something to say? Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Tags: ,

About The Author

Paul Heintz

Paul Heintz

Paul Heintz was part of the Seven Days news team from 2012 to 2020. He served as political editor and wrote the "Fair Game" political column before becoming a staff writer.

Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3


Comments are closed.

Since 2014, Seven Days has allowed readers to comment on all stories posted on our website. While we’ve appreciated the suggestions and insights, the time has come to shut them down — at least temporarily.

While we champion free speech, facts are a matter of life and death during the coronavirus pandemic, and right now Seven Days is prioritizing the production of responsible journalism over moderating online debates between readers.

To criticize, correct or praise our reporting, please send us a letter to the editor. Or send us a tip. We’ll check it out and report the results.

Online comments may return when we have better tech tools for managing them. Thanks for reading.

Latest in News

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative

All content © 2022 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401

Advertising Policy  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Help
Website powered by Foundation