Are the telephone and scheduling records of Maryland's governor confidential, or must they be disclosed? It is the question at the heart of a case the state's highest court takes up tomorrow.

The lawyers for Gov. Parris N. Glendening argue that he and his top aides need privacy to hold delicate negotiations and deliberate policy. But the Washington Post, seeking the records for six months of 1996, maintains they help the public understand the actions of key government officials.

The records don't "reflect the substance of any deliberation," said Patrick J. Karome, a lawyer for the Post, but they let the public know "whether campaign contributors are getting more than their fair share of attention, whether government employees are using public equipment and public money for personal business."

Andrea Leahy-Fucheck, Glendening's lawyer, countered that the governor "believes there is a strong public interest in ensuring that groups and individuals are not discouraged from meeting with or communicating candidly with the governor and his staff, whether it is about personnel communications or confidential commercial information or any other private matter."

Negotiations with Bethlehem Steel Corp. to build a $300 million plant at Sparrows Point, advice on judicial appointments by colleagues and recruitment for high-level posts would have been jeopardized if people thought they might be quizzed or their interests disclosed, she said.

The Post in 1996 requested telephone and scheduling records for Glendening and two top aides under Maryland's Public Information Act. Negotiations failed, and the paper sued the governor in December 1997.

Although Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Lawrence H. Rushworth expressed sympathy for Glendening's arguments, he said he did not believe the governor was entitled to a broad claim of executive privilege and ordered Glendening to justify each entry he wished to black out.

Dissatisfied with Glendening's proposed redactions -- less than 20 percent of the record but more than 5,000 telephone calls and 11 pages in calendars -- Rushworth ordered the governor to turn over complete copies of the records in October. Glendening appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, but before the intermediate appellate court heard the case, the Court of Appeals took it.

Karome argues that telephone and appointment logs can be exceptionally revealing. For example, U.S. Commerce Department appointment and telephone logs showed the extent of the dubious activities of John Huang, the Democratic political fund-raiser.

The Post reported in 1997 that in the nine months after Clinton confidante Webster L. Hubbell resigned from the Justice Department in 1994 and before he pleaded guilty to charges of bilking his former law firm, he met more than 70 times with administration officials.

The Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette reported in 1983 that Allegheny County workers used office phones and taxpayer dollars to dial sex hot lines in New York City.

The Post has not said what it is looking for in the governor's telephone and scheduling records. But Glendening, the former Prince George's County executive, has been criticized for aggressive fund raising, for accepting, but later turning down, enhanced pension benefits from the county and for some contributions toward his legal costs for fighting Republican Ellen R. Sauerbrey's lawsuit that challenged his 1994 victory.

Jane E. Kirtley, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she is weary of government officials saying government cannot work well in a fishbowl.

"I wish I could believe them when they say the person they are trying to protect is the poor constituent, when I think they are really trying to protect themselves," she said.

Maryland's Public Information Act exempts interagency memos and deliberations. It also exempts material whose disclosure is "contrary to the public interest," which Eric B. Easton, a media law professor at the University of Baltimore Law School calls "one off these great catchalls."

The Court of Appeals interpretation of "contrary to the public interest" could range from one very narrow and tailored to the circumstances of this case to something so broad it affects county executives as well. Or the court could simply return the case to Anne Arundel Circuit Court for fact-finding on the governor's proposed redactions, he said.

Pub Date: 3/08/99