VIRGINIA
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ADVISORY COUNCIL
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
AO-04-09
May
15, 2009
George Keller
Clifton Forge, Virginia
The
staff of the Freedom of Information Advisory Council is
authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff
advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented
in your facsimile of April 6, 2009 and letter of April 8,
2009.
Dear
Mr. Keller:
You
have asked two questions regarding meetings held by the
Alleghany County Board of Supervisors (the Board). As background,
you indicated that the County of Alleghany and the City
of Covington are considering consolidating together pursuant
to Va. Code § 15.2-3500 et seq., and are currently
in the process of negotiating the issues involved.1 You provided
meeting agendas indicating that the Board held a regular
meeting on March 17, 2009, one portion of which was closed
to the public pursuant to subsection D of § 15.2-2907
of the Code of Virginia, to discuss consolidation. The agendas
further indicated that the closed session was continued
on March 19, 2009, for the same purpose, and cited the same
Code section. It appears that the closed meeting to discuss
consolidation was the only item on the agenda for the continued
meeting. You also included an email exchange you had with
the County Attorney confirming that subsection D of §
15.2-2907 was the section authorizing the Board to hold
these closed meetings.
The
first issue you raise challenges the application of subsection
D of § 15.2-2907. That subsection is part of the laws
concerning the Commission on Local Government (the Commission),
and reads in full as follows:
Except
for any hearing or meeting specifically required by law,
Chapter 37 (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.) of Title 2.2 shall
not be applicable to the Commission nor meetings convened
by members of the Commission, its employees, or by its designated
mediators with local governing bodies or members thereof,
nor shall such chapter be applicable to meetings of local
governing bodies, or members thereof, held for purpose of
negotiating any issues which are or would be subject to
the Commission's review. Offers and statements made in any
negotiation or mediation activity conducted under the direction
of the Commission shall not be recorded in any report issued
by the Commission, nor shall they be introduced in evidence
in any subsequent court proceeding by the Commission or
any other party.
If
this section applies, therefore, FOIA shall not be applicable.
By its own terms the section applies to meetings of
local governing bodies, or members thereof, held for purpose
of negotiating any issues which are or would be subject
to the Commission's review. It would be beyond the
statutory authority of this office to offer an opinion regarding
what matters are subject to the Commission's review.2 However,
I note that subsection 4 g of § 15.2-2903 states that,
among other powers and duties, the Commission shall have
the power and duty to investigate, analyze, and make
findings of fact ... as to the probable effect on the people
residing in any area of the Commonwealth of any proposed
action in that area...To consolidate two or more localities,
at least one of which is a county, into a city. It
appears then that subsection D of § 15.2-2907 would
apply to a meeting addressing such consolidation. Applying
these laws in the context of the factual background you
have provided, it would seem then that the Board was discussing
consolidation, a matter that would be subject to the
Commission's review, and therefore that discussion
is excepted from FOIA by subsection D of § 15.2-2907.
However,
you stated that these meetings are specifically required
to be held by the Board pursuant to § 15.2-3531. Because
they are meetings specifically required by law, you believe
that the Board's reliance upon subsection D of § 15.2-2907
was misplaced in this instance, and that the Board should
have held these meetings open to the public. You are correct
that the introductory clause of subsection D of § 15.2-2907
excepts any hearing or meeting specifically required
by law. However, it does not appear on its face that
§ 15.2-3531 specifically requires a hearing or meeting
to be held by the Board, and in any case, an interpretation
of the interaction of two statutes in Title 15.2 would fall
well beyond the scope of authority granted to this office,
which is limited to FOIA matters.3 Therefore I cannot offer
an opinion regarding the requirements of § 15.2-3531,
or how those may affect the operation of subsection D of
§ 15.2-2907. What is clear is that when it applies
to a meeting, the provisions of subsection D of § 15.2-2907
act to except the meeting from the requirements of FOIA.
The
second issue you raise concerns whether the Board properly
moved to convene its closed meeting. Pursuant to subsection
A of § 2.2-3712,
No
closed meeting shall be held unless the public body proposing
to convene such meeting has taken an affirmative recorded
vote in an open meeting approving a motion that (i) identifies
the subject matter, (ii) states the purpose of the meeting
and (iii) makes specific reference to the applicable exemption
from open meeting requirements provided in § 2.2-3707
or subsection A of § 2.2-3711.
Prior
opinions from this office have advised that a motion to
convene a closed meeting must contain all three elements
- subject, purpose, and cite - in order to comply with the
statutory requirements.4 In identifying the subject matter
to be discussed, this office has further opined that the
subject need not be so specific as to defeat the reason
for going into closed session, but should at least provide
the public with general information as to why the closed
session will be held.5 The agenda for the meeting of the
Board held March 17, 2009, states as follows under item
number 12: "A. Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 15.2-2907(D)
of the Code of Virginia to discuss: (1) consolidation."
You did not include meeting minutes or otherwise indicate
that the motion to convene the closed meeting varied from
what was listed in the agenda. Presuming that subsection
D of § 15.2-2907 applies to the meeting, then the requirements
of FOIA do not apply, as previously stated. If that is the
case, then the Board was not required to comply with the
motion requirements of subsection A of § 2.2-3712,
and there was no FOIA violation because FOIA did not apply.
Thank
you for contacting this office. I hope that I have been
of assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria
J.K. Everett Executive
Director
1Based
on the background materials provided, it appears that the
City and the County have each presented their own consolidation
plans. To summarize, it appears that the City's plan would
consolidate the County into the City, while the County's
plan uses a tier-city model which combines certain aspects
of governance while leaving both the County and City with
their own identities intact.
Va. Code § 30-179 (setting forth the powers and duties
of the FOIA Council); see also, e.g. Freedom of
2Va.
Code § 30-179 (setting forth the powers and duties
of the FOIA Council); see also, e.g. Freedom of Information
Advisory Opinions 05 (2008), 04 (2007) and 06 (2006).
3Id.
4See,
e.g., Freedom of Information Advisory Opinions 04 (2008),
13 (2007) and 06 (2007).
5Freedom
of Information Advisory Opinions 24 (2004) and 8 (2002).