I would agree with DESPP's brief except for one teeny weeny issue.
The Permit Board has public meetings. These are open to the public under Chapter 14. Complainant's provide there name and addresses to the public in these meetings. Meeting agendas are issued. And results are made public.
I would think that the logic in the case Washington Post v. United States Department of Defense, 766 F.Supp.1 (1991) guides one into the conclusion that even if one takes the viewpoint of DESPP then the DESPP position would still fail as this information is already made public by the proceedings themselves, the publishing of agendas and minutes and results by an authoritative source that can be without question providing accurate information.
And the statue exempts names AND addresses ... once one gives out the names the provision loses veracity.
And I have several cases pending before the FIC regarding redactions (not DESPP records though) and it shall fail on their claims of privacy. But I also argued in respect to our constitutional right to assemble and I think that the argument may apply to Ed's case too. Why should not one get names and addresses of folks who have gone through a quasi-judicial proceeding for the purpose of forming a political action committee to address or propose changes to the law regarding its operation? A state law certainly cannot negate a federal one.
And are the Permit Board's records basically "sealed" records upon the board's issuance of an order granting the permit? Seems farfetched. I have not asked for fully adjudicated records that resulted in an issuance of a permit from the board ... perhaps I shall and see what they say. Clearly a litigant before the board should be able to view the case file for hints or tips...people do this in Superior courts every day.