LEWISTON — On Tuesday, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics partially denied a series of Freedom of Access Act requests filed by Maine media outlets regarding the Cutler Files hearings before the commission last month.

The Sun Journal, the Kennebec Journal, the Bangor Daily News and the Maine Public Broadcasting Network filed FOAA requests with the commission seeking access to documents relating to the commission’s Dec. 20 finding that John Doe 2, so-called, violated Maine’s campaign disclosure laws. The documents the commission has agreed to release include about 160 e-mails and 50 other types of documents, according to Paul Lavin, assistant director of the Maine Ethics Commission. The commission has declined to release all paperwork it defines as “investigative working papers,” which includes all documents that “provide the identities of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2,” according to Lavin.

The commission decided, during its Dec. 20 hearing, to honor the request of the two men behind the Cutler Files’ to remain anonymous, at least until the commission meets again on Jan. 27. That decision of blanket anonymity prompted the flurry of FOAA requests from Maine media seeking access to the identities of the men.

One of those men, John Doe 2, is Portland political operative and Saavy Inc. President Dennis Bailey, who went public after the Sun Journal informed him it intended to reveal his identity in a report published Dec. 24.

The second man, known in commission paperwork as John Doe 1, is Thom Rhoads, husband of Democrat gubernatorial candidate Rose Scarcelli of Portland.

Rhoads has declined to claim his identity since the commission’s finding against Bailey and, according to commission staff, since the commission did not find that Rhoads had violated state election laws, it did not intend to formally name him as Bailey’s partner in editing the online-only Secret File on Eliot Cutler.

In its FOAA request, the Sun Journal sought access to memos by and between commission staff and commissioners regarding the Cutler Files investigation, and also sought access to a list of witnesses who appeared before the commission to testify, including Bailey and Rhoads.

According to Lavin’s letter of denial, requests for these documents were denied because they are “intra- or interagency communications related to an investigation or because they are subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges against discovery or use as evidence.”

The Ethics Commission is charged, under state law, to undertake audits and investigations of political campaigns and candidates, and state statute provides confidentiality for a number of documents that fall under the definition of “investigative working papers.” It is that statute, in Title 21-A governing campaign reports and finances, the commission has pointed to in denying access to its investigative working papers regarding the Cutler Files.

As a direct result of a series of FOAA requests made to the commission during the past year, Executive Director Jonathan Wayne has drafted a memo to the commission proposing changes that include better defining exactly what are “investigative working papers,” so the commission has more direction on what documents are confidential.

Wayne has also proposed, based on cases heard in 2010, elevating the fine for failing to publish disclaimers on campaign communications, such as the Cutler Files, making it clear that Clean Election Act funds cannot be used to buy computer and phone equipment, and expanding the commission’s authority to allow it to launch investigations itself, even in cases where no complaint has been filed.

The commission is expected to take up these proposals in the next two months.

Copy the Story Link